The Vogtle plant cost 13 Billion dollars as an example. There are plenty more where that came from (for example Levy county at 17 billion (including transmission). If I were feeling cynical I'd think that the fact you don't know this must show you work for the nuclear industry.
Many people are in poverty because they are disabled in some way or other. Some people are in poverty because they are lazy. Most people are in poverty because they have no clue or understanding how to get out of it. The mere fact that it's obvious to you that education is a worthwhile investment doesn't mean that it's obvious to the parents of some unfortunate child in poverty. Anyway, if in the absence of decent social aid, this is the way the child may survive, short term survival may override long term wealth.
The few still have the right not to immunize their kids.
That's fine. But, unless they have a medical reason not to immunize (e.g. maybe haemophiliacs who might be at risk of bleeding or something) my kids have the right to know who they are and avoid them. Non immunized kids are a health hazard and should be put in separate schools.
Once they attach – the next generation evolves from the few that survive because the antibodies didn't attach;)
The topic in this discussion is the influence of the Australian policy of ensuring that almost everyone is immunised. The main point here is that by not leaving islands of people who can harbour disease and allow it to evolve, there is a much lower chance that that disease gets the chance to evolve because it is not left over. In other words the Australian policy actually reduces the chance of immunization immune bugs evolving.
Look at the effect, for example, of smallpox vaccination. The smallpox virus is not in the wild. This means that, given that it is dead, it is not evolving.
This is so much garbage. Evolution doesn't know what species are. Evolution cares for no-one. Evolution acts on genes eliminating those that find themselves in a bad situation and, on average, favouring those that in some way act to improve their own survival.
If an individual member of a species finds a way of dominating other members of that species, that individual will be favoured in the short term even if, in that way of domination involves destroying the species environment. Long term, the entire species may be wiped out (this is extremely common; "evolution" is not worried by this at all), or the other members of the species may evolve a way of countering that individual to ensure their own survival, but that is never a sure thing.
[The question is, "should we invest about the value of one nuclear power plant (10-20 Billion / about 1GW) or should we invest the equivalent in renewable energy sources e.g. doubling the research budget for three years (currently e.g DOE funded to about 2 Billion yearly) then easily paying to build the same capacity as the nuclear plant in terms of offshore wind plants (about 1Billion / 300MW - you would need three of these) tidal (again about 1Billion for about 300MW capacity - three of these too) and hydro plants (1Billion will get you 2GW of pump storage capacity ; put another billion into small scale hydro and you will get back loads, though I can't find clear enough calculations)]
The answer is... uh... what was the question again?
Sorry; The question is higlighted. I got totally distracted with the details of how to calculate the financial efficiency of small/micro power and forgot to check the grammar when I came back. It's really fascinating; the realisation that one sharp corner low down in your pipes may have a real effect is really fun. More interesting is that when you look at it you really start to wonder why there isn't more of it done. I would guess that most of the power stuff is done with very short term thinking (which puts gas powered plants to the front) and the Nuclear industry gets by this by being connected to military use.
That's based on recent completion costs in USD rather than some fantasy "estimate" made up to justify a forthcoming indefinite boondogle for the military-industrial complex.
Why the hell is Coal power bashing in Nuclear threads always moderated "insightful". This should be moded -1 / offtopic.
Everybody knows that coal is wrong. The question is not "should we build coal or nuclear". The question is, "should we invest about the value of one nuclear power plant (10-20 Billion / about 1GW) or should we invest the equivalent in renewable energy sources e.g. doubling the research budget for three years (currently e.g DOE funded to about 2 Billion yearly) then easily paying to build the same capacity as the nuclear plant in terms of offshore wind plants (about 1Billion / 300MW - you would need three of these) tidal (again about 1Billion for about 300MW capacity - three of these too) and hydro plants (1Billion will get you 2GW of pump storage capacity ; put another billion into small scale hydro and you will get back loads, though I can't find clear enough calculations)
Infinite; You can always position the three cubes together to make an infinitesimal triangular column which goes straight towards the ceiling. The only position that you can see into that column is from directly above it. Thus there needs to be a camera on every point in the ceiling.
The cute thing about AC's puzzle is that it basically explains that the prisoners will be able to make temporary visual barriers, even just using their own bodies, which will cover all fixed camera angles. It also explains why the furniture in a supermax isn't movable.
Correct; this is exactly what the conservatives are asking for. The application was done by "Eastern Research Group" a private / outsourced company. I have no doubt that if this had been done internally it would cost just as much, but it would probably actually work (which the article says it does not).
It's worth reading through much more on Groklaw; this article explains that they were shell extension namespace APIs which made URL integration possible. It's pretty obvious that if WWW integration is a major new feature relied on throughout your code and Microsoft has promised to implement a large part of it, when they hide those APIs so that partners can't use them it's going to be a big problem.
Having had a very bottom end dumbphone (that means it even had a web browser; but was S40) I'm pretty convinced by this. I have some Androids and an N900; my friends have iPhones and lots of Androids. They're great for some uses but they just can't nearly compete on battery lifetime, (small) size or convenience.
Let's just imagine you bought a car to drive to work in and go on occasional weekend trips to the countryside.
Now let's imagine, when you get the keys and enter in there's a little contract lying there which says "you can drive to work, you can have work colleagues, but if you want to drive out of town on a weekday evening then you need to pay extra and if you want to have a girlfriend in the car, that's not allowed". You'd be pissed.
The guy wants to buy a tablet which he owns not Apple. He wants to do normal stuff on it, but he doesn't, within reason, want someone else telling him what he can and can't do with it. Is that so complex? Why do we always get a bunch of Applesoft trolls coming on and telling us "oh; but you didn't say you wanted to drive around with a girlfriend". Of course he didn't. This is slashdot, he doesn't expect to get a girlfriend, but when he does get one he's not going to be happy with your restrictions. Now he'd just like to buy and own a tablet. Later he can decide what he doesn't want to do with it.
Looking at the picture illustrating the article and knowing that the main design aim of Facebook was to spy on Mark's ex-girlfriends (and never-have-been-girlfriends), I guess that your idea of bad writing is just wishful thinking.
.... because running a software made by "anonymous hackers" is much more safe than original OEM version.
Except a) the hackers aren't anonymous; the guy is well known and has just taken up a job with a phone manufacturer. b) The people who write for the big companies actually are anonymous and often don't even work directly for the big companies c) most of the privacy violations we see are motivated by commercial interests which is before we even get to d) the thing about Cygenomod is that the source code is out there
c) that I mentioned above is the most important thing though. According to reviews, Windows Phone has no native contacts data store. This essentially means that you end up using Facebook (or linkedin etc) for storing data. This is a simple commercial decision which compromises the user's security in order to push forward Microsoft's partnership with Facebook and against Google+. It's very key to understand, at this point, that Microsoft's investment in Skype and Facebook tells us that the company's entire attitude to personal computing and privacy has changed. They will now do whatever they can to make up for the lost years when they allowed their own users to do more or less as they pleased.
Simply put, to have any chance of privacy at all we need something which has at most limited influence from commercial develpers and must have no influence from Microsoft.
The plural of anecdote may not be data, but with hundreds of thousands of positive anecdotes and no conclusive research one way or another it's ludicrously dishonest to say chiropractics is simply unscientific crap.
No; It would be dishonest for me to say it's "ineffective crap" because there's insufficient research behind me in this case to say it's all bad. On the other hand, to say that it's "unscientific crap" is exactly right. The small scale studies are deeply contradictory and the largest scale surveys in multiple areas say that there is no evidence that it works. That means that using it and believing it works is
The only thing which differentiates scientific / evidence based medicine from "alternative" medicine is that the first one "works". This is nothing to do with the method; the beliefs of the practitioner; the spiritual state of the believer. This is the reason why Acupuncture, despite having a deep basis in bullshit, is a scientifically supported effective treatment useful in treatment of chronic pain. Because in double blind tests it turns out to work. There are thousands of different treatments available; bleeding; aromatherapy; exorcisim; homeopathy; voodoo; massage; herbs etc. etc. Every one of them has "thousands of positive anecdotes", but, every one of them has also been investigated for effectiveness. If no effectiveness has been shown then they are exactly "unscientific crap".
It's sort of a fair comment; I'm being a little unreasonable, but it does follow from my original point. The question is; what do we do about total externalities? Individually there's almost no risk at all for the person who doesn't take their anti-biotics properly. Still; doing this contributes seriously to the risk for everyone. We need to seriously change the behavior of a bunch of seriously selfish people. The person who owns the feed lot is very unlikely to die of an anti-biotic resistant disease, they profit seriously from selling cheap meat which effectively poisons tens of thousands of people. In the end they end up getting away with killing thousands of people. The only thing is that we know this scientifically, statistically, surely, but we can't link them directly to the people they kill. What can we do to stop this without treating such crimes seriously? I'm not even asking that we treat them as if they had killed the same number of people as we know they have.
There is no way for them to tell that you are competent to turn off the WiFi etc. Nobody is willing to certify planes safe with electronic equipment running. The landing and take off actually does often rely on correct radio communication. It's only 10 minutes. There actually have been incidents where radio equipment has endangered landing or (see comp.risks archives, for example) caused real accidents.
Please please just read the in flight magazine or stare at the air-host(esses - your choice) bum for a few minutes. Is this so much to ask.
If you use antibiotics, you will get resistant organisms...
This is not true. In the philosophical sense these organisms already exist, you aren't creating them, just increasing their incidence. In a practical sense it has actually been shown that if you cut down on the use of antibiotics, antibiotic resistance dies down. The genes for antibiotic resistance are generally disadvantageous where there are not antibiotics present. It is still possible to rescue antibiotics merely by banning their use in agricultural feed (even animal treatment could still be allowed!) and ensuring that they are almost always used correctly by humans.
There needs to be an automatic life sentence with no parole for owning or managing a company which uses antibiotics in animal feed. Doctors and patients who use antibiotics on viral infections need to have a lifetime ban on the use of antibiotics (at least the one they abused), preferably enforced by giving them an allergy.
A 2010 systematic review stated that there is no good evidence to assume that neck manipulation is an effective treatment for any medical condition and suggested a precautionary principle in healthcare for chiropractic intervention even if a causality with vertebral artery dissection after neck manipulation were merely a remote possibility.[36]
yeah? In other words; if you look through it; there's very little evidence it works and plenty of evidence that with the right luck it can kill you. (with thanks to Wikipedia; there's plenty more where that came from; and it's always worth following up their references)
BTW, for the patent amateurs watching. Notice that the patent included in my post is pretty much an attempt to claim the whole of teleportation by claiming very general and not very real "methods". E.g. the "by assembling you in one single entity" is absolute bullshit because it doesn't explain at all how this might actually be achieved in real life. This is a standard and normal lawyers trick that they mostly get away with. Notice for example claim 5 in the patent we are discussing.
Don't mistake a bit of reading and plenty of lurking on legal forums for actual deep knowledge (or as they say; INAL, I don't even play one on TV; where I live there's nothing to stop me giving legal advice for free, but if you take the words of an internet pseudonym as legal advice you deserve what you get, even if that's a vast settlement in your favour:-) ). But:
To have infringed on a patent, do you have to infringe on one claim? Or all claims?
To infringe you only have to infringe on one claim, but, if a claim is a "dependent" claim, then you will have to have infringed on the claims it depends on. Thus (imagine this comes out as a numbed list from 1 to 3, no matter how broken the slashdot CSS)
a device for moving you from A to B by using teleportation
a device as in claim one, which keeps you in one piece when you arrive by assembling you as one single entity
a device as in claim one, which keeps you alive by ensuring that your vital organs are all put in place in correct working order
Notice that a device which delivered you to B with a severed leg but alive would infringe claim three, including claim one but not claim two.
The dependent claims are mostly there because there is a larger chance that, during a lawsuit, prior art will be found for the broader claim but the more narrow claim will survive and, if there are enough of the dependent claims surviving you will hopefully (from the point of view of the lawyer) manage to have one which covers the specific device over which you are suing.
i.e. In this particular patent, we have a claim: 4. The location information system of claim 3, wherein the at least one coordinate entry includes a latitude, a longitude, and an altitude entry.
In this particular case 4 is a dependent claim, depending on 3 and (through 3) 1.
If I implemented the exact same thing except using a different coordinate system, would I be infringing?
You would not infringe claim 4 (which specifies latitude) but you may be infringing claim 3 (which doesn't specify a coordinate system) or 1. In other words, you would infringe the patent, which is assumed to be valid and would have to be counteracted with specific prior art.
i.e. is it enough to be different in one point? Or do you have to be different in all points?
It's enough to be different in any way, but you have to be different from every single claim (separately). You probably avoid the patent by getting rid of some of the top level independent claims and some of the dependent claims which depend on them with prior art and then being different from all of the remaining dependent claims. At the point that you are starting this you will want to get a proper lawyer.
I haven't seen many cases where Apple was the first to enter into litigation.
Gapes in stunned amazement. Let's just name some of the most famous cases where Apple sued first to try to stop competition.
Apple vs Microsoft; the classic "look and feel case"
Apple vs Samsung; actually many times over.
Apple vs Psystar
Apple vs HTC
Apple vs Nuevas Tecnologias y Energias Catala
I think we could even really claim Nokia vs Apple - in the sense that Apple clearly threatened Nokia first and Nokia just responded. I wouldn't be surprised if Motorola vs Apple couldn't be counted in the same category.
Apple behaves like a rabid dog when it comes to lawsuits.
Slashdot Mirror
The Vogtle plant cost 13 Billion dollars as an example. There are plenty more where that came from (for example Levy county at 17 billion (including transmission). If I were feeling cynical I'd think that the fact you don't know this must show you work for the nuclear industry.
Many people are in poverty because they are disabled in some way or other. Some people are in poverty because they are lazy. Most people are in poverty because they have no clue or understanding how to get out of it. The mere fact that it's obvious to you that education is a worthwhile investment doesn't mean that it's obvious to the parents of some unfortunate child in poverty. Anyway, if in the absence of decent social aid, this is the way the child may survive, short term survival may override long term wealth.
The few still have the right not to immunize their kids.
That's fine. But, unless they have a medical reason not to immunize (e.g. maybe haemophiliacs who might be at risk of bleeding or something) my kids have the right to know who they are and avoid them. Non immunized kids are a health hazard and should be put in separate schools.
Once they attach – the next generation evolves from the few that survive because the antibodies didn't attach ;)
The topic in this discussion is the influence of the Australian policy of ensuring that almost everyone is immunised. The main point here is that by not leaving islands of people who can harbour disease and allow it to evolve, there is a much lower chance that that disease gets the chance to evolve because it is not left over. In other words the Australian policy actually reduces the chance of immunization immune bugs evolving.
Look at the effect, for example, of smallpox vaccination. The smallpox virus is not in the wild. This means that, given that it is dead, it is not evolving.
This is so much garbage. Evolution doesn't know what species are. Evolution cares for no-one. Evolution acts on genes eliminating those that find themselves in a bad situation and, on average, favouring those that in some way act to improve their own survival.
If an individual member of a species finds a way of dominating other members of that species, that individual will be favoured in the short term even if, in that way of domination involves destroying the species environment. Long term, the entire species may be wiped out (this is extremely common; "evolution" is not worried by this at all), or the other members of the species may evolve a way of countering that individual to ensure their own survival, but that is never a sure thing.
[The question is, "should we invest about the value of one nuclear power plant (10-20 Billion / about 1GW) or should we invest the equivalent in renewable energy sources e.g. doubling the research budget for three years (currently e.g DOE funded to about 2 Billion yearly) then easily paying to build the same capacity as the nuclear plant in terms of offshore wind plants (about 1Billion / 300MW - you would need three of these) tidal (again about 1Billion for about 300MW capacity - three of these too) and hydro plants (1Billion will get you 2GW of pump storage capacity ; put another billion into small scale hydro and you will get back loads, though I can't find clear enough calculations)] The answer is ... uh ... what was the question again?
Sorry; The question is higlighted. I got totally distracted with the details of how to calculate the financial efficiency of small/micro power and forgot to check the grammar when I came back. It's really fascinating; the realisation that one sharp corner low down in your pipes may have a real effect is really fun. More interesting is that when you look at it you really start to wonder why there isn't more of it done. I would guess that most of the power stuff is done with very short term thinking (which puts gas powered plants to the front) and the Nuclear industry gets by this by being connected to military use.
That's based on recent completion costs in USD rather than some fantasy "estimate" made up to justify a forthcoming indefinite boondogle for the military-industrial complex.
Why the hell is Coal power bashing in Nuclear threads always moderated "insightful". This should be moded -1 / offtopic.
Everybody knows that coal is wrong. The question is not "should we build coal or nuclear". The question is, "should we invest about the value of one nuclear power plant (10-20 Billion / about 1GW) or should we invest the equivalent in renewable energy sources e.g. doubling the research budget for three years (currently e.g DOE funded to about 2 Billion yearly) then easily paying to build the same capacity as the nuclear plant in terms of offshore wind plants (about 1Billion / 300MW - you would need three of these) tidal (again about 1Billion for about 300MW capacity - three of these too) and hydro plants (1Billion will get you 2GW of pump storage capacity ; put another billion into small scale hydro and you will get back loads, though I can't find clear enough calculations)
Supermax prisoners are kept in strict solitary confinement. They have nobody to beat.
Infinite; You can always position the three cubes together to make an infinitesimal triangular column which goes straight towards the ceiling. The only position that you can see into that column is from directly above it. Thus there needs to be a camera on every point in the ceiling.
The cute thing about AC's puzzle is that it basically explains that the prisoners will be able to make temporary visual barriers, even just using their own bodies, which will cover all fixed camera angles. It also explains why the furniture in a supermax isn't movable.
Correct; this is exactly what the conservatives are asking for. The application was done by "Eastern Research Group" a private / outsourced company. I have no doubt that if this had been done internally it would cost just as much, but it would probably actually work (which the article says it does not).
It's worth reading through much more on Groklaw; this article explains that they were shell extension namespace APIs which made URL integration possible. It's pretty obvious that if WWW integration is a major new feature relied on throughout your code and Microsoft has promised to implement a large part of it, when they hide those APIs so that partners can't use them it's going to be a big problem.
http://groklaw.net/ ; tends to give better in depth coverage with fewer misunderstandings than most other observers of this lawsuit.
Having had a very bottom end dumbphone (that means it even had a web browser; but was S40) I'm pretty convinced by this. I have some Androids and an N900; my friends have iPhones and lots of Androids. They're great for some uses but they just can't nearly compete on battery lifetime, (small) size or convenience.
Let's just imagine you bought a car to drive to work in and go on occasional weekend trips to the countryside.
Now let's imagine, when you get the keys and enter in there's a little contract lying there which says "you can drive to work, you can have work colleagues, but if you want to drive out of town on a weekday evening then you need to pay extra and if you want to have a girlfriend in the car, that's not allowed". You'd be pissed.
The guy wants to buy a tablet which he owns not Apple. He wants to do normal stuff on it, but he doesn't, within reason, want someone else telling him what he can and can't do with it. Is that so complex? Why do we always get a bunch of Applesoft trolls coming on and telling us "oh; but you didn't say you wanted to drive around with a girlfriend". Of course he didn't. This is slashdot, he doesn't expect to get a girlfriend, but when he does get one he's not going to be happy with your restrictions. Now he'd just like to buy and own a tablet. Later he can decide what he doesn't want to do with it.
Looking at the picture illustrating the article and knowing that the main design aim of Facebook was to spy on Mark's ex-girlfriends (and never-have-been-girlfriends), I guess that your idea of bad writing is just wishful thinking.
.... because running a software made by "anonymous hackers" is much more safe than original OEM version.
Except a) the hackers aren't anonymous; the guy is well known and has just taken up a job with a phone manufacturer. b) The people who write for the big companies actually are anonymous and often don't even work directly for the big companies c) most of the privacy violations we see are motivated by commercial interests which is before we even get to d) the thing about Cygenomod is that the source code is out there
c) that I mentioned above is the most important thing though. According to reviews, Windows Phone has no native contacts data store. This essentially means that you end up using Facebook (or linkedin etc) for storing data. This is a simple commercial decision which compromises the user's security in order to push forward Microsoft's partnership with Facebook and against Google+. It's very key to understand, at this point, that Microsoft's investment in Skype and Facebook tells us that the company's entire attitude to personal computing and privacy has changed. They will now do whatever they can to make up for the lost years when they allowed their own users to do more or less as they pleased.
Simply put, to have any chance of privacy at all we need something which has at most limited influence from commercial develpers and must have no influence from Microsoft.
The plural of anecdote may not be data, but with hundreds of thousands of positive anecdotes and no conclusive research one way or another it's ludicrously dishonest to say chiropractics is simply unscientific crap.
No; It would be dishonest for me to say it's "ineffective crap" because there's insufficient research behind me in this case to say it's all bad. On the other hand, to say that it's "unscientific crap" is exactly right. The small scale studies are deeply contradictory and the largest scale surveys in multiple areas say that there is no evidence that it works. That means that using it and believing it works is
The only thing which differentiates scientific / evidence based medicine from "alternative" medicine is that the first one "works". This is nothing to do with the method; the beliefs of the practitioner; the spiritual state of the believer. This is the reason why Acupuncture, despite having a deep basis in bullshit, is a scientifically supported effective treatment useful in treatment of chronic pain. Because in double blind tests it turns out to work. There are thousands of different treatments available; bleeding; aromatherapy; exorcisim; homeopathy; voodoo; massage; herbs etc. etc. Every one of them has "thousands of positive anecdotes", but, every one of them has also been investigated for effectiveness. If no effectiveness has been shown then they are exactly "unscientific crap".
It's sort of a fair comment; I'm being a little unreasonable, but it does follow from my original point. The question is; what do we do about total externalities? Individually there's almost no risk at all for the person who doesn't take their anti-biotics properly. Still; doing this contributes seriously to the risk for everyone. We need to seriously change the behavior of a bunch of seriously selfish people. The person who owns the feed lot is very unlikely to die of an anti-biotic resistant disease, they profit seriously from selling cheap meat which effectively poisons tens of thousands of people. In the end they end up getting away with killing thousands of people. The only thing is that we know this scientifically, statistically, surely, but we can't link them directly to the people they kill. What can we do to stop this without treating such crimes seriously? I'm not even asking that we treat them as if they had killed the same number of people as we know they have.
There is no way for them to tell that you are competent to turn off the WiFi etc. Nobody is willing to certify planes safe with electronic equipment running. The landing and take off actually does often rely on correct radio communication. It's only 10 minutes. There actually have been incidents where radio equipment has endangered landing or (see comp.risks archives, for example) caused real accidents.
Please please just read the in flight magazine or stare at the air-host(esses - your choice) bum for a few minutes. Is this so much to ask.
If you use antibiotics, you will get resistant organisms...
This is not true. In the philosophical sense these organisms already exist, you aren't creating them, just increasing their incidence. In a practical sense it has actually been shown that if you cut down on the use of antibiotics, antibiotic resistance dies down. The genes for antibiotic resistance are generally disadvantageous where there are not antibiotics present. It is still possible to rescue antibiotics merely by banning their use in agricultural feed (even animal treatment could still be allowed!) and ensuring that they are almost always used correctly by humans.
There needs to be an automatic life sentence with no parole for owning or managing a company which uses antibiotics in animal feed. Doctors and patients who use antibiotics on viral infections need to have a lifetime ban on the use of antibiotics (at least the one they abused), preferably enforced by giving them an allergy.
It's scientifically proven effective....
oh
yeah? In other words; if you look through it; there's very little evidence it works and plenty of evidence that with the right luck it can kill you. (with thanks to Wikipedia; there's plenty more where that came from; and it's always worth following up their references)
BTW, for the patent amateurs watching. Notice that the patent included in my post is pretty much an attempt to claim the whole of teleportation by claiming very general and not very real "methods". E.g. the "by assembling you in one single entity" is absolute bullshit because it doesn't explain at all how this might actually be achieved in real life. This is a standard and normal lawyers trick that they mostly get away with. Notice for example claim 5 in the patent we are discussing.
You seem to know a bit about how these work.
Don't mistake a bit of reading and plenty of lurking on legal forums for actual deep knowledge (or as they say; INAL, I don't even play one on TV; where I live there's nothing to stop me giving legal advice for free, but if you take the words of an internet pseudonym as legal advice you deserve what you get, even if that's a vast settlement in your favour :-) ). But:
To have infringed on a patent, do you have to infringe on one claim? Or all claims?
To infringe you only have to infringe on one claim, but, if a claim is a "dependent" claim, then you will have to have infringed on the claims it depends on. Thus (imagine this comes out as a numbed list from 1 to 3, no matter how broken the slashdot CSS)
Notice that a device which delivered you to B with a severed leg but alive would infringe claim three, including claim one but not claim two.
The dependent claims are mostly there because there is a larger chance that, during a lawsuit, prior art will be found for the broader claim but the more narrow claim will survive and, if there are enough of the dependent claims surviving you will hopefully (from the point of view of the lawyer) manage to have one which covers the specific device over which you are suing.
i.e. In this particular patent, we have a claim: 4. The location information system of claim 3, wherein the at least one coordinate entry includes a latitude, a longitude, and an altitude entry.
In this particular case 4 is a dependent claim, depending on 3 and (through 3) 1.
If I implemented the exact same thing except using a different coordinate system, would I be infringing?
You would not infringe claim 4 (which specifies latitude) but you may be infringing claim 3 (which doesn't specify a coordinate system) or 1. In other words, you would infringe the patent, which is assumed to be valid and would have to be counteracted with specific prior art.
i.e. is it enough to be different in one point? Or do you have to be different in all points?
It's enough to be different in any way, but you have to be different from every single claim (separately). You probably avoid the patent by getting rid of some of the top level independent claims and some of the dependent claims which depend on them with prior art and then being different from all of the remaining dependent claims. At the point that you are starting this you will want to get a proper lawyer.
I haven't seen many cases where Apple was the first to enter into litigation.
Gapes in stunned amazement. Let's just name some of the most famous cases where Apple sued first to try to stop competition.
I think we could even really claim Nokia vs Apple - in the sense that Apple clearly threatened Nokia first and Nokia just responded. I wouldn't be surprised if Motorola vs Apple couldn't be counted in the same category.
Apple behaves like a rabid dog when it comes to lawsuits.