The tax is meant to be revenue neutral, so the percentage is fixed at the beginning. This means that the percentage can't really be manipulated.
Imagine we do start playing with the numbers though. Lets say we put the base payment up really high, then to pay for it we put the percentage charged on products up high. What happens? The people at the bottom benefit and for a fair way up. But who pays for that? Someone must always pay. Remember, the super rich don't buy anything new. They trade in used islands, castles, companies and antiques. They aren't paying. The answer is simple. The higher end of the working people. The ones that are actually producing something. They end up being hammered.
Push in the other direction; the poor start to starve. They don't get anything. The middle is still paying the bulk (though less) and the rich: still are paying almost nothing.
The proposal is a disaster no matter what way you look at it.
You guys just sound Astro. You should go to method acting school. Tax simplification is not inherently a good idea. Imagine a tax which was simply 100000 USD a year to be payed on the first of January. It would be simple but it would end up with a whole load of people unable to pay.
Let's understand what this proposan you've just supported is though. Basically it's a way of transferring money from the reasonably earning to the rich and the poor. Poor people spend all their income; this means they will be taxed on everything, though they will get back a fair bit. Rich people spend proportionally little. Most of their money is invested. When they eat, they eat food from their own estates, which won't be bought. When they go on holiday, they visit their friends islands, which they won't have to pay for. Overall, they won't end up paying tax on most of what they do. The people in the middle; what about them? They won't get much back from the base payment. On the other hand they still spend most of their income. A bit less than a rich person, but not much They will end up paying almost all of the tax.
In other words, this is a pretty transparent scheme to steal from the working people and give to the idle rich.
RedHat has been in the middle of patent problems for longer than Google and actually their entire business is threatened by patents (Google's search business - their main moneyspinner seems pretty safe). I think that actually you will find that the real difference is that RedHat is actually more careful than Google. If they become aware of a patent threat then they attempt to work around it. They don't include, for example, MP3 software for reasons of patent risk etc. etc.
Courts don't much take into account your opinions (in fact to do so would be illegal in most cases). What they take into account is your actions. If Google implemented a clear process for respecting other's patent rights and implemented it using disciplinary action where needed this would be more than enough to overcome any attempt by their opponents to point out that they oppose patents. On the other hand, no matter what they do to show their support for patents, this will never be enough to overcome a lack of action on their part.
Re:Only "troubled" if you're not Lockheed Martin
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 0
You know; if you guys want something safe, efficient, probably even more flexible, and certainly lots cheaper I can arrange you a good bulk deal on some Eurofighter Typhoons. It's certainly a better fighter than the F35; probably about as good as the F22 in most real situations and whilst it doesn't do everything that the F35 and F22 do on paper, you might want to try the weird experiment of an actual flying aircraft which won't kill of all your own pilots...
</bearbaiting>
But they can't come out and say that publicly with all the lawsuits against them. That would just provide the opposing lawyers with all kinds of ammunition to claim that Google is anti-patent and wilfully violated all those patents.
I'll commit today that in ten years I won't beat my wife in ten years. As with most Slashdotters, for our various reasons, I'm pretty sure of that. I'll for appropriate consideration (only a few tens of kilo CAD) I'll even give you a contract to that effect.
Google hasn't and won't give any commitment that I know of except for joining OIN which, whilst much better than most, is pretty weak. I think there should be a stong campaign to support Google, however I think that should only begin if Google is willing to give a stronger commitment against patents than they have so far.
The thing is, that mostly the orthodoxy through the civilised world is that you shouldn't beat your wife. In fact, it's one of the ways that you can easily differentiate civilised countries from the opposite. On the other hand the orthodoxy among CEOs seems to be that "IP must be defended". This makes it much more likely that Google will change their mind later.
No; it's not fine and it shouldn't be tolerated. Google should be asked to make clear commitments in the only way companies can (contractual agreements and obligations). If Google is willing to commit then everybody should commit to supporting Google. Lobbying our elected representatives to ask why they are supporting legislation which interferes with Google's innovation. Looking in our archives for prior art in cases which are brought against Google and going out for beers during cases which are brought by Google. Doing whatever is within the bounds of legality and morality to support them.
If on the other hand Google won't make a solid commitment any support for them should be extremely equivocal and based purely on joint self interest.
This is an extremely dangerous stage and effective or real collusion to achieve a division of the market between Google Microsoft and Apple will be much worse than even a market dominated by Apple and Microsoft alone. Before you give them help, ask your Google representative if they will commit to fighting against software patents at least.
Actually no. The figure that in the end, once they have the system tamed, they will be able to do whatever they want by arranging licenses at non-crippling prices. This will drive up prices in the market overall, but since it will eliminate smaller competitors it will mean more money coming to the current incumbents, MS, Apple, Oracle etc.
AC, on the other hand, might lose all sorts of useful products that might be useful to his life. Theoretically, even, he might lose the cheap long battery life navigating phone which will get him out of a snow storm one day. Alternatively, what about the portable stroke diagnosing Android based medical OS that a small embedded systems company might develop but now won't for fear of patents. He might die from this, whilst Microsoft is at most lose a small amount of profit to lawyers and probably guesses that on average they will win.
I think everyone agrees we need a software specific patent system for software.
No; you are wrong. Many of us think there have to be no patents for software. Software is in its self a pure expression. Storing it in a computer is no different from writing words from a story down in a book. Using software is little different from reciting a story. Any form of limitation on that is a limitation on free speech. Such limits on free speech can only be accepted in extremely controlled situations such as the traditional "shouting fire in a theatre". Software patents are not such a situation and should simply not be allowed. Copyright as it exists on software and books is already far too strong and if copyright owners cannot agree to reduce terms to reasonable limits and permit reasonable fair use in all circumstances then copyright should also be eliminated.
The decision about whether something should be subject to patents or not should be the question about whether it contains any physical components or processes or not. If something is transmittable from one medium to another without any loss then that should not be patentable.
Google lawyer isn't saying all patents are bad- only the system is broken.
Exactly. One small step away from "Microsoft patents bad, Google patents good". If Google wants any credibility at all in this issue they have to step up and very clearly say at least "software patents bad". Otherwise they seem to be just picking the ones that don't suit them.
Anyway- you can't pick and choose which companies you protect your patents against and which ones you don't.
If you knowingly don't protect your copyrights and patents when someone breaks them- you lose the right to protect them later against specific individuals.
That's trademarks that you are thinking of. Even there, you can make different agreements with different people (you, FOSS project, can have a free license to put Google search on your page; you, evil genetically modified pesticide company, have to pay). With patents the onus is on the person infringing the patent to come and arrange a license with you. Especially if you put them on notice that they are infringing.
They want to get rid of the trolls, because even when they win it just costs money, fighting other companies has benefits so they don't mind that...
This; Microsoft and Apple's basic patent position, reading through the lines, is "big companies should be able to sue for big money on software patents. Small companies for small money; individuals for nothing". Their idea of patent reform is to make patents into things only big companies are able use effectively. Nothing could be worse than patent "reform" on their terms.
The thing is it's not just Microsoft and Apple; there are loads of other companies up for it too. Have a look at all of the members of the MPEG-LA for example. Any form of patent "reform" which doesn't completely eliminate patents on pure software products will end up as a disaster. Every simplification will lead to them being able to make more patents. Every increase in difficulty and complexity will increase their advantage in lawsuits since they will be able to afford the lawyers who can understand the details.
The current system is not broken by accident. It's a time tested pretty solid system which works okay in most fields, except probably pharmacology. Small changes such as forcing the inventor to demonstrate the invention to the patent office; limiting pharmacological patents to ten years after full drug approval or three years from limit from a partial approval; enforced licensing of any patent owned by or licensed to a market dominant entity and so on would probably make it actively useful. The problem is that immediately you try to apply any patent system to something intangible many of the balances in the patent system break down completely.
# Here the users and developers of FOSS software should be protected, but not companies or organisations behind them unless those companies commit to patent opposition.
If the current Apache license and existing FOSS patent pools are equivalent to the MIT license, we need to construct a copyleft equivalent which agrees to disarm only in return for disarmament on the other side.
AC has been marked as a troll; but is he wrong? Google is in very specific contrast to Red Hat in that they have not asked for the complete elimination of software patents. Given this it's very difficult to take them completely seriously. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't support them, their attitude might change for the better, but we should be very wary. Remember Microsoft also used to oppose software patents; look what they do now. Remember Oracle also used to oppose software patents.
Google should come to a very clear and open anti patent opinion; something like:
Google is opposed to software patents and will support all actions to stop them
Google is a law abiding company and respects other companies copyrights, patents and design rights*
Google will never use patents against companies which agree never to initiate patent lawsuits against other anti-patent companies**
As long as Google is threatened by patents, Google will initiate patent lawsuits wherever Google identifies that it's patent rights are being infringed by companies which are not clearly opposed to software patents. ***
All Google patents are available in a patent pool for companies opposed to patents which agree to bind themselves to the conditions of that pool, in particular long term opposition to all forms of software patents.
All Google patents are available to FOSS software projects using licenses approved by both the FSF and the OSF without any need for further legal involvement provided that those FOSS #
Without an agressive commitment against patents, a patent holder as large and powerful as Google is extremely dangerous. Is there a lawyer out there who could write up something that we could ask Google to sign up to? I don't think the existing patent pools are nearly enough since they are often created by patent creators like IBM who want to keep open too many options.
* You need to make this clear because otherwise in a suit someone might accuse you of deliberately violating rights
** This needs to be written really carefully. FOSS companies become easy targets if they fail to be aggressive in their patent strategy
*** Again this needs to be really careful. Companies might try to use the lack of attack to grow their patent portfolio and then attack later. Google needs to prepare to attack all companies except those which are explicitly and contractually opposed to software patents.
# Here the users and developers of FOSS software should
Looked up the source for this quote. A deeply depressing interview, which gives me a real insight into what went wrong with Jobs. Also a bit more understanding for him.
This power is not coming from Brein themselves. This is based on a court decision. Simply put they have managed to persuade the court that the law is on their side and the law and copyright legislation is providing the power needed.
This is obviously an extreme restraint on freedom of speech. The Usenet data is widely and simply available. There is no way to provide an open communication service whilst guaranteeing that nobody using it puts up copyrighted material. On the other hand there are simple technical measures that BREIN could take, such as providing cancels for all of the posts that they claim copyright over and there are simple legal measures they could take to make using those measures reasonable such as guaranteeing to take over the legal liability of the Usenet providers for any mistakes BREIN make (including libel compensation for anyone who's post they incorrectly cancel). The only reason BREIN doesn't want to do this is that they do not want to take on the costs which their demands would cause. The law should tell the court to tell them to stuff off.
The only solution to this is political. Even if the appeal succeeds the very fact that this judgement could happen at all is going to chill free speech. I hope nobody from the Netherlands will be posting here complaining if they haven't already at least sent a message to their Members of Parliament.
Yes, you're right. Network data isn't very random. We need to start looking for more sources. No, wait a second I know, how about we advance this concept and look for a random number generator that an expert in the field has designed. Perhaps we could even use/dev/random which takes a big bunch of hardware randomness sources and mixes them together to produce about as perfect randomness as we will achieve short of having a quantum randomness source. Oh.</extreme_sarcasm>
With an iPad or even an Android tablet you can install newspaper applications, for example. She probably read those when she could and giving her simple, immediately she turns it on or hits the home button access to the next days paper can be really one of the best forms of mental stimulation.
Find four apps that she likes from her past (a family blog with recent photos would be ideal). Put them on the front page so she immediately gets to something she likes. Set her up simple email, make sure she doesn't have a high limit (low limit is fine) credit card or bank account number handy and let her loose. We've had very little problem with a 90 year old and a laptop (though she started around 80). I don't see how an iPad could possibly be more of a problem
Just one comment. Beware that touch devices may need extra fine motor skills. You may find that a laptop with a large keyboard is actually more suitable than an iPad, depending on how much control she has over her fingers. Also keyboard skills may be a good investment for when eyesight begins to go.
Have you considered trying Eucalyptus + KVM? Being Amazon compatible it's gets you far beyond simple virtualisation and into infrastructure as a service and it's going to be much more familiar to most virtualisation/cloud users than Hyper-V.
Except that if you look at it the basis for most statements is experiments done recently with a raise of temperature of 1 degree / minute. The original 19th century experiments tested both 1 degree/minute and 0.2 degrees a minute and found that only the slower heating worked whilst the frog detected the faster heating. This means that the experiments as quoted by Snopes, for example, are as close as experimental physics can come to "not even wrong". They completely fail to test the thing they are meant to test. The 19th century experiments stand as the only ones done competently and so, in the absence of further evidence I don't really see your point...
I mean, if you're going to be pendantic, you'd better show pretty good evidence.:-P
Just so that you don't "lower yourself" whilst posting to Slashdot, we can agree to call them the "high Apple loyalty early adopter grouping". Please proceed in corporate speak or however you prefer.
For "shiny shiney people" lets be adult and call them users.
No; let's not start arguing against Strawmen. Let's stick with what I said. I know plenty of people who "use" iPhones as a tool (and an effective one at that). These people, however, whilst they may be the most numerous, are not the most valuable market. They are the type of people who are sill using an iPhone 3G when the "shiny shiny" crowd have already upgraded twice. You know exactly who I mean and they overlap quite a bit with the "fanboi" crowd everyone on Slashdot is so keen on calling out.
Slashdot Mirror
The tax is meant to be revenue neutral, so the percentage is fixed at the beginning. This means that the percentage can't really be manipulated.
Imagine we do start playing with the numbers though. Lets say we put the base payment up really high, then to pay for it we put the percentage charged on products up high. What happens? The people at the bottom benefit and for a fair way up. But who pays for that? Someone must always pay. Remember, the super rich don't buy anything new. They trade in used islands, castles, companies and antiques. They aren't paying. The answer is simple. The higher end of the working people. The ones that are actually producing something. They end up being hammered.
Push in the other direction; the poor start to starve. They don't get anything. The middle is still paying the bulk (though less) and the rich: still are paying almost nothing.
The proposal is a disaster no matter what way you look at it.
You guys just sound Astro. You should go to method acting school. Tax simplification is not inherently a good idea. Imagine a tax which was simply 100000 USD a year to be payed on the first of January. It would be simple but it would end up with a whole load of people unable to pay.
Let's understand what this proposan you've just supported is though. Basically it's a way of transferring money from the reasonably earning to the rich and the poor. Poor people spend all their income; this means they will be taxed on everything, though they will get back a fair bit. Rich people spend proportionally little. Most of their money is invested. When they eat, they eat food from their own estates, which won't be bought. When they go on holiday, they visit their friends islands, which they won't have to pay for. Overall, they won't end up paying tax on most of what they do. The people in the middle; what about them? They won't get much back from the base payment. On the other hand they still spend most of their income. A bit less than a rich person, but not much They will end up paying almost all of the tax.
In other words, this is a pretty transparent scheme to steal from the working people and give to the idle rich.
RedHat has been in the middle of patent problems for longer than Google and actually their entire business is threatened by patents (Google's search business - their main moneyspinner seems pretty safe). I think that actually you will find that the real difference is that RedHat is actually more careful than Google. If they become aware of a patent threat then they attempt to work around it. They don't include, for example, MP3 software for reasons of patent risk etc. etc.
Courts don't much take into account your opinions (in fact to do so would be illegal in most cases). What they take into account is your actions. If Google implemented a clear process for respecting other's patent rights and implemented it using disciplinary action where needed this would be more than enough to overcome any attempt by their opponents to point out that they oppose patents. On the other hand, no matter what they do to show their support for patents, this will never be enough to overcome a lack of action on their part.
You know; if you guys want something safe, efficient, probably even more flexible, and certainly lots cheaper I can arrange you a good bulk deal on some Eurofighter Typhoons. It's certainly a better fighter than the F35; probably about as good as the F22 in most real situations and whilst it doesn't do everything that the F35 and F22 do on paper, you might want to try the weird experiment of an actual flying aircraft which won't kill of all your own pilots... </bearbaiting>
But they can't come out and say that publicly with all the lawsuits against them. That would just provide the opposing lawyers with all kinds of ammunition to claim that Google is anti-patent and wilfully violated all those patents.
RedHat does exactly this with no ill effects.
I'll commit today that in ten years I won't beat my wife in ten years. As with most Slashdotters, for our various reasons, I'm pretty sure of that. I'll for appropriate consideration (only a few tens of kilo CAD) I'll even give you a contract to that effect.
Google hasn't and won't give any commitment that I know of except for joining OIN which, whilst much better than most, is pretty weak. I think there should be a stong campaign to support Google, however I think that should only begin if Google is willing to give a stronger commitment against patents than they have so far.
The thing is, that mostly the orthodoxy through the civilised world is that you shouldn't beat your wife. In fact, it's one of the ways that you can easily differentiate civilised countries from the opposite. On the other hand the orthodoxy among CEOs seems to be that "IP must be defended". This makes it much more likely that Google will change their mind later.
No; it's not fine and it shouldn't be tolerated. Google should be asked to make clear commitments in the only way companies can (contractual agreements and obligations). If Google is willing to commit then everybody should commit to supporting Google. Lobbying our elected representatives to ask why they are supporting legislation which interferes with Google's innovation. Looking in our archives for prior art in cases which are brought against Google and going out for beers during cases which are brought by Google. Doing whatever is within the bounds of legality and morality to support them.
If on the other hand Google won't make a solid commitment any support for them should be extremely equivocal and based purely on joint self interest.
This is an extremely dangerous stage and effective or real collusion to achieve a division of the market between Google Microsoft and Apple will be much worse than even a market dominated by Apple and Microsoft alone. Before you give them help, ask your Google representative if they will commit to fighting against software patents at least.
Actually no. The figure that in the end, once they have the system tamed, they will be able to do whatever they want by arranging licenses at non-crippling prices. This will drive up prices in the market overall, but since it will eliminate smaller competitors it will mean more money coming to the current incumbents, MS, Apple, Oracle etc.
AC, on the other hand, might lose all sorts of useful products that might be useful to his life. Theoretically, even, he might lose the cheap long battery life navigating phone which will get him out of a snow storm one day. Alternatively, what about the portable stroke diagnosing Android based medical OS that a small embedded systems company might develop but now won't for fear of patents. He might die from this, whilst Microsoft is at most lose a small amount of profit to lawyers and probably guesses that on average they will win.
I think everyone agrees we need a software specific patent system for software.
No; you are wrong. Many of us think there have to be no patents for software. Software is in its self a pure expression. Storing it in a computer is no different from writing words from a story down in a book. Using software is little different from reciting a story. Any form of limitation on that is a limitation on free speech. Such limits on free speech can only be accepted in extremely controlled situations such as the traditional "shouting fire in a theatre". Software patents are not such a situation and should simply not be allowed. Copyright as it exists on software and books is already far too strong and if copyright owners cannot agree to reduce terms to reasonable limits and permit reasonable fair use in all circumstances then copyright should also be eliminated.
The decision about whether something should be subject to patents or not should be the question about whether it contains any physical components or processes or not. If something is transmittable from one medium to another without any loss then that should not be patentable.
Google lawyer isn't saying all patents are bad- only the system is broken.
Exactly. One small step away from "Microsoft patents bad, Google patents good". If Google wants any credibility at all in this issue they have to step up and very clearly say at least "software patents bad". Otherwise they seem to be just picking the ones that don't suit them.
Anyway- you can't pick and choose which companies you protect your patents against and which ones you don't.
If you knowingly don't protect your copyrights and patents when someone breaks them- you lose the right to protect them later against specific individuals.
That's trademarks that you are thinking of. Even there, you can make different agreements with different people (you, FOSS project, can have a free license to put Google search on your page; you, evil genetically modified pesticide company, have to pay). With patents the onus is on the person infringing the patent to come and arrange a license with you. Especially if you put them on notice that they are infringing.
They want to get rid of the trolls, because even when they win it just costs money, fighting other companies has benefits so they don't mind that ...
This; Microsoft and Apple's basic patent position, reading through the lines, is "big companies should be able to sue for big money on software patents. Small companies for small money; individuals for nothing". Their idea of patent reform is to make patents into things only big companies are able use effectively. Nothing could be worse than patent "reform" on their terms.
The thing is it's not just Microsoft and Apple; there are loads of other companies up for it too. Have a look at all of the members of the MPEG-LA for example. Any form of patent "reform" which doesn't completely eliminate patents on pure software products will end up as a disaster. Every simplification will lead to them being able to make more patents. Every increase in difficulty and complexity will increase their advantage in lawsuits since they will be able to afford the lawyers who can understand the details.
The current system is not broken by accident. It's a time tested pretty solid system which works okay in most fields, except probably pharmacology. Small changes such as forcing the inventor to demonstrate the invention to the patent office; limiting pharmacological patents to ten years after full drug approval or three years from limit from a partial approval; enforced licensing of any patent owned by or licensed to a market dominant entity and so on would probably make it actively useful. The problem is that immediately you try to apply any patent system to something intangible many of the balances in the patent system break down completely.
# Here the users and developers of FOSS software should be protected, but not companies or organisations behind them unless those companies commit to patent opposition.
If the current Apache license and existing FOSS patent pools are equivalent to the MIT license, we need to construct a copyleft equivalent which agrees to disarm only in return for disarmament on the other side.
AC has been marked as a troll; but is he wrong? Google is in very specific contrast to Red Hat in that they have not asked for the complete elimination of software patents. Given this it's very difficult to take them completely seriously. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't support them, their attitude might change for the better, but we should be very wary. Remember Microsoft also used to oppose software patents; look what they do now. Remember Oracle also used to oppose software patents.
Google should come to a very clear and open anti patent opinion; something like:
Without an agressive commitment against patents, a patent holder as large and powerful as Google is extremely dangerous. Is there a lawyer out there who could write up something that we could ask Google to sign up to? I don't think the existing patent pools are nearly enough since they are often created by patent creators like IBM who want to keep open too many options.
* You need to make this clear because otherwise in a suit someone might accuse you of deliberately violating rights
** This needs to be written really carefully. FOSS companies become easy targets if they fail to be aggressive in their patent strategy
*** Again this needs to be really careful. Companies might try to use the lack of attack to grow their patent portfolio and then attack later. Google needs to prepare to attack all companies except those which are explicitly and contractually opposed to software patents.
# Here the users and developers of FOSS software should
What advantages does this have over WebOS?
How about a) properly open source so it's likely to survive and b) hasn't just been cancelled?
What advantages does it have over running Android with FireFox mobile as the default browser?
How about a) controlled by an organisation which has a history of developing in the open and b) doesn't require all software to be written in Java?
Looked up the source for this quote. A deeply depressing interview, which gives me a real insight into what went wrong with Jobs. Also a bit more understanding for him.
This power is not coming from Brein themselves. This is based on a court decision. Simply put they have managed to persuade the court that the law is on their side and the law and copyright legislation is providing the power needed.
This is obviously an extreme restraint on freedom of speech. The Usenet data is widely and simply available. There is no way to provide an open communication service whilst guaranteeing that nobody using it puts up copyrighted material. On the other hand there are simple technical measures that BREIN could take, such as providing cancels for all of the posts that they claim copyright over and there are simple legal measures they could take to make using those measures reasonable such as guaranteeing to take over the legal liability of the Usenet providers for any mistakes BREIN make (including libel compensation for anyone who's post they incorrectly cancel). The only reason BREIN doesn't want to do this is that they do not want to take on the costs which their demands would cause. The law should tell the court to tell them to stuff off.
The only solution to this is political. Even if the appeal succeeds the very fact that this judgement could happen at all is going to chill free speech. I hope nobody from the Netherlands will be posting here complaining if they haven't already at least sent a message to their Members of Parliament.
Still not random.
A true Nobel prize awaits your proof that quantum randomness is not truly random. We are in awe.
Yes, you're right. Network data isn't very random. We need to start looking for more sources. No, wait a second I know, how about we advance this concept and look for a random number generator that an expert in the field has designed. Perhaps we could even use /dev/random which takes a big bunch of hardware randomness sources and mixes them together to produce about as perfect randomness as we will achieve short of having a quantum randomness source. Oh.</extreme_sarcasm>
I'd say my argument is 100% anti Fox news (I don't think the dig could have been less coded) get an account and then we can discuss..
The subtext is that he's a cheapskate, his grandmother is going to die soon, and he doesn't want to buy her an iPad he's not sure he'll inherit back.
Even if this is true he doesn't have to bloody give it. It can be a long term loan. Then there's no question of inheritance.
This.
With an iPad or even an Android tablet you can install newspaper applications, for example. She probably read those when she could and giving her simple, immediately she turns it on or hits the home button access to the next days paper can be really one of the best forms of mental stimulation.
Find four apps that she likes from her past (a family blog with recent photos would be ideal). Put them on the front page so she immediately gets to something she likes. Set her up simple email, make sure she doesn't have a high limit (low limit is fine) credit card or bank account number handy and let her loose. We've had very little problem with a 90 year old and a laptop (though she started around 80). I don't see how an iPad could possibly be more of a problem
Just one comment. Beware that touch devices may need extra fine motor skills. You may find that a laptop with a large keyboard is actually more suitable than an iPad, depending on how much control she has over her fingers. Also keyboard skills may be a good investment for when eyesight begins to go.
Have you considered trying Eucalyptus + KVM? Being Amazon compatible it's gets you far beyond simple virtualisation and into infrastructure as a service and it's going to be much more familiar to most virtualisation/cloud users than Hyper-V.
Except that if you look at it the basis for most statements is experiments done recently with a raise of temperature of 1 degree / minute. The original 19th century experiments tested both 1 degree/minute and 0.2 degrees a minute and found that only the slower heating worked whilst the frog detected the faster heating. This means that the experiments as quoted by Snopes, for example, are as close as experimental physics can come to "not even wrong". They completely fail to test the thing they are meant to test. The 19th century experiments stand as the only ones done competently and so, in the absence of further evidence I don't really see your point...
I mean, if you're going to be pendantic, you'd better show pretty good evidence. :-P
Just so that you don't "lower yourself" whilst posting to Slashdot, we can agree to call them the "high Apple loyalty early adopter grouping". Please proceed in corporate speak or however you prefer.
For "shiny shiney people" lets be adult and call them users.
No; let's not start arguing against Strawmen. Let's stick with what I said. I know plenty of people who "use" iPhones as a tool (and an effective one at that). These people, however, whilst they may be the most numerous, are not the most valuable market. They are the type of people who are sill using an iPhone 3G when the "shiny shiny" crowd have already upgraded twice. You know exactly who I mean and they overlap quite a bit with the "fanboi" crowd everyone on Slashdot is so keen on calling out.