He said it had to be Apple-approved, not made by Apple. Not sure if that's true or not but don't you think Apple have design patents on the connector that have to be licensed?
No way! Whatever you think about the reasoning, saying 'The probability of life existing on a planet is greater than zero, therefore given enough planets the scenario of life existing on two of them becomes arbitrarily likely' is not in any way similar to saying 'if two classes of item exist, then given infinite space one class is capable of creating the other'. One lays out a premise and extrapolates from it, the other is just nuts.
(This example brought to you by the fact that drawing a little man locking a stable door with a horse already running outside is too hard to draw without triggering Slashdots ASCII art filter)
BoingBoing has a good write up (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/08/patent-holders-legal.html). Most interesting was the fact that Landmark Digital Services took exception to the technical details of a patent being discussed. I think most people (myself included!) believe that reading a patent should tell you precisely how to replicate something, but there's a subtext to this story implying that is not the case here. I think a situation where a patent holder treats someone discussing a means to replicate patented technology as though they where handing out trade secrets is pretty interesting, certainly./ worthy.
Have you tried just typing those words into your browser?
In mine (FF3.5) it take me straight through to the site using (I think...) Googles 'I feel lucky' feature. This way, typing in a keyword has a good chance of taking you to the site you want. If people could register single keyword domains like that, I reckon it would cause a net decrease in convenience as more and more single keywords take you directly through to someone's site.
With email, it's usually copy/paste for me, or just entering the first part of an address I've used before. I guess it could be useful, but probably not useful enough to warrant the 'search by keyword taking you to someones site' issue above.
Do you believe that he's lying, or Apple that have decided not to go through with pulling it? Most reasonable explanation for it still being up seems to be that they just haven't pulled it yet.
Fry: "Bender what's wrong?!" Bender: "It was horrible ones and zeros everywhere, and I think I saw a two." Fry: "Its OK Bender there's no such thing as two."
Slashdot Mirror
He said it had to be Apple-approved, not made by Apple. Not sure if that's true or not but don't you think Apple have design patents on the connector that have to be licensed?
Yes
And just two years before civilization ends *again*. Better get the partying in while we can.
A cloud in a box is the new storm in a teacup.
iBitch
If you turn away good people for bad reasons, a competitor will snap them up.
Jesus, someone needs to get laid.
No way! Whatever you think about the reasoning, saying 'The probability of life existing on a planet is greater than zero, therefore given enough planets the scenario of life existing on two of them becomes arbitrarily likely' is not in any way similar to saying 'if two classes of item exist, then given infinite space one class is capable of creating the other'. One lays out a premise and extrapolates from it, the other is just nuts.
Not sure if this is an insightful observation on unscrupulous theatre operators, or the greatest pun ever. Either way, mod-up, mod-up!
Well I hardly think that's likely.
The centre of my universe is a couple of feet lower.
I'll second that!
Genie is here Bottle is here
| |
| |
V V
X X
(This example brought to you by the fact that drawing a little man locking a stable door with a horse already running outside is too hard to draw without triggering Slashdots ASCII art filter)
What was your job?
I can't see my mother complaining that she can't open a bash shell for example.
Well if she ever does, point her towards Cygwin.
Because Fedora is no laughing matter.
BoingBoing has a good write up (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/08/patent-holders-legal.html). Most interesting was the fact that Landmark Digital Services took exception to the technical details of a patent being discussed. I think most people (myself included!) believe that reading a patent should tell you precisely how to replicate something, but there's a subtext to this story implying that is not the case here. I think a situation where a patent holder treats someone discussing a means to replicate patented technology as though they where handing out trade secrets is pretty interesting, certainly ./ worthy.
Oh. I thought that was a power socket.
Have you tried just typing those words into your browser?
In mine (FF3.5) it take me straight through to the site using (I think...) Googles 'I feel lucky' feature. This way, typing in a keyword has a good chance of taking you to the site you want. If people could register single keyword domains like that, I reckon it would cause a net decrease in convenience as more and more single keywords take you directly through to someone's site.
With email, it's usually copy/paste for me, or just entering the first part of an address I've used before. I guess it could be useful, but probably not useful enough to warrant the 'search by keyword taking you to someones site' issue above.
You are completely wrong. No business works for the customer, ever.
What about these guys?
Maybe they'd just already read this.
Gone now: http://www.groundhog.com.au/myframe/
The guy this has happened to made a blog post earlier today explaining that Apple have told him the App is getting pulled: http://shiftyjelly.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/sentence-first-verdict-afterwards/
Do you believe that he's lying, or Apple that have decided not to go through with pulling it? Most reasonable explanation for it still being up seems to be that they just haven't pulled it yet.
Fry: "Bender what's wrong?!"
Bender: "It was horrible ones and zeros everywhere, and I think I saw a two."
Fry: "Its OK Bender there's no such thing as two."
Yeah he's no Einstein, that's for sure.