I hope Google wins this one. Not because I wish any harm to Apple, but because Apple will be forced to respond by licensing and, where appropriate, cross-licensing their patents where the currently refuse to do so.
I don't like this line of thought. This massive cross-licensing nonsense is what keeps the little guys and potential entrepreneurs from entering markets. Why is the solution to obvious and likely invalid patents to create some mega-consortium of tech giants who all have a patent cross-licence agreement? So unless a company has a huge battlechest of obvious and likely invalid patents they can't even consider competing with these guys. Sounds kind of like an oligarchy to me.
Personally, I see one benefit of Google winning this case: It might wake people up to the fact that these ridiculous patent spats affect them as consumers as well. It might bring some bureaucrats to the realization that rubber-stamping any patent a tech giant submits is a bad idea. Most importantly, hopefully it becomes a political issue that politicians have to take action on.
We should be rooting for the outcome that will most likely lead to patent reform. That's probably Google/Motorola, as a ban on Apple products would certainly get a bunch of yuppies' panties in a bunch. But if all their victory would lead to is a cross-license agreement (which it probably would) then I find it hard to care one way or the other. I don't care who sues who - what I have a problem with is the legal system that allows them to do it. It doesn't matter if Company X has too much integrity to file frivolous lawsuits when Companies Y and Z will. Companies Y and Z will just end up more successful. Integrity is something that must be forced upon a corporation by way of the rule of law (can't wait for the Randians to read that one).
Mac has the whole high end............bwahahahahahaha
keep drinking that koolaid. I will match my home built PC against ANY mac on the market.
That's like saying your suped up muscle car is faster than my Lamborghini. That very well may be, but I'll still take my Lambo over your muscle car any day of the week.
Just to add on to this, hunting deer with rifles isn't legal in my state, either. And, really, anyone who hunts deer with a rifle is a bitch hunter. I could sit on my roof with a rifle and take out dozens of deer. That's not sport.
Real men use bows, shotguns are for kids who don't have the strength for a bow yet.
This study just corroborates what I already knew. People are shallow. Especially all you Comic Sans haters. I think half the Comic Sans hatred is just because it has become trendy to hate Comic Sans.
I think Comic Sans hatred comes from having to read things in Comic Sans.
You can with a little HTML. Haven't you seen those annoying posts people make using monospaced fonts? I think they do it so everyone knows they code or something.
It's a testament to the power of marketing that anyone thinks that Miller is "extremely drinkable".
It's the champagne of beer. Delicious.
Seriously, nothing is more annoying than having some beer snob try to tell me I'm not fully enjoying my drink because I spent a fraction of what they spent on their own. I'm actually pretty picky when it comes to my beer, and I've tried all sorts throughout the years, and High Life is in my top five.
A testament to the power of their marketing is the High Life hat I'm wearing. Yeah, I'm white trash like that.
No "hacker" should call himself such, by simply being able to sweet-talk a minimum wage drone over the phone.
You're being pedantic and glorifying the term 'hacker' way too much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_mitnick - this guy is usually referred to as a hacker, even though sweet talking minimum wage drones over the phone was his bread and butter. I get that you want to distinguish between the technologically adept and inept, using the terms 'hacker' and 'script kiddie' to do so, but the article is using the term 'hacker' in a legal sense; as in someone who commits crimes almost exclusively through the use of technology. My dad referred to himself as a hacker but he never committed a crime using his computer/phone. He just meant that he liked to hack out code.
Joe can be a man's name. Joe can be a cup of coffee. Joe can be a member of the armed services. Basically, you're arguing that your cup of coffee shouldn't be called Joe because that's your name.
First sale. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
Unless the product has the technological capability to force you to agree that you didn't actually buy it before you can use it.
"By turning to page two you are under contratual obligation, per the terms of usage for this book which you've agreed to upon its purchase, to burn it upon completion. Failure to do so can result in prosecution under federal law and/or a fine up to $100,000. Any reselling, copying, summarization, or dissection of its contents without the express consent of Harper Collins is strictly prohibited. Please turn to page two to begin enjoying Tom Sawyer."
Man, what's Apple going to do when all these developers leave them to go develop applications to put in Ubuntu's repository and the mobile Windows 8 store?
Last time I checked, Apple's app store is where the money is. Developers don't work on what's convenient unless they're hobbyists. If they're in it for the money they go where the money's at. Does Manager X care that Developer Y has a philosophical disagreement with Apple? Nope.
Personally, I like the idea of sandboxing. It provides stability and security, two things that will wane as Apple's market grows. I can boot into Linux whenever I want unfettered access to anything and geek out. When I want efficiency and basic functionality, OS X please.
Obviously he hasn't fully adjusted to being a billionaire. When he starts the Mark Zuckerberg Foundation for a Better World to shelter his money from taxes while investing in charities that utilize social networking for the betterment of the world; then he'll have it figured out.
When will America wake up and realize that just one good teacher is worth more than both the Koch brothers
Maybe voters will be willing to pay good teachers more when we stop paying bad teachers the exact same salaries.
That's bumper sticker logic. How do you propose we figure out which is which? You can't survey the kids - they'll assess a teacher's ability based on how much they like the teacher, not on how good a teacher they are. I think most people are well aware of the folly of rating a teacher by test scores - things just get worse when you teach to the test.
If all teachers were paid more then more people would go into teaching. With more available labor to choose from, schools would be able to make better hires rather than just hire who's available.
They just hate hearing the whining that they are all in poverty when they are in the top half of earners in the country.
This says more about how bad things are in the U.S. than how overcompensated teachers are.
I can think of many reasons to pay teachers a quality wage and no reason not to. Here's a list:
- The summers off are a perfect opportunity to study and travel. Studying is important for obvious reasons. Traveling often amounts to studying - especially for those history and foreign language teachers. This isn't possible if a summer job is required to make a decent wage.
- Those most able to teach are less likely to if the compensation isn't competitive with other potential careers. The main reason there are so many incompetent teachers is the same reason there are so many incompetent fast food workers: it doesn't matter if you hire the best applicants if the best applicants aren't very impressive. Jobs that don't pay very much don't attract high quality applicants. An assistant manager at a restaurant makes about as much as a teacher. A general manager at a restaurant usually makes more than a teacher. By paying teachers their current wages, we devalue them below the expected income level of a person of their education.
- Paying teachers a high wage is good for the economy. This is basic economics - if teacher's have more to spend then they likely will. It will also require tax increases, which helps to curb inflation (this is probably the main reason no one wants to pay teachers more, because of the 'greed is good/taxes are evil' mantra that's so popular). Teaching is a job that's not in danger of being outsourced or marginalized by technology.
- Teachers are worth more to society than what we pay them. This is possible for a number of reasons. The most common is that most people don't become teachers because they want to get rich, it's something they do because they want to devote their life to doing something positive for society. This is much different from military, police, or firemen because most teachers have abilities/certifications/potential that are worth more than their current wages/benefits on the free market whereas the bad haircut crews get paid much more, especially considering their benefits, than they could on the free market. Even if your average cop could top his current wage on a construction crew, he'd lose a lot in the way of benefits and he'd have to actually do hard work and wouldn't be able to steal my pot.
And Google should be commended for trying to help.
Trying isn't enough. The only way to stop the drug cartels is to decriminalize drugs; and it will still be an uphill battle after the decriminalization. Until this happens everything else will just help to escalate the violence even further. There's ample proof for this from all around the world. Google should be condemned for participating in the abject farce that is called the war on drugs.
I agree that Google should not be commended for trying, but not for the reason you mention. I see it as vigilantism and orchestrated vigilantism is a clear evil in my mind (opposed to non-orchestrated: i.e., you happen to see a mugging and interfere, but you're not going around scaling buildings in your Batsuit looking for muggings to interfere with).
For some reason the governments of the world all think they're entitled to use Google as a tool for 'justice.' I appreciate Google's openness about what information they give out, and I appreciate a lot of the charity and projects they undertake in the name of positive social change, but a business has no place enforcing the law. In any instance. Corporate prisons and mercenaries are examples of the malfeasance. Businesses lack the moral authority that the government has to enforce the law.
Concerning decriminalization: If you think cocaine should be decriminalized then you know very little about it. Perhaps if marijuana was decriminalized then enforcing cocaine prohibition wouldn't be so difficult. But cocaine isn't just highly addictive, it also causes direct damage to one's body. There's a reason crackheads have rotten teeth, deviated septums, and emphysema. For reference: Amy Winehouse. I agree that laws that target the users and give them prison time (such as Reagan's War on Drugs) are detrimental to society, but the government has a responsibility to fight trafficking. The only reason cocaine is so expensive is because the government fights trafficking. If cocaine became inexpensive and readily available in the U.S. it would do horrible things to society. The healthcare and prisons systems wouldn't be able to handle the burden.
America's 'founders' consisted of hundreds of men who disagreed on many things. Jefferson had many issues with the Constitution but he used his influence to make sure the Bill of Rights were included. In his words:
Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.
I knew that Republicans were basically stupid but I didn't realize they bred themselves that way. How long has this been going on? How stupid do they want to become?
There's a real interesting documentary on this phenomenon called "Idiotocracy."
Make them explain what they've done wrong and why it's wrong in writing. A 1-on-1 session too easily becomes a coddling session, especially if the kid is clever and emotionally manipulative. Forcing them to write essays critiquing their own behavior and only returning privileges when the essay is not only complete, but of sufficient quality, teaches critical thinking skills, morality, and grammar all at once.
It amazes me how many schools think that a fifteen minute detention is an effective form of discipline, how many parents who think that a time-out in the corner will teach their children right and wrong. Of course, this nonsensical form of discipline extends to adults, too; just look at the prison system.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope Google wins this one. Not because I wish any harm to Apple, but because Apple will be forced to respond by licensing and, where appropriate, cross-licensing their patents where the currently refuse to do so.
I don't like this line of thought. This massive cross-licensing nonsense is what keeps the little guys and potential entrepreneurs from entering markets. Why is the solution to obvious and likely invalid patents to create some mega-consortium of tech giants who all have a patent cross-licence agreement? So unless a company has a huge battlechest of obvious and likely invalid patents they can't even consider competing with these guys. Sounds kind of like an oligarchy to me.
Personally, I see one benefit of Google winning this case: It might wake people up to the fact that these ridiculous patent spats affect them as consumers as well. It might bring some bureaucrats to the realization that rubber-stamping any patent a tech giant submits is a bad idea. Most importantly, hopefully it becomes a political issue that politicians have to take action on.
We should be rooting for the outcome that will most likely lead to patent reform. That's probably Google/Motorola, as a ban on Apple products would certainly get a bunch of yuppies' panties in a bunch. But if all their victory would lead to is a cross-license agreement (which it probably would) then I find it hard to care one way or the other. I don't care who sues who - what I have a problem with is the legal system that allows them to do it. It doesn't matter if Company X has too much integrity to file frivolous lawsuits when Companies Y and Z will. Companies Y and Z will just end up more successful. Integrity is something that must be forced upon a corporation by way of the rule of law (can't wait for the Randians to read that one).
Mac has the whole high end............bwahahahahahaha
keep drinking that koolaid. I will match my home built PC against ANY mac on the market.
That's like saying your suped up muscle car is faster than my Lamborghini. That very well may be, but I'll still take my Lambo over your muscle car any day of the week.
IMO, its worth it just for all the new hotkeys that are available.
Great. They caught up to Apple in the 90s. Sounds well worth the money.
Just to add on to this, hunting deer with rifles isn't legal in my state, either. And, really, anyone who hunts deer with a rifle is a bitch hunter. I could sit on my roof with a rifle and take out dozens of deer. That's not sport.
Real men use bows, shotguns are for kids who don't have the strength for a bow yet.
This study just corroborates what I already knew. People are shallow. Especially all you Comic Sans haters. I think half the Comic Sans hatred is just because it has become trendy to hate Comic Sans.
I think Comic Sans hatred comes from having to read things in Comic Sans.
You can with a little HTML. Haven't you seen those annoying posts people make using monospaced fonts? I think they do it so everyone knows they code or something.
It's a testament to the power of marketing that anyone thinks that Miller is "extremely drinkable".
It's the champagne of beer. Delicious.
Seriously, nothing is more annoying than having some beer snob try to tell me I'm not fully enjoying my drink because I spent a fraction of what they spent on their own. I'm actually pretty picky when it comes to my beer, and I've tried all sorts throughout the years, and High Life is in my top five.
A testament to the power of their marketing is the High Life hat I'm wearing. Yeah, I'm white trash like that.
I find Comic Sans very hard to read. Times New Roman too. Can't understand how these fonts can be allowed to exist!
Times New Roman is like the polar opposite of Comic Sans and probably the easiest on the eyes/quickest to read. Have you read a paperback recently?
No "hacker" should call himself such, by simply being able to sweet-talk a minimum wage drone over the phone.
You're being pedantic and glorifying the term 'hacker' way too much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_mitnick - this guy is usually referred to as a hacker, even though sweet talking minimum wage drones over the phone was his bread and butter. I get that you want to distinguish between the technologically adept and inept, using the terms 'hacker' and 'script kiddie' to do so, but the article is using the term 'hacker' in a legal sense; as in someone who commits crimes almost exclusively through the use of technology. My dad referred to himself as a hacker but he never committed a crime using his computer/phone. He just meant that he liked to hack out code.
Joe can be a man's name. Joe can be a cup of coffee. Joe can be a member of the armed services. Basically, you're arguing that your cup of coffee shouldn't be called Joe because that's your name.
Unless the product has the technological capability to force you to agree that you didn't actually buy it before you can use it.
"By turning to page two you are under contratual obligation, per the terms of usage for this book which you've agreed to upon its purchase, to burn it upon completion. Failure to do so can result in prosecution under federal law and/or a fine up to $100,000. Any reselling, copying, summarization, or dissection of its contents without the express consent of Harper Collins is strictly prohibited. Please turn to page two to begin enjoying Tom Sawyer."
Man, what's Apple going to do when all these developers leave them to go develop applications to put in Ubuntu's repository and the mobile Windows 8 store?
Last time I checked, Apple's app store is where the money is. Developers don't work on what's convenient unless they're hobbyists. If they're in it for the money they go where the money's at. Does Manager X care that Developer Y has a philosophical disagreement with Apple? Nope.
Personally, I like the idea of sandboxing. It provides stability and security, two things that will wane as Apple's market grows. I can boot into Linux whenever I want unfettered access to anything and geek out. When I want efficiency and basic functionality, OS X please.
Obviously he hasn't fully adjusted to being a billionaire. When he starts the Mark Zuckerberg Foundation for a Better World to shelter his money from taxes while investing in charities that utilize social networking for the betterment of the world; then he'll have it figured out.
Actually, if you get paid a salary you do get paid for being someone.
If you get paid hourly you get paid for being somewhere (on the clock).
If you're a contractor/freelancer you get paid for doing something.
But most wealth isn't acquired by any of these means. It's acquired by owning things that increase in value over time.
When will America wake up and realize that just one good teacher is worth more than both the Koch brothers
Maybe voters will be willing to pay good teachers more when we stop paying bad teachers the exact same salaries.
That's bumper sticker logic. How do you propose we figure out which is which? You can't survey the kids - they'll assess a teacher's ability based on how much they like the teacher, not on how good a teacher they are. I think most people are well aware of the folly of rating a teacher by test scores - things just get worse when you teach to the test.
If all teachers were paid more then more people would go into teaching. With more available labor to choose from, schools would be able to make better hires rather than just hire who's available.
They just hate hearing the whining that they are all in poverty when they are in the top half of earners in the country.
This says more about how bad things are in the U.S. than how overcompensated teachers are.
I can think of many reasons to pay teachers a quality wage and no reason not to. Here's a list:
- The summers off are a perfect opportunity to study and travel. Studying is important for obvious reasons. Traveling often amounts to studying - especially for those history and foreign language teachers. This isn't possible if a summer job is required to make a decent wage.
- Those most able to teach are less likely to if the compensation isn't competitive with other potential careers. The main reason there are so many incompetent teachers is the same reason there are so many incompetent fast food workers: it doesn't matter if you hire the best applicants if the best applicants aren't very impressive. Jobs that don't pay very much don't attract high quality applicants. An assistant manager at a restaurant makes about as much as a teacher. A general manager at a restaurant usually makes more than a teacher. By paying teachers their current wages, we devalue them below the expected income level of a person of their education.
- Paying teachers a high wage is good for the economy. This is basic economics - if teacher's have more to spend then they likely will. It will also require tax increases, which helps to curb inflation (this is probably the main reason no one wants to pay teachers more, because of the 'greed is good/taxes are evil' mantra that's so popular). Teaching is a job that's not in danger of being outsourced or marginalized by technology.
- Teachers are worth more to society than what we pay them. This is possible for a number of reasons. The most common is that most people don't become teachers because they want to get rich, it's something they do because they want to devote their life to doing something positive for society. This is much different from military, police, or firemen because most teachers have abilities/certifications/potential that are worth more than their current wages/benefits on the free market whereas the bad haircut crews get paid much more, especially considering their benefits, than they could on the free market. Even if your average cop could top his current wage on a construction crew, he'd lose a lot in the way of benefits and he'd have to actually do hard work and wouldn't be able to steal my pot.
And Google should be commended for trying to help.
Trying isn't enough. The only way to stop the drug cartels is to decriminalize drugs; and it will still be an uphill battle after the decriminalization. Until this happens everything else will just help to escalate the violence even further. There's ample proof for this from all around the world. Google should be condemned for participating in the abject farce that is called the war on drugs.
I agree that Google should not be commended for trying, but not for the reason you mention. I see it as vigilantism and orchestrated vigilantism is a clear evil in my mind (opposed to non-orchestrated: i.e., you happen to see a mugging and interfere, but you're not going around scaling buildings in your Batsuit looking for muggings to interfere with).
For some reason the governments of the world all think they're entitled to use Google as a tool for 'justice.' I appreciate Google's openness about what information they give out, and I appreciate a lot of the charity and projects they undertake in the name of positive social change, but a business has no place enforcing the law. In any instance. Corporate prisons and mercenaries are examples of the malfeasance. Businesses lack the moral authority that the government has to enforce the law.
Concerning decriminalization: If you think cocaine should be decriminalized then you know very little about it. Perhaps if marijuana was decriminalized then enforcing cocaine prohibition wouldn't be so difficult. But cocaine isn't just highly addictive, it also causes direct damage to one's body. There's a reason crackheads have rotten teeth, deviated septums, and emphysema. For reference: Amy Winehouse. I agree that laws that target the users and give them prison time (such as Reagan's War on Drugs) are detrimental to society, but the government has a responsibility to fight trafficking. The only reason cocaine is so expensive is because the government fights trafficking. If cocaine became inexpensive and readily available in the U.S. it would do horrible things to society. The healthcare and prisons systems wouldn't be able to handle the burden.
It's not really Metro. Removing 3D and glass everywhere and making it all look dull and flat does not make it Metro.
You're right, it makes it xfce.
The problem isn't religion, the problem is mankind.
True, but advocate eliminating the problem and suddenly you're the bad guy...
"Mankind is something that must be overcome." - Nietzsche
How does all of these tactics, including infiltration of government, not qualify as terrorism?
Why does it matter what you call it? They're all very obviously wrong and illegal actions.
America's 'founders' consisted of hundreds of men who disagreed on many things. Jefferson had many issues with the Constitution but he used his influence to make sure the Bill of Rights were included. In his words:
Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.
The Constitution is but a piece of worthless paper.
That should have been evident since what 10-15 years ago ?
1861.
Of course. People will always need Office just as they will always need film. Oh, wait. . .
I knew that Republicans were basically stupid but I didn't realize they bred themselves that way. How long has this been going on? How stupid do they want to become?
There's a real interesting documentary on this phenomenon called "Idiotocracy."
Make them explain what they've done wrong and why it's wrong in writing. A 1-on-1 session too easily becomes a coddling session, especially if the kid is clever and emotionally manipulative. Forcing them to write essays critiquing their own behavior and only returning privileges when the essay is not only complete, but of sufficient quality, teaches critical thinking skills, morality, and grammar all at once.
It amazes me how many schools think that a fifteen minute detention is an effective form of discipline, how many parents who think that a time-out in the corner will teach their children right and wrong. Of course, this nonsensical form of discipline extends to adults, too; just look at the prison system.
Oh, please. If we're going to judge political parties based on their extremist fringes they both look equally absurd.