But...they need to protect the BILLIONS of dollars in investments they spend in R&D! You think this page turning animation is just common sense or something?
Why doesn't everyone experience this? I'm guessing that genetics might make one susceptible which would seem to indicate a hardware issue rather than a software one.
I wonder if it's possible to "freeze" the brain like this? Take a program and sometimes if you feed it just the right nonsense, it might find an error it can't handle and freeze. Imagine if the brain had a similar flaw?
I mean maybe there is an incredibly complex series of inputs (perhaps spanning several days) that when presented to the human brain would cause it to "lock up" and the person would just stare blankly into space until they're "restarted". (I don't know how that would be done...).
In fact, in one of Asimov's novels he mentions this happening to a robot. An incredibly complicated series of inputs generated by a person who knew exactly what he was doing could (in theory) "freeze up" the AI program.
On the other hand, our brains have been tested to death in the real world. All those "bugs" have probably already been filtered out. But maybe a few remain uncaught. Interesting no?:D
You can easily find yourself in contempt of court if you try to be funny. If Samsung paid Apple in coins, they would be in contempt of court regardless of the fact that they paid up. You don't go fooling around with a court order trying to "one up" the court.
The PC market is doing fine. And it's been absolutely great for customers. The PC has democratized computing and the world is a better place because of it.
Did you say "surprising low"? What kind of markup (in percentage) do you think is "reasonable" and not "surprisingly low"? And perhaps you can also tell us what is "surprisingly high" just for comparison.
"Certain antitrust violations, conventionally described as 'per se' offenses, do not require proof of market or monopoly power. [FN7] Indeed, the label 'per se' seems to point to the irrelevance of market power. An essential characteristic of a 'per se' offense, however, seems to be that it constitutes behavior that, if engaged in by a firm with market power, would be egregiously anticompetitive. [FN8] Market power is treated as irrelevant only because 'per se' offenses involve behavior that courts have determined virtually always lacks plausible efficiency justifications; no harm is done, therefore, by condemning the practice without undergoing the expense of an inquiry into monopoly or market power. [FN9]"
Just checked out the history. It seems that Google negotiated a settlement with the German company after a while. It looked as if the local company had sued Google rather than the other way around as in this story!
I like Google. But if they sued someone over a trademark that was already in use before their own product, I would call them dicks as well. To my knowledge this hasn't happened - but I'm open to correction.
Suing someone in this way takes evil to a whole new level.
Breathtakingly arrogant. I wonder what possible reasons they could have given to the judge to demand that a company which had previously registered a trademark should take it down because they graced the market by introducing a phone with a similar name.
I'm not surprise that Apple lost. I'm stunned that they litigated in the first place. Looks like the tables turned on them since they have now lost the rights to "iPhone" entirely. I'm betting that this was not what they expected.
Slashdot Mirror
But...they need to protect the BILLIONS of dollars in investments they spend in R&D! You think this page turning animation is just common sense or something?
It's the principle of the matter isn't it? A person has the legal right to defend themselves.
Doesn't matter. Android users can still download the app directly from the developer if that's a distribution channel.
Then let them do that and give developers a chance to defend themselves in court.
Except that you can still install the software from other sources. Sometimes being "anti-Apple" is correct because there is a reason to be so.
But if you don't take that oath does it in any way relieve you of your obligation to tell the truth in court? Probably not.
How does god come into this? Does it mean an atheist can legally lie to the court?
Good explanation. Thank you.
Why doesn't everyone experience this? I'm guessing that genetics might make one susceptible which would seem to indicate a hardware issue rather than a software one.
I think those are more of hardware problems than software ones. Like a bad sector maybe.
I wonder if it's possible to "freeze" the brain like this? Take a program and sometimes if you feed it just the right nonsense, it might find an error it can't handle and freeze. Imagine if the brain had a similar flaw?
I mean maybe there is an incredibly complex series of inputs (perhaps spanning several days) that when presented to the human brain would cause it to "lock up" and the person would just stare blankly into space until they're "restarted". (I don't know how that would be done...).
In fact, in one of Asimov's novels he mentions this happening to a robot. An incredibly complicated series of inputs generated by a person who knew exactly what he was doing could (in theory) "freeze up" the AI program.
On the other hand, our brains have been tested to death in the real world. All those "bugs" have probably already been filtered out. But maybe a few remain uncaught. Interesting no? :D
You can easily find yourself in contempt of court if you try to be funny. If Samsung paid Apple in coins, they would be in contempt of court regardless of the fact that they paid up. You don't go fooling around with a court order trying to "one up" the court.
As opposed to?
The PC market is doing fine. And it's been absolutely great for customers. The PC has democratized computing and the world is a better place because of it.
There is more to the price then the cost of parts.
For electronics, it should be pretty much the cost of the parts. Look at the PC market.
Did you say "surprising low"? What kind of markup (in percentage) do you think is "reasonable" and not "surprisingly low"? And perhaps you can also tell us what is "surprisingly high" just for comparison.
As a reference:
"Certain antitrust violations, conventionally described as 'per se' offenses, do not require proof of market or monopoly power. [FN7] Indeed, the label 'per se' seems to point to the irrelevance of market power. An essential characteristic of a 'per se' offense, however, seems to be that it constitutes behavior that, if engaged in by a firm with market power, would be egregiously anticompetitive. [FN8] Market power is treated as irrelevant only because 'per se' offenses involve behavior that courts have determined virtually always lacks plausible efficiency justifications; no harm is done, therefore, by condemning the practice without undergoing the expense of an inquiry into monopoly or market power. [FN9]"
From: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/docs/222144.htm
But you don't always have to have a monopoly to be taken up on anti-trust issues.
Just checked out the history. It seems that Google negotiated a settlement with the German company after a while. It looked as if the local company had sued Google rather than the other way around as in this story!
I like Google. But if they sued someone over a trademark that was already in use before their own product, I would call them dicks as well. To my knowledge this hasn't happened - but I'm open to correction.
Suing someone in this way takes evil to a whole new level.
Breathtakingly arrogant. I wonder what possible reasons they could have given to the judge to demand that a company which had previously registered a trademark should take it down because they graced the market by introducing a phone with a similar name.
I'm not surprise that Apple lost. I'm stunned that they litigated in the first place. Looks like the tables turned on them since they have now lost the rights to "iPhone" entirely. I'm betting that this was not what they expected.
Till I reached the end of your comment, I thought you were being sarcastic...
Lots of people find the other functionality of a "smartphone" far more useful than the occasional call. I make around 3-4 calls a month with mine.
Oh? We can distribute iOS apps on something other than the app store? Your "toll road" happens to be the only road in existence.
Even theoretically it won't take the same energy. Second law of thermodynamics ftw!
So wait - newspaper can easily prevent Google from indexing their sites. This you agree with. So either they allow Google, or they don't.
Now...what exactly is your objection here? And how does Google owe anyone a living?