Apple does not lock all of their devices to their own App Store, Macintoshes are not (yet).
Not sure why you needed to argue that. What I am saying is Apples "App Store" will not be confused by anyone with another "App Store" unless they are complete moron since iPhones and iPads are tied to the service and have no other option. "App" is to "application" as "tat" is to "tattoo". People abbreviate things all the time. Hence I believe it should not be trademarkable. Its like allowing me to trademark "Tat shop".
Why would I want to do that? So I can waste peoples time arguing against things that should be common sense or making shit up that is completely outside the realm of reason? Heres a legal concept for you : a common abbreviation can not be a trademark. Its the same reason I cannot trademark "Book Store" when its a "Textbook Store" or "Shoe Store" when its a "Tennis shoe store". Eat shit.
Doesn't matter. Im almost positive people used "app" to describe an application way before Apple did. The same way people use "tat" to describe "tattoo" or "auto" to describe "automobile".
Except that "app" is an abbreviation for "application". Apple was stupid for picking such a name, it is way too generic. If you can trademark "App Store" then I may as well be able to trademark "Shoe Store" or "Book Store".
Except both make no sense. Windows is the name of an OS, hence if any other OS used the term Windows to apply to itself then its a violation of trade mark. The term "window", when used to refer to some application interface, is not in violation of the trademark. "App" however is an abbreviation for "Application", and I shouldn't even need to discuss "Store", hence any use thereof should be allowed. Now, if Apple wanted to use "iApp Store" or "App-le Store" or something that makes perfect sense. However, "App Store" for an application store is way more generic than "Windows" is to an OS. If "App Store" is able to be trademarked you may as well be able to trademark "PC Store" or "Cell Store" for a personal computer store or a cell-phone store. Its sort of a gray area, I agree, but Apple is stupid for picking such a generic name to begin with. "iTunes" is unique enough and should justifiably be trademarked and "Apple" is the same. Furthermore, since Apple locks their devices to their own App store I fail to see how anyone would confuse two different app stores anyway.
If you do a quick Google, you will find many surveys that show women actually cheat more often then men do. Now its hardly scientific, but I would argue this may be true. This is a hypothesis : There has been evidence that women are attracted to two types of men for different reasons. As far as a husband goes, women want a more nurturing, soft featured man. When it comes to sex however, women want a testosterone laden hunk. The problem is that the more testosterone a man has, the more uncontrollable he is and he will usually move on to other conquests. If a woman can score a softy for a husband that will raise their children for them and provide resources, while banging big buff angry dudes and keeping it hidden, they will have more competitive offspring since the offspring will have good genes and a safe environment to grow up in.
Uhh. Yes, monopolies are illegal. Its the reason antitrust laws exist. Apple is part of an oligopoly like the cell phone industry. Their business practice makes it even more-so anti-consumer. Im not saying app stores are bad, Im saying you have no choice to go with a different app store without actually decreasing the functionality of your phone, and the same is true for google. Im not sure why everyone is so willing to allow this behavior. Its desensitizing you for a day when there really will be a monopoly in everything and you will have to pay twice as much for half the product.
Fair enough. My old CS professor called NP "non-polynomial" time so NP=P meaning something like being able to reduced 2^N computations to N^power computations. I read about it again after your post it says something like P = "speedy solvability" and NP = "speedy checkability". With your encryption example I understand. So its like private/public key, easy to verify but takes forever to actually factor. It seems to me to be somewhat semantic, as NP implies it takes longer to solve than P if you were to actually brute force it. For the record, I am not a CS guy.
Agreed, but I had to think of something to say and that's the only field I know enough about to comment. Im sure there are better examples. It basically reduces something that requires ~ base^N computations or higher to only requiring ~ N^power computations. That's like reducing hours to seconds for sufficiently large N.
Uhh.. Pretty sure the budget won't balance because of 1) Unsustainable business practices by the financial "industry" causing a recession and 2) a Republican started and backed war on two fronts. Don't get me wrong, I can bitch about Democrats too such as the shitty health care bill.
You're right too but your answer is too short. As a professional computer scientist you need to go to conferences because your employer is giving you an excuse to go on an all expenses jolly and skip off work for a few days.
.... because then you can schmooze with some other CS professionals and/or professors and make a name for yourself thus increasing the probability of getting grants, contracts, funding in general, while also enabling collaborative efforts amongst scientists.
Well, we then can solve all sorts of scientific problems quite a bit faster. For example, suppose your grandfather has a brain aneurysm. Say a doctor wanted to make a 3D model of your grandpa's brain from CT and MRI scan's so that he could explore it, see where the aneurysm is, and then practice surgery on the 3D brain model so that he knew exactly how to do the surgery on your grandfather and avoid cutting on critical parts of his brain. This would increase the likelihood your grandpa would survive the surgery, and also probably reduce chances of complications since the surgeon would know exactly where the aneurysm is and will have already practiced the surgery. Currently, building accurate 3D models is very slow from 2D picture "slices" of CT / MRI scans. If P=NP, then there exists a way that it can be sped up significantly, maybe saving hours to days of time and allowing the doctor to do his work faster thus also increasing the chance your grandfather will not have complications. Sure, it may also mean it can enable someone to steal his credit card number, but there is research into biometric security that P=NP will help out as well by making it faster to do. Biometric security means having ATM machines that would recognize your face, fingerprints, voice or a picture of your iris and identify you uniquely without having to put in any silly numbers.
I work for a computational biomedicine lab now as a scientist in training but I worked in something called an "Extension Service" IT dept. while at my undergrad university. It was basically a state-wide IT support for vocational, agricultural and health education. We were the central office. The only saving grace here is that WebOS is coming out (albeit with a slow moving app store), and Microsoft and RIM are joining the fray too. At least now we have a choice between 5 different coal towns. I like being able to use other channels for software, just like a PC or a Mac. You can at least go through a variety of distributors or even download it direct from the developer. Even if app stores are convenient, I don't really care for the locked down nature of the devices. Especially since I believe mobile computing will supplant desktops and probably most laptops as well in all but scientific and maybe IT administration applications. Its going to get to the point (maybe in 20-30 years) where you will be seen as some backwoods mofo akin to that slow-old-lady-that-still-uses-checks-at-the-cash-register-and-wastes-your-time if you don't have a smart phone or a tablet or something because normal day to day activities in the city will require one. This being the case, the more competition in the market place, the better it is for the consumer. Its like we are trading the freedom of having a PC (I include mac here) for proprietary models with the Verizon/AT&T/Sprint oligopoly and another Google/Apple/Microsoft oligopoly. In spite of the benefits, there's always a trade off and I don't much care for this one but I suppose its too early to tell if it will get better or worse.
Another Apple fanboi that can't handle any criticism due to his religious devotion to his company perhaps? Perhaps we differ in philosophy and I don't like the fact that there are essentially two choices for app stores out there right now and both are just as bad. Hence my "coal town" analogy. Even with automobiles which are supposed to be pretty much proprietary as far as their design and layout goes you can buy many things from a variety of manufacturers and through different channels. Sure, retailers mark up maybe 30 percent buy guess what? I have a choice to go through hundred of retailers, many of which actually charge even wholesale prices. If you like being tethered to Apples or Googles tit with their hand skimming money out of your wallet be my guest, just leave me alone about it.
You will feel better to know that even if a movie makes millions they somehow end up breaking even or posting a loss due to creative accounting, and thus they are rarely taxed as much as they should be.
Well, you can't install software on the iPods, iPhones or iPad without going through Apple, and they take a chunk of all sales. Frankly, I understand the benefit of having app stores and what not, but Apple is definitely bordering on a monopoly. Sure, you can say the existence of other app stores makes it not so, but if you had to buy all your supplies in a company owned town from a company owned store, the existence of some other company owned town with the same situation doesn't justify the existence of the first and vice verci.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple does not lock all of their devices to their own App Store, Macintoshes are not (yet).
Not sure why you needed to argue that. What I am saying is Apples "App Store" will not be confused by anyone with another "App Store" unless they are complete moron since iPhones and iPads are tied to the service and have no other option. "App" is to "application" as "tat" is to "tattoo". People abbreviate things all the time. Hence I believe it should not be trademarkable. Its like allowing me to trademark "Tat shop".
Why would I want to do that? So I can waste peoples time arguing against things that should be common sense or making shit up that is completely outside the realm of reason? Heres a legal concept for you : a common abbreviation can not be a trademark. Its the same reason I cannot trademark "Book Store" when its a "Textbook Store" or "Shoe Store" when its a "Tennis shoe store". Eat shit.
Doesn't matter. Im almost positive people used "app" to describe an application way before Apple did. The same way people use "tat" to describe "tattoo" or "auto" to describe "automobile".
Except that "app" is an abbreviation for "application". Apple was stupid for picking such a name, it is way too generic. If you can trademark "App Store" then I may as well be able to trademark "Shoe Store" or "Book Store".
Except both make no sense. Windows is the name of an OS, hence if any other OS used the term Windows to apply to itself then its a violation of trade mark. The term "window", when used to refer to some application interface, is not in violation of the trademark. "App" however is an abbreviation for "Application", and I shouldn't even need to discuss "Store", hence any use thereof should be allowed. Now, if Apple wanted to use "iApp Store" or "App-le Store" or something that makes perfect sense. However, "App Store" for an application store is way more generic than "Windows" is to an OS. If "App Store" is able to be trademarked you may as well be able to trademark "PC Store" or "Cell Store" for a personal computer store or a cell-phone store. Its sort of a gray area, I agree, but Apple is stupid for picking such a generic name to begin with. "iTunes" is unique enough and should justifiably be trademarked and "Apple" is the same. Furthermore, since Apple locks their devices to their own App store I fail to see how anyone would confuse two different app stores anyway.
If you do a quick Google, you will find many surveys that show women actually cheat more often then men do. Now its hardly scientific, but I would argue this may be true. This is a hypothesis : There has been evidence that women are attracted to two types of men for different reasons. As far as a husband goes, women want a more nurturing, soft featured man. When it comes to sex however, women want a testosterone laden hunk. The problem is that the more testosterone a man has, the more uncontrollable he is and he will usually move on to other conquests. If a woman can score a softy for a husband that will raise their children for them and provide resources, while banging big buff angry dudes and keeping it hidden, they will have more competitive offspring since the offspring will have good genes and a safe environment to grow up in.
Uhh. Yes, monopolies are illegal. Its the reason antitrust laws exist. Apple is part of an oligopoly like the cell phone industry. Their business practice makes it even more-so anti-consumer. Im not saying app stores are bad, Im saying you have no choice to go with a different app store without actually decreasing the functionality of your phone, and the same is true for google. Im not sure why everyone is so willing to allow this behavior. Its desensitizing you for a day when there really will be a monopoly in everything and you will have to pay twice as much for half the product.
Fair enough. My old CS professor called NP "non-polynomial" time so NP=P meaning something like being able to reduced 2^N computations to N^power computations. I read about it again after your post it says something like P = "speedy solvability" and NP = "speedy checkability". With your encryption example I understand. So its like private/public key, easy to verify but takes forever to actually factor. It seems to me to be somewhat semantic, as NP implies it takes longer to solve than P if you were to actually brute force it. For the record, I am not a CS guy.
As it flies over my head? No, I mean I call bullshit as he is bullshitting. Bullshit is a large set which includes sarcasm.
Polynomial time vs. Non-polynomial time? That's what I thought it meant. Ok. So its Quick solvability vs. Quick checkability and if P=NP its both.
It means that you can solve something that would take you hours in seconds. Maybe even something that would take you days in seconds.
Agreed, but I had to think of something to say and that's the only field I know enough about to comment. Im sure there are better examples. It basically reduces something that requires ~ base^N computations or higher to only requiring ~ N^power computations. That's like reducing hours to seconds for sufficiently large N.
When I was in Utah, all I could drink was watered down beer and the hookers wanted me to join their church and add them to my harem.
Uhh.. Pretty sure the budget won't balance because of 1) Unsustainable business practices by the financial "industry" causing a recession and 2) a Republican started and backed war on two fronts. Don't get me wrong, I can bitch about Democrats too such as the shitty health care bill.
Excuse me, I meant getting a paper accepted to ICCV is like getting a journal paper.
ICCV is a big one in my field which is about the same as getting a conference paper.
You're right too but your answer is too short. As a professional computer scientist you need to go to conferences because your employer is giving you an excuse to go on an all expenses jolly and skip off work for a few days.
Well, we then can solve all sorts of scientific problems quite a bit faster. For example, suppose your grandfather has a brain aneurysm. Say a doctor wanted to make a 3D model of your grandpa's brain from CT and MRI scan's so that he could explore it, see where the aneurysm is, and then practice surgery on the 3D brain model so that he knew exactly how to do the surgery on your grandfather and avoid cutting on critical parts of his brain. This would increase the likelihood your grandpa would survive the surgery, and also probably reduce chances of complications since the surgeon would know exactly where the aneurysm is and will have already practiced the surgery. Currently, building accurate 3D models is very slow from 2D picture "slices" of CT / MRI scans. If P=NP, then there exists a way that it can be sped up significantly, maybe saving hours to days of time and allowing the doctor to do his work faster thus also increasing the chance your grandfather will not have complications. Sure, it may also mean it can enable someone to steal his credit card number, but there is research into biometric security that P=NP will help out as well by making it faster to do. Biometric security means having ATM machines that would recognize your face, fingerprints, voice or a picture of your iris and identify you uniquely without having to put in any silly numbers.
I work for a computational biomedicine lab now as a scientist in training but I worked in something called an "Extension Service" IT dept. while at my undergrad university. It was basically a state-wide IT support for vocational, agricultural and health education. We were the central office. The only saving grace here is that WebOS is coming out (albeit with a slow moving app store), and Microsoft and RIM are joining the fray too. At least now we have a choice between 5 different coal towns. I like being able to use other channels for software, just like a PC or a Mac. You can at least go through a variety of distributors or even download it direct from the developer. Even if app stores are convenient, I don't really care for the locked down nature of the devices. Especially since I believe mobile computing will supplant desktops and probably most laptops as well in all but scientific and maybe IT administration applications. Its going to get to the point (maybe in 20-30 years) where you will be seen as some backwoods mofo akin to that slow-old-lady-that-still-uses-checks-at-the-cash-register-and-wastes-your-time if you don't have a smart phone or a tablet or something because normal day to day activities in the city will require one. This being the case, the more competition in the market place, the better it is for the consumer. Its like we are trading the freedom of having a PC (I include mac here) for proprietary models with the Verizon/AT&T/Sprint oligopoly and another Google/Apple/Microsoft oligopoly. In spite of the benefits, there's always a trade off and I don't much care for this one but I suppose its too early to tell if it will get better or worse.
Theres alway some dumb fuck that fails to realize / . is a public forum and it doesn't matter what he thinks it should be.
Another Apple fanboi that can't handle any criticism due to his religious devotion to his company perhaps? Perhaps we differ in philosophy and I don't like the fact that there are essentially two choices for app stores out there right now and both are just as bad. Hence my "coal town" analogy. Even with automobiles which are supposed to be pretty much proprietary as far as their design and layout goes you can buy many things from a variety of manufacturers and through different channels. Sure, retailers mark up maybe 30 percent buy guess what? I have a choice to go through hundred of retailers, many of which actually charge even wholesale prices. If you like being tethered to Apples or Googles tit with their hand skimming money out of your wallet be my guest, just leave me alone about it.
Yes. Suing people over buttons is exactly what a literary executor is supposed to do.
Which is why China is going to win. They only pay attention to copyrights as long as we keep buying their products.
You will feel better to know that even if a movie makes millions they somehow end up breaking even or posting a loss due to creative accounting, and thus they are rarely taxed as much as they should be.
Well, you can't install software on the iPods, iPhones or iPad without going through Apple, and they take a chunk of all sales. Frankly, I understand the benefit of having app stores and what not, but Apple is definitely bordering on a monopoly. Sure, you can say the existence of other app stores makes it not so, but if you had to buy all your supplies in a company owned town from a company owned store, the existence of some other company owned town with the same situation doesn't justify the existence of the first and vice verci.