Apparently VirnetX wants over $700 million to allow Apple to connect users directly (article isn't clear if that's in addition to the $328 million they already won). At the $2.4 million/month Apple is currently paying to relay calls, that costs more than 24 years worth of relaying. The patents will have expired long before that.
I doubt most people buy that. I have a better solution: end the school.
And then what? Either the kids get spread out among better performing schools with the more involved students and parents, or they get moved into another shitty school. Option 1 is essentially the same solution that the poster you were disagreeing with was advocating (mix low achieving/low interest students with enough engaged achievers and, as studies show, the low-achievers will improve), and option 2 produces no change whatsoever. There isn't an easy solution to this - and that includes both getting everyone to send their kids to public schools (never going to happen, and effective segregation by neighborhood/town is a giant roadblock) and just "ending" the school.
Re: If by "looking good", you mean "looking like i
on
Inside OS X Mavericks
·
· Score: 1
Uh, you can. Mouse settings and trackpad settings are separate.
AirDrop doesn't require a connection to a standard wifi network - it uses an ad hoc connection between source and destination device (that way you and your friend/coworker don't need to be on the same network - or even any network - at all). This requires the wifi hardware to be able to *simultaneously* support both infrastructure and ad hoc networking modes, because nobody wants to lose thei wifi connection just because they've turned on AirDrop. Hence the restriction to more modern Macs and the iPhone 5 and later (seriously, if they were trying to push sales with this feature why not require the iPhone 5s?).
Hear, hear. This is exactly what I did last year to lose 60 pounds over 6 months. Everyone wanted to know what brand of wacky diet and/or exercise regimen I was on; I'm a lazy fucker who hates exercise and my deist consisted of eating everything I like to eat, just eating less of it! Dinners in particular - I love to cook delicious meals or go out to nice restaurants, and I didn't stop doing either one.
Ate a very small breakfast, even smaller lunch (often half a bag of popcorn - filling but ~120 calories), and had a normal meal for dinner, except for not ordering any more appetizers. And no more midnight snacks - I might go to sleep slightly hungry, but I was no less hungry on waking than I'd have been if I had snacked.
The correct gender neutral word is "their" instead of "his" or "her," and "they" instead of "he" or "she." Historically I think the male form was the standard generic term, but of late the obvious sexism inherent with that has led people to say things like "his or her" and "s/he" -- or just randomly using both "his" and "her" in the course of their writing. All those are silly, IMO, since we have the neutral words their and they (some people don't like these because they think those words must be plural, but that is not correct).
No, because the auto manufacturer is not using that as a way to boost the apparent top speed of the car. Also, you clearly have no idea how a speedometer works or what it's intended accuracy is: about 3% leeway is average, almost exclusively leaning toward the high side (imagine the legal/safety issues if your car duped you into speeding). The speedometer ultimately estimates your speed based on the rpm of your tires against the road - your tire size, the amount of wear on the tire, and the inflation pressure all have an effect on this rpm (they all affect the effective diameter of the tire). There is no practical way to get a 100% accurate speedometer with these constantly varying conditions, so manufacturers tend to err on the side of caution. This well-known information and not some kind of conspiracy to inflate top speeds (which are tested on a track using external equipment, not the car's speedometer!).
Quite the opposite, if you file and are granted a patent for something that is later ruled invalid, there should be substantial penalties for the filer, because the purpose of a patent application is a government granted monopoly, leveraging the legal power and force of government to suppress other business.
But Apple didn't file for this patent - Fingerworks did. Apple bought them out in 2005 so they could use pinch-to-zoom along with other Fingerworks patents.
I'm not saying its the patent offices job to search for prior art, (but if Joe Random can find prior art why can't they?), but voiding all of these patents only AFTER they have been issued
and appealed, and used in court, and enforced by various import bans, and inflicted untold damage on the market place just seems backwards.
I thought searching for prior art was part of a patent examiner's job. Is that not correct?
As you say, allowing shitty patents that later get overturned causes a great deal of damage to the market (and expense to our court system). It's interesting to note that Apple can also claim to have been damaged by this - after all, pinch-to-zoom (along with other gestures) was actually patented by Fingerworks, which Apple bought in 2005. Apple actually went the right way on this, legally - they wanted this patented technology, so they paid for it. Others went ahead and used it without buying or licensing, and now 8 years later the USPTO is essentially telling Apple their money was wasted.
Your argument defeats itself. As you pointed out (as the court determined), it took many players working together to raise the price of ebooks. That's the definition of collusion. Not a monopoly.
As far as I'm aware, only Broadcom, Qualcomm, and Marvell have ARM architecture licenses that allow them to design custom logic compatible with the v7/v8 instruction sets. Everyone else is building SOC's with the reference implementation provided by ARM.
You are unaware. Apple is an ARM architecture licensee. Apple'a A6 core is a fully customized architecture - the Anandtech link I already posted made that clear.
And while we're on the subject, let's not also forget ARM's historical ties with Apple in designing ARM cores in the 80's and 90's.
There is a level between being free to go and being arrested: being detained. That is the status of the citizen in your hypothetical. There is a lower burden of proof for an officer to detain you, but the loss of freedom is smaller in scope.
Say for example you're in a bar and a fight breaks out in which you aren't involved, injuries occur, and the police show up. They can detain you (and everyone else in the vicinity) for a brief period while they talk to witnesses and sort things out. They aren't arresting you. They have no cause (yet) to arrest you. They DO have cause to restrict your freedom for a brief period while they determine who what happened and who (if anyone) should actually be arrested.
As it says in TFS, is the guy in question WAS NOT being detained.
Facebook's business is not spying on third party pages.... Facebook's business IS about you telling them about you. Who you are. What you are. Who your friends are. What you like. Where you are.
And that's EXACTLY why they want to spy on you when you're on third party pages. You've contradicted yourself.
Not only is that completely contradicted by the article, it's completely contradicted by the rest of your post, which boils down to "sure they're tracking the specifics of what you buy and are data mining it to extract personal information on you, but it's done by a computer so who cares?"
Perhaps the teenage girl discussed in the article, who had her pregnancy outed to her family, cares?
I'd call your attempt at defending this utterly transparent, except somehow you got an insightful mod.
its like the idiots who think the supermarkets are tracking them personally with the loyalty cards. stores want aggregate data and purchase bundles to do loss leader promotions. they really couldn't care what you buy personally
Bullshit. Careful who you call idiot, lest you look even more the fool.
Then for more context in this subthread: if you have multiple monitors hooked up to your Mac and you use the full-screen feature, the window fills the monitor it is on and the other monitor becomes utterly useless, filled with a blank grey texture. Quite frustrating to power users with multiple displays. I think this was a byproduct of (1) Apple imagining full screen would be used primarily on single, small laptop screens, and (2) the fact that each fullscreen window lived in its own Space (virtual desktop), and Spaces as they currently stand take over all monitors as a unit. Note that along with fixing this full screen annoyance in 10.9, the updated Spaces can (must?) create separate virtual desktops for each monitor.
On the Mac, full-screen is a feature wherein the window essentially takes control of the entire screen - even the menu bar and the dock are hidden (sliding in on mouseover when necessary), and the window title bar is removed, too. Basically the screen becomes nothing but the content view of the window, plus the window's toolbar if there is one. This screen actually becomes its own Space (Spaces being OS X's virtual desktops implementation). This may be particularly useful to someone working on an 11" or 13" MacBook; less so on larger screens.
"Maximizing," in the sense I was using it, simply means to make the window as big as possible. The dock (assuming you don't have it hidden at all times), the menu bar, the window title bar, etc. are all still visible. The window doesn't get its own Space. It's just a window.
Hmm... Works fine in Safari, Opera, IE9, and Chrome; in Firefox it takes about ten seconds for the arrow to appear but it works from there on out. If you're having issues try turning off Javascript; you'll be able to scroll through the various sections rather than wading through the HTML 5 glitz.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently VirnetX wants over $700 million to allow Apple to connect users directly (article isn't clear if that's in addition to the $328 million they already won). At the $2.4 million/month Apple is currently paying to relay calls, that costs more than 24 years worth of relaying. The patents will have expired long before that.
I doubt most people buy that. I have a better solution: end the school.
And then what? Either the kids get spread out among better performing schools with the more involved students and parents, or they get moved into another shitty school. Option 1 is essentially the same solution that the poster you were disagreeing with was advocating (mix low achieving/low interest students with enough engaged achievers and, as studies show, the low-achievers will improve), and option 2 produces no change whatsoever. There isn't an easy solution to this - and that includes both getting everyone to send their kids to public schools (never going to happen, and effective segregation by neighborhood/town is a giant roadblock) and just "ending" the school.
Uh, you can. Mouse settings and trackpad settings are separate.
AirDrop doesn't require a connection to a standard wifi network - it uses an ad hoc connection between source and destination device (that way you and your friend/coworker don't need to be on the same network - or even any network - at all). This requires the wifi hardware to be able to *simultaneously* support both infrastructure and ad hoc networking modes, because nobody wants to lose thei wifi connection just because they've turned on AirDrop. Hence the restriction to more modern Macs and the iPhone 5 and later (seriously, if they were trying to push sales with this feature why not require the iPhone 5s?).
Don't be ludicrous. That would be tantamount to creating "undo" for the entire Internet. It would be a technological marvel to pull that off!
Hear, hear. This is exactly what I did last year to lose 60 pounds over 6 months. Everyone wanted to know what brand of wacky diet and/or exercise regimen I was on; I'm a lazy fucker who hates exercise and my deist consisted of eating everything I like to eat, just eating less of it! Dinners in particular - I love to cook delicious meals or go out to nice restaurants, and I didn't stop doing either one.
Ate a very small breakfast, even smaller lunch (often half a bag of popcorn - filling but ~120 calories), and had a normal meal for dinner, except for not ordering any more appetizers. And no more midnight snacks - I might go to sleep slightly hungry, but I was no less hungry on waking than I'd have been if I had snacked.
Forget this common, everyday cloning stuff... Come back to me when they invent the nanotech to restore the other three-quarters of the horse.
The correct gender neutral word is "their" instead of "his" or "her," and "they" instead of "he" or "she." Historically I think the male form was the standard generic term, but of late the obvious sexism inherent with that has led people to say things like "his or her" and "s/he" -- or just randomly using both "his" and "her" in the course of their writing. All those are silly, IMO, since we have the neutral words their and they (some people don't like these because they think those words must be plural, but that is not correct).
And yet, Google rolled over for the NSA years earlier than Apple. Methinks the NSA prefers Android if they have a preference at all...
I didn't realize the whole premise of Doctor Who involved the Doctor's penis. Tell us more!
The 11th doctor, upon feeling his hair after regeneration, thinks for a moment that he might be a woman. Clearly it is possible, then.
No, because the auto manufacturer is not using that as a way to boost the apparent top speed of the car. Also, you clearly have no idea how a speedometer works or what it's intended accuracy is: about 3% leeway is average, almost exclusively leaning toward the high side (imagine the legal/safety issues if your car duped you into speeding). The speedometer ultimately estimates your speed based on the rpm of your tires against the road - your tire size, the amount of wear on the tire, and the inflation pressure all have an effect on this rpm (they all affect the effective diameter of the tire). There is no practical way to get a 100% accurate speedometer with these constantly varying conditions, so manufacturers tend to err on the side of caution. This well-known information and not some kind of conspiracy to inflate top speeds (which are tested on a track using external equipment, not the car's speedometer!).
Quite the opposite, if you file and are granted a patent for something that is later ruled invalid, there should be substantial penalties for the filer, because the purpose of a patent application is a government granted monopoly, leveraging the legal power and force of government to suppress other business.
But Apple didn't file for this patent - Fingerworks did. Apple bought them out in 2005 so they could use pinch-to-zoom along with other Fingerworks patents.
I'm not saying its the patent offices job to search for prior art, (but if Joe Random can find prior art why can't they?), but voiding all of these patents only AFTER they have been issued and appealed, and used in court, and enforced by various import bans, and inflicted untold damage on the market place just seems backwards.
I thought searching for prior art was part of a patent examiner's job. Is that not correct?
As you say, allowing shitty patents that later get overturned causes a great deal of damage to the market (and expense to our court system). It's interesting to note that Apple can also claim to have been damaged by this - after all, pinch-to-zoom (along with other gestures) was actually patented by Fingerworks, which Apple bought in 2005. Apple actually went the right way on this, legally - they wanted this patented technology, so they paid for it. Others went ahead and used it without buying or licensing, and now 8 years later the USPTO is essentially telling Apple their money was wasted.
Your argument defeats itself. As you pointed out (as the court determined), it took many players working together to raise the price of ebooks. That's the definition of collusion. Not a monopoly.
Let's guess
No, how about some facts?
As far as I'm aware, only Broadcom, Qualcomm, and Marvell have ARM architecture licenses that allow them to design custom logic compatible with the v7/v8 instruction sets. Everyone else is building SOC's with the reference implementation provided by ARM.
You are unaware. Apple is an ARM architecture licensee. Apple'a A6 core is a fully customized architecture - the Anandtech link I already posted made that clear.
And while we're on the subject, let's not also forget ARM's historical ties with Apple in designing ARM cores in the 80's and 90's.
Apple uses their own custom-designed ARM CPU core.
There is a level between being free to go and being arrested: being detained. That is the status of the citizen in your hypothetical. There is a lower burden of proof for an officer to detain you, but the loss of freedom is smaller in scope.
Say for example you're in a bar and a fight breaks out in which you aren't involved, injuries occur, and the police show up. They can detain you (and everyone else in the vicinity) for a brief period while they talk to witnesses and sort things out. They aren't arresting you. They have no cause (yet) to arrest you. They DO have cause to restrict your freedom for a brief period while they determine who what happened and who (if anyone) should actually be arrested.
As it says in TFS, is the guy in question WAS NOT being detained.
Facebook's business is not spying on third party pages. ... Facebook's business IS about you telling them about you. Who you are. What you are. Who your friends are. What you like. Where you are.
And that's EXACTLY why they want to spy on you when you're on third party pages. You've contradicted yourself.
that's still aggregate data.
Bullshit, again.
Not only is that completely contradicted by the article, it's completely contradicted by the rest of your post, which boils down to "sure they're tracking the specifics of what you buy and are data mining it to extract personal information on you, but it's done by a computer so who cares?"
Perhaps the teenage girl discussed in the article, who had her pregnancy outed to her family, cares?
I'd call your attempt at defending this utterly transparent, except somehow you got an insightful mod.
its like the idiots who think the supermarkets are tracking them personally with the loyalty cards. stores want aggregate data and purchase bundles to do loss leader promotions. they really couldn't care what you buy personally
Bullshit. Careful who you call idiot, lest you look even more the fool.
Then for more context in this subthread: if you have multiple monitors hooked up to your Mac and you use the full-screen feature, the window fills the monitor it is on and the other monitor becomes utterly useless, filled with a blank grey texture. Quite frustrating to power users with multiple displays. I think this was a byproduct of (1) Apple imagining full screen would be used primarily on single, small laptop screens, and (2) the fact that each fullscreen window lived in its own Space (virtual desktop), and Spaces as they currently stand take over all monitors as a unit. Note that along with fixing this full screen annoyance in 10.9, the updated Spaces can (must?) create separate virtual desktops for each monitor.
On the Mac, full-screen is a feature wherein the window essentially takes control of the entire screen - even the menu bar and the dock are hidden (sliding in on mouseover when necessary), and the window title bar is removed, too. Basically the screen becomes nothing but the content view of the window, plus the window's toolbar if there is one. This screen actually becomes its own Space (Spaces being OS X's virtual desktops implementation). This may be particularly useful to someone working on an 11" or 13" MacBook; less so on larger screens.
"Maximizing," in the sense I was using it, simply means to make the window as big as possible. The dock (assuming you don't have it hidden at all times), the menu bar, the window title bar, etc. are all still visible. The window doesn't get its own Space. It's just a window.
Hmm... Works fine in Safari, Opera, IE9, and Chrome; in Firefox it takes about ten seconds for the arrow to appear but it works from there on out. If you're having issues try turning off Javascript; you'll be able to scroll through the various sections rather than wading through the HTML 5 glitz.