The issue is that those numbers only tell a tiny portion of the story.. you cannot write an app for example to the 2.1 version of android and expect it to A) run on all 2.1 equipped devices or B) downgrade gracefully on 2.2 devices..
If you split out the 4 major percentage share holders to just the most basic differences you will rapidly discover that within 2.1 you have:
Standard with Google apps no custom UI devices With Google apps and a custom UI devices No google apps no custom UI devices No Google apps custom UI devices..
Further you can break down the "with google apps + a custom UI to include at least the following:
MotoBlur Sense Misc tiny marketshare customized versions..
And finally you have to take into account every single library change that was done by either the carrier for apps they have custom done to run on their version of a handset, as well as library changes done at the handset maker level..
Sure some of these devices will run apps coded to the 1.5 api flawlessly.. some however will definately not...
Sure you can segment within the android market based on whatever criteria you want as a developer.. but at that point you are not really creating "android" apps but rather you are creating Motorola Droid X or HTC Incredible apps.. which is a very different story than creating just an android app..
Keep in mind one of the "great benefits" of android was supposed to be to make life easier than "the way it was before" which was coding to specific API on specific carrier with various hurdles to jump through...
The general problem to sum this all up is.. you cannot have it both ways (and its just as true of windows and every other multiple device/multi manufacturer OS) "Android" being succesful can either be measured by how many devices it sells that are just as different from each other as the iphone is from a winphone7 or android phone (from a developer perspective) OR Google can attempt to reign in the versions and lock down what must exist to be called an android X.X device.. Else we are just comparing apples to oranges.. (just as having apple TV and iPad in the iOS numbers does not tell the real story, neither does lumping the G1 and the Samsung Behold in with the Droid and calling them all "android")
Because your on a bandwidth quota? or a slow connection? as the person you replied to stated?
Say its a 4.7gb ISO of Debian.. you have gotten 4.2gb of it.. by using his method you can download 500megs rather than starting over with a 4.7gig image?
That said this rarely if ever works since most of the images of ISO you will find are "different" in some way to the other attempted DL... or unavailable at all..
For example.. we have a 4 member computer network Member 1 downloads a wow patch via the net over torrent.. when member 2,3 and 4 come online and try to grab patch.. it will seed from member 1s machine at local lan speed to the 3 other machines..
Local Peers solve most of that (in the article they discuss patches for operating systems etc) for example in a company of a hundred computers.. once a computer on the network has a chunk of a file, every PC on that local network will be sharing it internally, rather than grabbing from an external site..
The biggest issue/obstacle facing using bittorrent like technology is the asymetric bandwidth on the majority of internet connections.. even then however local peers can be used within a subnetwork for example tampa roadrunner users could in theory download from or give preference to nodes within that particular ISP's network..
Linux switching to torrent based patching would likely not be enough of a reason for big ISP to "unthrottle" or "lift restrictions" on p2p protocols/traffic.. if however MS where to do so.. could go a long way toward lifting the stigma of P2P type downloading..
However as a USER, it already drives me to distraction that Activision/Blizzard essentially prints money on demand via WoW, the end users are the ones paying for the patching bandwidth
There is a reason your tagged flamebait, and it has alot to do with ignorance and inability to read and comprehend.
but Lemme spell it out for you so you can be educated..
P.O.D.S. is the actual branding for that company, it is an acronym for Portable On Demand Storage..
The Logo and Service Mark are eseentially the 4 letters done in block format white on red background.. which is all designed to reinforce the fact that this is in fact an acronym and not a word.
So yah despite your apparent inability to read lemme give you some links to basic info on the various subjects presented:
Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual lawful use of the trademark. These rights will cease if a mark is not actively used for a period of time, normally 5 years in most jurisdictions. In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark in the lawful course of trade, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to become liable for an application for the removal from the register after a certain period of time on the grounds of "non-use". It is not necessary for a trademark owner to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential. This is designed to prevent owners from continually being tied up in litigation for fear of cancellation. An owner can at any time commence action for infringement against a third party as long as it had not previously notified the third party of its discontent following third party use and then failed to take action within a reasonable period of time (called acquiescence). The owner can always reserve the right to take legal action until a court decides that the third party had gained notoriety which the owner 'must' have been aware of. It will be for the third party to prove their use of the mark is substantial as it is the onus of a company using a mark to check they are not infringing previously registered rights. In the US, owing to the overwhelming number of unregistered rights, trademark applicants are advised to perform searches not just of the trademark register but of local business directories and relevant trade press. Specialized search companies perform such tasks prior to application. All jurisdictions with a mature trademark registration system provide a mechanism for removal in the event of such non use, which is usually a period of either three or five years. The intention to use a trademark can be proven by a wide range of acts as shown in the "Wooly Bull" and "Ashton v Harlee" cases. In the U.S., failure to use a trademark for this period of time, aside from the corresponding impact on product quality, will result in abandonment of the mark, whereby any party may use the mark. An abandoned mark is not irrevocably in the public domain, but may instead be re-registered by any party which has re-established exclusive and active use, and must be associated or linked with the original mark owner. If a court rules that a trademark has become "generic" through common use (such that the mark no longer performs the essential trademark function and the average consumer no longer considers that exclusive rights attach to it), the corresponding registration may also be ruled invalid. For examples, see trademark distinctiveness. Unlike other forms of intellectual property (e.g., patents and copyrights) a registered trademark can, theoretically, last forever. So long as a trademark's use is continuous a trademark holder may keep the mark registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by filing Section 8 Affidavit(s) of Continuous Use as well as Section 9 Applications for renewal, as required. Specifically, once registered with the U.S. Patent and Trade
Doesn't matter when it was incepted, this is *not* about patents or creation date.. this is about trademark/service marks.. which are by definition generic terms that are attached to specific products and marketed (the company using them creates the value attached to them)
But yes apparently the videopod has been in development for the last 12 years which predates the release and marketing of iPod..
Of course there are cases where people cannot use their own name due to it being trademarked (in some cases 30-50 years prior to their birth heh)
Its also written into law that if you do not "rigorously defend" trademarks/service marks, they can be ruled in the public domain..
You also to pass a reasonability test... first off PODS storage is *not* actually called or branded as such, they are an acronym for Portable On Demand Storage (a side business of Public Storage iirc).. secondly its not "pod" as a unique name, its about Pod as part of a name in context of consumer electronics devices..
Regardless of how long the video pod device has been in gestation or internally named as such, the fact of the matter is that Apple has spent billions promoting the iPod in that market, and as such any newcomer to market has to adapt.. not the other way around..
For case studies on Copyright/Trademark defense you should look up Kleenex, Xerox, Lexis-Nexis vs Toyota(Lexus), Infinity vs Nissan (Infinity branded cars) for some of the history (from both sides of the argument as well as "equal vs equal" battles in the case of the Infinity trademark.
Its *reasonable* to state that a consumer seeing a VideoPod in a consumer electronics store would assume it to be related to iPods in some way.. that same reasonable assumption cannot be said regarding Pipeline management, Moving supplies or seeds (though I think you are reaching very firmly into ludicrous land when you grabbed at that one)
its not again about seeing "any use of the generic syllable pod in a product name.. " but rather the appending of pod to a product name in such a way that it implies a relationship to iPod/etc
Your guess is very wrong, the defendant in this suit is coming out with a product 10 years after billions of advertising have been spent on ipod/ipad/etc and trying to ride coat tails.. and using this as "free advertising" for a product that has not made it to market despite 12 years of work on it.. remember naming is not like patents.. even if he had INTERNALLY named the product VideoPod years before apple filed its first use of the iPod trademark.. the fact that he was not in fact using it in any way and had not defended it means he loses it
It was actually atari 2600 with first lockout system... Though it was not hardware but rather contract based.. they went to court against Activision who was formed with the intent of defrauding Atari out of cartridge royalties by producing carts without buying them through Atari.. this (and the lawsuit that was lost by Atari over the Honor System they went by) is the reason why Nintendo put the "is this a real cartridge" check in the Famicom/NES.
Except that the truck was already there unless you live seriously outside the norm the major carriers all move through every street in america every single day they operate.. you can say they waste time/energy/gas stopping the truck getting out and waiting for you to answer the door..
its not a "special 20 mile trip out of the distribution center just for your package" its just one more stop on the endless route that they do every day..
The reason for the requirement for signature/delivery to the billing address is not the shippers its the sellers/credit card companies who used to get hammered with mass fraud..
It presumes a set of criteria that are illogical and impossible in the real world.. and is an effort to stem the tide of avoiding high street overcharging by shopping online where there is significantly more competition.
This info would only be partially true if delivery vehicles where dispatched from the distribution center to your house/office for ONLY your orders.. and not as is actual practice running routes that include not just your order from shop a, but in many cases hundreds of individual orders from hundreds of shops every single time the lorry leaves the distribution center.
Granted rural locations are likely not seeing 4-5 different delivery firms making full routes of the entire streetmap every single day.. but even so.. they seem to be comparing *cost of a normal vehicle for a family or individual" vs "cost of running a delivery lorry with nothing but 1 package on it" but even then the fact of the matter is that if a single car has to drive 30 km round trip and that takes a liter of petrol.. to purchase an ipod... it would have to cost the delivery service that same liter of petrol to deliver that single package to you.. which clearly it does not.. even if a lorry is only getting 10km per liter its likely delivering far more packages per liter than any personal vehicle is likely to accomplish.
In short this report is a paid for by city center/high street shopping interests who wish to maintain high margins by stemming the flow of sales away from online back to their high priced and highly inefficient retail locations.
Get one of the little 200-300$ book sized atom/ion devices such as the revo or one of the Zotac boxes throw ubuntu and xbmc on it and call it a day. (alternatively you could also pickup a last gen AppleTV and install boxee/xbmc on it via thumbdrive)
Just because your using a oversized/overpowered device to run xbmc, does not mean that xbmc is not the right tool for the job:P
Except that if you follow that logic the system makes no sense.. clearly they believe that *most* of the names they have are real valid names, or theres no point in the system existing *at all*
Lets see 19.99 retail wow box Check Free email account with one of the myriad providers.. check Gamecards at any online or brick and mortar retailer check OR Disposable prepaid "gift card" from just about anywhere Check
BTW you also have never been required to have name on account match name on credit card for wow.. and the only way to actually PROVE that you are you would require not credit card matching but rather submitting your government issued ID card #.. which even blizzard is not likely to try to do.
Completely false assumption, that is commonly made re internet behavior..
Anonymity by itself does *not* make people any more or less likely to post something.. its the person in question complete and utter lack of people skills.. IE yes they would say that sitting in church with mom.
Better still though is this scenario:
You refuse to participate in the "realid" forums.. but you have 30~ doppelgangers playing wow who all SHARE your real name..
So now some random basement dweller goes on a tirade about how much he or she wants to
Next day at work, your boss lets you know that you services are no longer required, and when you search for a new job, you cannot get past the "reference check" phase due to the extensive use of "googling real names" that is part of the recruitment process these days.
Now that we have that out of the way.. consider the following..
You have *never* had to have a REAL name to make a battle.net account , nor use a credit card for the account.. so for the low low price of buying wow retail box version @19.99$ you too can go on a posting spree in persona.
Now consider that due to the overlap in "real names" there is no real "community" around these realid names in terms of forums anyhow, since there are going to be duplicates for just about everyone..
What exactly does this system buy us? nothing.. what does it buy blizzard? A huge can of legal issues, and less stress on forum servers (at the start) go team?
The point is that while it would allow them to isolate whether the *drive* itself in the macbook air is somehow immune to the issue, or if its something to do with the operating system/file system preventing the issue to occur.
IE if You do the tests in OS X, rezero the drive install windows xp/vista run them again (in NTFS on the mac's ssd), then finally install windows 7 also to a clean drive under NTFS and run the tests a final time (this last test would have trim enabled of course)
Chances are that what is happening is that the OS X has an artificial limit in speed (for whatever reason) masking the problem.. If that theory is correct then installing windows 7 to a freshly zero'd drive on the air, should result in significantly faster initial performance than measured under OS X, with a dropoff to roughly the levels measured under OS X over time.
Yes you are free to do that all, and you are free FROM the chances that the government will retaliate for your opinion...
The government will NOT protect you from the consequences to your business of telling your customers that you think they should all be deported back where they came from.. or a politician from saying that his supporters are all fools and that he is only in it for the cash/perks from lobbyists.
The fact that you are trying to equate the middle eastern dictators with the US over this.. shows that you should have spent more time in what? 5th? 6th grade social studies?
Do you really think there are packs of gay marriage/civil union supporters getting ready to roll out nationwide in an effort to vandalize and stalk bigoted politicians and business owners? Or are you more concerned of the negative press that an organized group could accomplish such as P.E.T.A or Greenpeace or any other group manages to generate?
As to your posting that you would never vote for gay marriage, thats sorta what we are all arguing about right? You are owning your position on the subject.. i presume you are not telling a bunch of people that are important to either your political power/financial success that you totally support them and agree that they should have X right.. while posting this on slashdot? Its not about the opinion, but the hypocritical nature of holding one position "publicly" and another when you think noone is looking.
No there is a difference between a ballot and a petition..
The american system was founded on principles and ideals, as well as taking responsibility for ones actions.. anonymity was never really considered.. especially given the context of the time in which the country was founded.. a person was only the sum of his reputation and his word.. this is precisely *WHY* The Declaration was signed by the men who wrote it *AND* those who agreed with it.. It was lending the power of their own reputations to that which they believed in.. Had they wanted to be meek and anonymous, they would simply have signed it "the people"
Not sure what you think is undercutting.. as this is precisely the sort of "disagreement" that happens every day in every city/state/town.. people will still "fight side by side" for what they DO agree on.. while disagreeing on other issues such as this one.
No its not.. perhaps you lost the fact that there is no expectation of "secretly adding your vote to the list" ala a random poll.. when you "publicly sign your name to a petition saying I SUPPORT THIS!"
EVERY petition in every state is legally public record by design, and intent of the medium (petition rather than poll).. just because this has not been tested in court previously does *not* mean that anyone had any expectation of privacy when standing in the middle of a mall signing their name and address in public, on a piece of paper where the next 50 people will be able to read the name and likely anyone at all while the stack of sheets are on the clipboard they picked up.
The fact that noone cared prior to this does not mean that there was ever an expectation of privacy when signing a petition.
You mean intimidating and threatening to NO LONGER support politicians who are publically claiming to support X cause, and at the same time stating by signing a petition that you are actually against that cause? Or businesses claiming to be "friends" of a community turning around and secretly signing petitions that will cost them in many cases their entire business?
Thats not threats or intimidation its called consequences of poorly thought out decisions.
I think this is more about.. people feeling threatened that their business may be affected if for example.. all those they have been claiming to be supporting to get them to shop for years.. found out that they where signer number 7 on a hotly contested issue.
Its hypocritical all the way, but then so are many other issues.. If i am vehemently anti - whatever group happens to be on the petition for whatever reason.. I probably shouldnt be claiming to support them so they shop at my chain of shops.. or being their "political friend" when i need them to run for office.. and then turn around and secretly sign petitions that run counter to that.
Because without transparency there is no way to take people to task for their actions.. you dont get to be a business that publically embraces say... the immigrant community that keeps you in business, while at the same time signing petitions to get the borders closed and immigrants exported to another state, or deported.
Not to mention using "valid" names on petitions rather than mickey mouse names, which while they could be verified, would still be just as fake.. with no way of anyone knowing for sure if anyone on the list actually put themselves on the list.
You are quite wrong about UI patents not being tested in court..
The Apple UI patents where tested almost the day they where issued (see MS vs Apple over UI for windows and the resulting cross-licensing)
UI patents are NOT software patents.. oddly enough teh nokia patents are in fact about software.. just because its embedded on a chip does NOT make it any less onerous than a patent on an algorithm in a computer application.
So UI patent == "design" patent
OR "the windows start menu/taskbar combo" is equivalent to the "industrial design" of any other physical object such as the shape of a mouse, or the "look" of a laptop, etc.
Software patent / method patent are both crap, and unfortunately Nokia's patents are not for hardware innovation, they are for the *SOFTWARE* running within general purpose cpu's and DSP's within cellphones that make them GSM compatible.
If all it takes for slashdot to like software patents is to put them in a ROM or DSP, then the anti-software patent movement is doomed to fail.
Actually The real issue here is not android at all, it is HTC stepping on Apples patents not with "android" but rather with respect to touchflo and sense..
I rather think that 2 reasons prevented suit earlier when touchflo was windows only...
1) it was possibly covered under the cross-license deal between Apple and MS that dates to the 80s
2) it was such a small market segment that it didn't matter (a tiny portion of windows mobile phones from HTC actually had touchflo)
3) touchflo in its previous incarnations before sense was basically not close enough to the patents in question that they didnt feel a suit was needed
4) Apple was merely building its case since they hate to lose in court, and this was actually set in motion with touchflo 1.0
5) some combination of the above.
Point is.. this is *not* in any way relevant to the apple-nokia suit, nor does it relate in any way to "android as a whole" any more than it affects windows mobile devices as a whole, or "feature phones" as a whole.
As you point out nokia/apple suit will likely result in a cross-license deal of some sort, or one of them paying the other $$$ and a cross-license deal.. the same cannot be said of HTC-Apple.. since HTC owns nothing of interest patent wise.. and a loss in court could easily result in the company becoming non-viable (bankrupt) as a result.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue is that those numbers only tell a tiny portion of the story.. you cannot write an app for example to the 2.1 version of android and expect it to A) run on all 2.1 equipped devices or B) downgrade gracefully on 2.2 devices..
If you split out the 4 major percentage share holders to just the most basic differences you will rapidly discover that within 2.1 you have:
Standard with Google apps no custom UI devices
With Google apps and a custom UI devices
No google apps no custom UI devices
No Google apps custom UI devices..
Further you can break down the "with google apps + a custom UI to include at least the following:
MotoBlur
Sense
Misc tiny marketshare customized versions..
And finally you have to take into account every single library change that was done by either the carrier for apps they have custom done to run on their version of a handset, as well as library changes done at the handset maker level..
Sure some of these devices will run apps coded to the 1.5 api flawlessly.. some however will definately not...
Sure you can segment within the android market based on whatever criteria you want as a developer.. but at that point you are not really creating "android" apps but rather you are creating Motorola Droid X or HTC Incredible apps.. which is a very different story than creating just an android app..
Keep in mind one of the "great benefits" of android was supposed to be to make life easier than "the way it was before" which was coding to specific API on specific carrier with various hurdles to jump through...
The general problem to sum this all up is.. you cannot have it both ways (and its just as true of windows and every other multiple device/multi manufacturer OS) "Android" being succesful can either be measured by how many devices it sells that are just as different from each other as the iphone is from a winphone7 or android phone (from a developer perspective) OR Google can attempt to reign in the versions and lock down what must exist to be called an android X.X device.. Else we are just comparing apples to oranges.. (just as having apple TV and iPad in the iOS numbers does not tell the real story, neither does lumping the G1 and the Samsung Behold in with the Droid and calling them all "android")
Because your on a bandwidth quota? or a slow connection? as the person you replied to stated?
Say its a 4.7gb ISO of Debian.. you have gotten 4.2gb of it.. by using his method you can download 500megs rather than starting over with a 4.7gig image?
That said this rarely if ever works since most of the images of ISO you will find are "different" in some way to the other attempted DL... or unavailable at all..
You have it.. Local Peers ..
For example.. we have a 4 member computer network Member 1 downloads a wow patch via the net over torrent.. when member 2,3 and 4 come online and try to grab patch.. it will seed from member 1s machine at local lan speed to the 3 other machines..
Local Peers solve most of that (in the article they discuss patches for operating systems etc) for example in a company of a hundred computers.. once a computer on the network has a chunk of a file, every PC on that local network will be sharing it internally, rather than grabbing from an external site..
The biggest issue/obstacle facing using bittorrent like technology is the asymetric bandwidth on the majority of internet connections.. even then however local peers can be used within a subnetwork for example tampa roadrunner users could in theory download from or give preference to nodes within that particular ISP's network..
Linux switching to torrent based patching would likely not be enough of a reason for big ISP to "unthrottle" or "lift restrictions" on p2p protocols/traffic.. if however MS where to do so .. could go a long way toward lifting the stigma of P2P type downloading..
However as a USER, it already drives me to distraction that Activision/Blizzard essentially prints money on demand via WoW, the end users are the ones paying for the patching bandwidth
There is a reason your tagged flamebait, and it has alot to do with ignorance and inability to read and comprehend.
but Lemme spell it out for you so you can be educated..
P.O.D.S. is the actual branding for that company, it is an acronym for Portable On Demand Storage..
The Logo and Service Mark are eseentially the 4 letters done in block format white on red background.. which is all designed to reinforce the fact that this is in fact an acronym and not a word.
So yah despite your apparent inability to read lemme give you some links to basic info on the various subjects presented:
Trademark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
The pertinent issue here is summed up as follows :
Maintaining rights
Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual lawful use of the trademark. These rights will cease if a mark is not actively used for a period of time, normally 5 years in most jurisdictions. In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark in the lawful course of trade, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to become liable for an application for the removal from the register after a certain period of time on the grounds of "non-use". It is not necessary for a trademark owner to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential. This is designed to prevent owners from continually being tied up in litigation for fear of cancellation. An owner can at any time commence action for infringement against a third party as long as it had not previously notified the third party of its discontent following third party use and then failed to take action within a reasonable period of time (called acquiescence). The owner can always reserve the right to take legal action until a court decides that the third party had gained notoriety which the owner 'must' have been aware of. It will be for the third party to prove their use of the mark is substantial as it is the onus of a company using a mark to check they are not infringing previously registered rights. In the US, owing to the overwhelming number of unregistered rights, trademark applicants are advised to perform searches not just of the trademark register but of local business directories and relevant trade press. Specialized search companies perform such tasks prior to application.
All jurisdictions with a mature trademark registration system provide a mechanism for removal in the event of such non use, which is usually a period of either three or five years. The intention to use a trademark can be proven by a wide range of acts as shown in the "Wooly Bull" and "Ashton v Harlee" cases.
In the U.S., failure to use a trademark for this period of time, aside from the corresponding impact on product quality, will result in abandonment of the mark, whereby any party may use the mark. An abandoned mark is not irrevocably in the public domain, but may instead be re-registered by any party which has re-established exclusive and active use, and must be associated or linked with the original mark owner. If a court rules that a trademark has become "generic" through common use (such that the mark no longer performs the essential trademark function and the average consumer no longer considers that exclusive rights attach to it), the corresponding registration may also be ruled invalid.
For examples, see trademark distinctiveness.
Unlike other forms of intellectual property (e.g., patents and copyrights) a registered trademark can, theoretically, last forever. So long as a trademark's use is continuous a trademark holder may keep the mark registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by filing Section 8 Affidavit(s) of Continuous Use as well as Section 9 Applications for renewal, as required.
Specifically, once registered with the U.S. Patent and Trade
Doesn't matter when it was incepted, this is *not* about patents or creation date.. this is about trademark/service marks.. which are by definition generic terms that are attached to specific products and marketed (the company using them creates the value attached to them)
But yes apparently the videopod has been in development for the last 12 years which predates the release and marketing of iPod..
Of course there are cases where people cannot use their own name due to it being trademarked (in some cases 30-50 years prior to their birth heh)
Its also written into law that if you do not "rigorously defend" trademarks/service marks, they can be ruled in the public domain ..
You also to pass a reasonability test... first off PODS storage is *not* actually called or branded as such, they are an acronym for Portable On Demand Storage (a side business of Public Storage iirc).. secondly its not "pod" as a unique name, its about Pod as part of a name in context of consumer electronics devices..
Regardless of how long the video pod device has been in gestation or internally named as such, the fact of the matter is that Apple has spent billions promoting the iPod in that market, and as such any newcomer to market has to adapt.. not the other way around..
For case studies on Copyright/Trademark defense you should look up Kleenex, Xerox, Lexis-Nexis vs Toyota(Lexus), Infinity vs Nissan (Infinity branded cars) for some of the history (from both sides of the argument as well as "equal vs equal" battles in the case of the Infinity trademark.
Its *reasonable* to state that a consumer seeing a VideoPod in a consumer electronics store would assume it to be related to iPods in some way.. that same reasonable assumption cannot be said regarding Pipeline management, Moving supplies or seeds (though I think you are reaching very firmly into ludicrous land when you grabbed at that one)
its not again about seeing "any use of the generic syllable pod in a product name.. " but rather the appending of pod to a product name in such a way that it implies a relationship to iPod/etc
Your guess is very wrong, the defendant in this suit is coming out with a product 10 years after billions of advertising have been spent on ipod/ipad/etc and trying to ride coat tails.. and using this as "free advertising" for a product that has not made it to market despite 12 years of work on it.. remember naming is not like patents.. even if he had INTERNALLY named the product VideoPod years before apple filed its first use of the iPod trademark.. the fact that he was not in fact using it in any way and had not defended it means he loses it
It was actually atari 2600 with first lockout system ... Though it was not hardware but rather contract based.. they went to court against Activision who was formed with the intent of defrauding Atari out of cartridge royalties by producing carts without buying them through Atari.. this (and the lawsuit that was lost by Atari over the Honor System they went by) is the reason why Nintendo put the "is this a real cartridge" check in the Famicom/NES.
Except that the truck was already there unless you live seriously outside the norm the major carriers all move through every street in america every single day they operate.. you can say they waste time/energy/gas stopping the truck getting out and waiting for you to answer the door..
its not a "special 20 mile trip out of the distribution center just for your package" its just one more stop on the endless route that they do every day..
The reason for the requirement for signature/delivery to the billing address is not the shippers its the sellers/credit card companies who used to get hammered with mass fraud..
It presumes a set of criteria that are illogical and impossible in the real world.. and is an effort to stem the tide of avoiding high street overcharging by shopping online where there is significantly more competition.
This info would only be partially true if delivery vehicles where dispatched from the distribution center to your house/office for ONLY your orders.. and not as is actual practice running routes that include not just your order from shop a, but in many cases hundreds of individual orders from hundreds of shops every single time the lorry leaves the distribution center.
Granted rural locations are likely not seeing 4-5 different delivery firms making full routes of the entire streetmap every single day.. but even so.. they seem to be comparing *cost of a normal vehicle for a family or individual" vs "cost of running a delivery lorry with nothing but 1 package on it" but even then the fact of the matter is that if a single car has to drive 30 km round trip and that takes a liter of petrol.. to purchase an ipod... it would have to cost the delivery service that same liter of petrol to deliver that single package to you.. which clearly it does not.. even if a lorry is only getting 10km per liter its likely delivering far more packages per liter than any personal vehicle is likely to accomplish.
In short this report is a paid for by city center/high street shopping interests who wish to maintain high margins by stemming the flow of sales away from online back to their high priced and highly inefficient retail locations.
Get one of the little 200-300$ book sized atom/ion devices such as the revo or one of the Zotac boxes throw ubuntu and xbmc on it and call it a day. (alternatively you could also pickup a last gen AppleTV and install boxee/xbmc on it via thumbdrive)
Just because your using a oversized/overpowered device to run xbmc, does not mean that xbmc is not the right tool for the job :P
Except that if you follow that logic the system makes no sense.. clearly they believe that *most* of the names they have are real valid names, or theres no point in the system existing *at all*
Lets see 19.99 retail wow box Check
Free email account with one of the myriad providers.. check
Gamecards at any online or brick and mortar retailer check
OR
Disposable prepaid "gift card" from just about anywhere Check
BTW you also have never been required to have name on account match name on credit card for wow.. and the only way to actually PROVE that you are you would require not credit card matching but rather submitting your government issued ID card #.. which even blizzard is not likely to try to do.
Completely false assumption, that is commonly made re internet behavior..
Anonymity by itself does *not* make people any more or less likely to post something.. its the person in question complete and utter lack of people skills.. IE yes they would say that sitting in church with mom.
Better still though is this scenario:
You refuse to participate in the "realid" forums.. but you have 30~ doppelgangers playing wow who all SHARE your real name..
So now some random basement dweller goes on a tirade about how much he or she wants to
Next day at work, your boss lets you know that you services are no longer required, and when you search for a new job, you cannot get past the "reference check" phase due to the extensive use of "googling real names" that is part of the recruitment process these days.
Now that we have that out of the way.. consider the following..
You have *never* had to have a REAL name to make a battle.net account , nor use a credit card for the account.. so for the low low price of buying wow retail box version @19.99$ you too can go on a posting spree in persona.
Now consider that due to the overlap in "real names" there is no real "community" around these realid names in terms of forums anyhow, since there are going to be duplicates for just about everyone..
What exactly does this system buy us? nothing.. what does it buy blizzard? A huge can of legal issues, and less stress on forum servers (at the start) go team?
The point is that while it would allow them to isolate whether the *drive* itself in the macbook air is somehow immune to the issue, or if its something to do with the operating system/file system preventing the issue to occur.
IE if You do the tests in OS X, rezero the drive install windows xp/vista run them again (in NTFS on the mac's ssd), then finally install windows 7 also to a clean drive under NTFS and run the tests a final time (this last test would have trim enabled of course)
Chances are that what is happening is that the OS X has an artificial limit in speed (for whatever reason) masking the problem.. If that theory is correct then installing windows 7 to a freshly zero'd drive on the air, should result in significantly faster initial performance than measured under OS X, with a dropoff to roughly the levels measured under OS X over time.
Yes you are free to do that all, and you are free FROM the chances that the government will retaliate for your opinion...
The government will NOT protect you from the consequences to your business of telling your customers that you think they should all be deported back where they came from.. or a politician from saying that his supporters are all fools and that he is only in it for the cash/perks from lobbyists.
The fact that you are trying to equate the middle eastern dictators with the US over this.. shows that you should have spent more time in what? 5th? 6th grade social studies?
Do you really think there are packs of gay marriage/civil union supporters getting ready to roll out nationwide in an effort to vandalize and stalk bigoted politicians and business owners? Or are you more concerned of the negative press that an organized group could accomplish such as P.E.T.A or Greenpeace or any other group manages to generate?
As to your posting that you would never vote for gay marriage, thats sorta what we are all arguing about right? You are owning your position on the subject.. i presume you are not telling a bunch of people that are important to either your political power/financial success that you totally support them and agree that they should have X right.. while posting this on slashdot? Its not about the opinion, but the hypocritical nature of holding one position "publicly" and another when you think noone is looking.
No there is a difference between a ballot and a petition..
The american system was founded on principles and ideals, as well as taking responsibility for ones actions.. anonymity was never really considered.. especially given the context of the time in which the country was founded.. a person was only the sum of his reputation and his word.. this is precisely *WHY* The Declaration was signed by the men who wrote it *AND* those who agreed with it.. It was lending the power of their own reputations to that which they believed in.. Had they wanted to be meek and anonymous, they would simply have signed it "the people"
Not sure what you think is undercutting .. as this is precisely the sort of "disagreement" that happens every day in every city/state/town.. people will still "fight side by side" for what they DO agree on.. while disagreeing on other issues such as this one.
No its not.. perhaps you lost the fact that there is no expectation of "secretly adding your vote to the list" ala a random poll.. when you "publicly sign your name to a petition saying I SUPPORT THIS!"
EVERY petition in every state is legally public record by design, and intent of the medium (petition rather than poll).. just because this has not been tested in court previously does *not* mean that anyone had any expectation of privacy when standing in the middle of a mall signing their name and address in public, on a piece of paper where the next 50 people will be able to read the name and likely anyone at all while the stack of sheets are on the clipboard they picked up.
The fact that noone cared prior to this does not mean that there was ever an expectation of privacy when signing a petition.
You mean intimidating and threatening to NO LONGER support politicians who are publically claiming to support X cause, and at the same time stating by signing a petition that you are actually against that cause? Or businesses claiming to be "friends" of a community turning around and secretly signing petitions that will cost them in many cases their entire business?
Thats not threats or intimidation its called consequences of poorly thought out decisions.
I think this is more about .. people feeling threatened that their business may be affected if for example.. all those they have been claiming to be supporting to get them to shop for years .. found out that they where signer number 7 on a hotly contested issue.
Its hypocritical all the way, but then so are many other issues.. If i am vehemently anti - whatever group happens to be on the petition for whatever reason.. I probably shouldnt be claiming to support them so they shop at my chain of shops.. or being their "political friend" when i need them to run for office.. and then turn around and secretly sign petitions that run counter to that.
Anything less devalues both of the viewpoints..
Because without transparency there is no way to take people to task for their actions.. you dont get to be a business that publically embraces say ... the immigrant community that keeps you in business, while at the same time signing petitions to get the borders closed and immigrants exported to another state, or deported.
Not to mention using "valid" names on petitions rather than mickey mouse names, which while they could be verified, would still be just as fake.. with no way of anyone knowing for sure if anyone on the list actually put themselves on the list.
Exactly correct.
I wish I had mod points atm.
Almost as much as I wish people understood the constitution and bill of rights .. *sigh*
You are quite wrong about UI patents not being tested in court..
The Apple UI patents where tested almost the day they where issued (see MS vs Apple over UI for windows and the resulting cross-licensing)
UI patents are NOT software patents.. oddly enough teh nokia patents are in fact about software.. just because its embedded on a chip does NOT make it any less onerous than a patent on an algorithm in a computer application.
So UI patent == "design" patent
OR "the windows start menu/taskbar combo" is equivalent to the "industrial design" of any other physical object such as the shape of a mouse, or the "look" of a laptop, etc.
Software patent / method patent are both crap, and unfortunately Nokia's patents are not for hardware innovation, they are for the *SOFTWARE* running within general purpose cpu's and DSP's within cellphones that make them GSM compatible.
If all it takes for slashdot to like software patents is to put them in a ROM or DSP, then the anti-software patent movement is doomed to fail.
Actually The real issue here is not android at all, it is HTC stepping on Apples patents not with "android" but rather with respect to touchflo and sense..
I rather think that 2 reasons prevented suit earlier when touchflo was windows only...
1) it was possibly covered under the cross-license deal between Apple and MS that dates to the 80s
2) it was such a small market segment that it didn't matter (a tiny portion of windows mobile phones from HTC actually had touchflo)
3) touchflo in its previous incarnations before sense was basically not close enough to the patents in question that they didnt feel a suit was needed
4) Apple was merely building its case since they hate to lose in court, and this was actually set in motion with touchflo 1.0
5) some combination of the above.
Point is.. this is *not* in any way relevant to the apple-nokia suit, nor does it relate in any way to "android as a whole" any more than it affects windows mobile devices as a whole, or "feature phones" as a whole.
As you point out nokia/apple suit will likely result in a cross-license deal of some sort, or one of them paying the other $$$ and a cross-license deal.. the same cannot be said of HTC-Apple.. since HTC owns nothing of interest patent wise.. and a loss in court could easily result in the company becoming non-viable (bankrupt) as a result.