As much as I dislike Apple, kudos to them for admitting the new iTunes isn't ready and postponing the release rather than pushing out potentially buggy and incomplete software. Too many software companies will just shove whatever they have finished out the door, whether it works or not.
(Although it is possible to err on the opposite side. See Duke Nukem Forever)
Seconded.
Of all things Apple that are worthy of bitching about, this ain't one of them.
It's set up in a dystopian future "in which world governments have collapsed and corporations now dominate the planet, instituting a high-surveillance police state and removing many basic social freedoms".
Did they use the wording required? yes, fully. It's the first two sentences in the statement.
Were they not allowed to use the judge's own words to clarify? No such restriction was placed upon them.
Were they not allowed to cite other judgments? No such restriction was placed upon them.
Were they not allowed to say ANYTHING other than the required wording? No such restriction was placed upon them.
You may not like what Apple did, but they complied with the letter of the law. And nothing you said contradicts that.
They 'may' have a publicity problem, but every time someone quotes Apple's statement quoting the judge saying Samsung wasn't as cool, Apple is probably ok with that.
Fanbois... sheesh...
If Steve Jobs raped this guy's mother, AC here would probably insist that she was asking for it, wearing that slutty apron and beehive hairdo...
... if you can charge from anywhere, how can you be billed? That is what will permanently stop this type of technology.
Exactly.... the problem is that the profiteers are doing it wrong.
J.P. Morgan figured he'd stick with the General Electric/Westinghouse business model and eschew the more efficient new technology, as it would not provide the market needed for his copper business.
J.P. Morgan is, in many circles, considered one of the greatest Americans ever.
It never ceases to amaze me how much praise and adulation the people in this country can heap upon the fantastical image of a person who, in reality, was far more concerned about maximizing his own bottom line than he was about advancing humanity, and was essentially a self-serving traitor to mankind... perhaps that's a testament to the human tendency towards selfishness.
Alcohol takes time, effort, and skill to produce, especially in a palatable form. While this is not illegal, it's too much effort for most people. Distillation without a license is illegal in many jurisdictions.
Tobacco is incredibly finicky to grow, only grows in certain conditions, and has to be cared for and stored and prepared properly.
Marijuana grows like a weed, in a window box. Of course Big T and Big A don't want it legal ; it would seriously eat into their market.
I can see where you're coming from, but the problem with your hypothesis in this particular scenario is that, in the area of the country I was referring to, Big T and Big A have precisely zero influence over local politics.
No, this was just another example of assholes in power being assholes, flexing their power. Entirely too common.
he didn't invent wireless communication.
look up photophone (1880)
or
David E. Hughes 1889
or
Heinrich Hertz
or
Chandra Bose
Theoretical experimentation != invention.
If it did, I would be considered one of the "inventors" of anti-gravity.
One popular comic ass talks about Tesla, makes factual wrong statements about Tesla, and every self proclaimed 'nerd' starts repeating it like it's actual fact.
Or, one popular comic ass talks about Tesla, and every self-aggrandizing asshole and his brother comes out of the woodworks to accuse everyone else knowing precisely dick about the topic.
Get over yourself, dude - some of us were Tesla fanatics long before there was such a thing as shitty web comics.
If you are enthralled with Tesla, spend some time reading some actual books on him, not just the silly piece by the Oatmeal. He was a fascinating man and worth your time to learn about, but you need to learn about him if you want to go spouting off.
He didn't invent some magic transmission technology we can't replicate, he invented an inefficient transmission technology that we can replicate, but don't, because he was not able to solve the efficiency problems (and it may not be physically possible to).
Well, had you read some actual books on the topic, instead of spending your time coming up with snarky responses to satisfy your narcissistic need to baselessly denigrate others, you would know that Tesla had a solution indeed - many towers, spread strategically about the globe, creating a worldwide network of wireless power stations.
Had his brilliance been recognized at the time, we wouldn't be playing catch-up on century old technology. Let that be a lesson to the world - today's mad scientist may just turn out to be tomorrow's under-appreciated genius.
Interesting. How can the government legislate that you are not allowed to fence in your property?
Local ordinance; "fences must not extend beyond the back 3/4 of the structure to which they are attached."
Are you not even allowed to fence immediately around your domicile/curtilage?
I can fence my backyard, but not the front.
Is that a wild-west must allow cattle and livestock to graze on all open property and all open property must remain as open property sort of thing?
Ooh, interesting variable - hadn't considered that.. I know there are still places in TX and OK where "cattle drive" laws do still exist, so that is indeed a valid point! Kudos.
Tesla didn't have to worry about FCC regulation on how much RF power he could transmit on his coils back then in the dark ages before he invented wireless communication,
Back in the day, Tesla had achieved even greater success. Though if you can charge from anywhere, how can you be billed? That is what will permanently stop this type of technology.
Exactly.
It's not that wireless power distribution is a "parlor trick" - rather, the problem is that the profiteers are doing it wrong.
Why do you assume the summary has any basis whatsoever in reality?
Same reason you assumed it was my suggestion, I guess - first place I read it.
The judge here is just applying that precedent to this case, and if you accept the precedent, it seems entirely appropriate and reasonable that it be applied this way here. If you don't like the outcome, don't piss on the judge for being reasonable. Talk to your legislature and get them to change the law.
You know, if we had a reasonable legislature who actually listened to their constituency, that would be a damn fine suggestion. In lieu of such an idealistic system, and assuming "just deal with it" is not a viable option, what would you recommend?
So the application of fencing around a yard turns it from an open field to a fenced enclosure, thus no longer an open field. A real lawyer would have to fight the issue for farm land. But if the field is unfenced, that's probably open field. Fenced and posted "no trespassing" fields, well, I don't think you can call those open fields anymore, even if they are not the "curtilage.".
OK, so keeping that in mind - where I live, the government has created legislation that makes it illegal to fence your own property, thereby making all property defacto "open fields."
What's to keep the feds from doing basically the same thing, and therefore being able to "legally" place their surveillance equipment right up against our homes?
I have a simple solution. The least productive people in the world will starve to death. People who have 17 children and can't feed them will soon have much less than 17 children. Problem solved.
First off, in my experience the "least productive people" in this world sit on various Boards of Directors, and I highly doubt a damn one of them even know what starving is.
I think a more accurate term for the socioeconomic demographic you are (quite blatantly) attempting to denigrate would be the "most desperate," or possibly "least fortunate."
So, your "final solution" seems contingent on the idea that the most desperate/least fortunate do not possess an inherent will to live.
That is not the case. A more likely circumstance would be that the most desperate people would do what they felt they must to survive, even if that means ending the lives of others. 17 mouths are a lot to feed, but they're also a lot to have to fight off to keep your own food supply secure.
It seems, in the course of posting your comment, that you've failed to use either analytical or empathetic thought pathways. I therefore assume you are either A) a sociopath, or B) an idiot.
Actually, it does do a fair job of explaining why most voters seem to eschew reason in their decisions, as well as why it's so easy for politicians to distract from real issues that need analytical thought applied, by appealing to voter emotions.
Slashdot Mirror
They should agree to pay 2.5%, and then set their prices down to $40 each. Or even better, give them away for free. That would show them!
What would you call that? "Pulling an IE?"
Am curious, what exactly ARE their demands? Just tons of money or something oddly specific?
RTFS:
Seriously, why post a comment when you can't even be bothered to read the summary?
Oh, right - fanbois. Logic is anathema.
Isn't that their daughter?
Lesbian daughter.
As much as I dislike Apple, kudos to them for admitting the new iTunes isn't ready and postponing the release rather than pushing out potentially buggy and incomplete software. Too many software companies will just shove whatever they have finished out the door, whether it works or not.
(Although it is possible to err on the opposite side. See Duke Nukem Forever)
Seconded.
Of all things Apple that are worthy of bitching about, this ain't one of them.
yeah we should wait for the New iApology
With a 14 day dev cycle!
Really? Yeah Samsung never stole ideas from others, no that never happened *eye roll*
This is the immature adult's equivalant to "butbutbutbut... Jeffy did it too, why am I in trouble?? Waaaaa!"
"Jeffy," or in this case, Samsung, did not blatantly and petulantly fail to comply with a court order.
Grow the fuck up.
It's set up in a dystopian future "in which world governments have collapsed and corporations now dominate the planet, instituting a high-surveillance police state and removing many basic social freedoms".
Future?
Did they use the wording required? yes, fully. It's the first two sentences in the statement.
Were they not allowed to use the judge's own words to clarify? No such restriction was placed upon them.
Were they not allowed to cite other judgments? No such restriction was placed upon them.
Were they not allowed to say ANYTHING other than the required wording? No such restriction was placed upon them.
You may not like what Apple did, but they complied with the letter of the law. And nothing you said contradicts that.
They 'may' have a publicity problem, but every time someone quotes Apple's statement quoting the judge saying Samsung wasn't as cool, Apple is probably ok with that.
Fanbois... sheesh...
If Steve Jobs raped this guy's mother, AC here would probably insist that she was asking for it, wearing that slutty apron and beehive hairdo...
I'm surprised the judges didn't throw the book at them when they tried this bit:
[h1][a href=http://www.apple.com/apology.html]Read our Court-Ordered Apology[/a][/h1]
put the right parens on it and paste it at the top of your page's code - was that so hard, Apfel?
How on earth did the person who argued that get away with not being charged with perjury?
Because corporations and their spokespeople are beholden to the law in a different, less severe way than we mere mortals, perhaps?
... if you can charge from anywhere, how can you be billed? That is what will permanently stop this type of technology.
Exactly. ... the problem is that the profiteers are doing it wrong.
J.P. Morgan figured he'd stick with the General Electric/Westinghouse business model and eschew the more efficient new technology, as it would not provide the market needed for his copper business.
J.P. Morgan is, in many circles, considered one of the greatest Americans ever.
It never ceases to amaze me how much praise and adulation the people in this country can heap upon the fantastical image of a person who, in reality, was far more concerned about maximizing his own bottom line than he was about advancing humanity, and was essentially a self-serving traitor to mankind... perhaps that's a testament to the human tendency towards selfishness.
Corporations don't want competition.
Alcohol takes time, effort, and skill to produce, especially in a palatable form. While this is not illegal, it's too much effort for most people. Distillation without a license is illegal in many jurisdictions.
Tobacco is incredibly finicky to grow, only grows in certain conditions, and has to be cared for and stored and prepared properly.
Marijuana grows like a weed, in a window box. Of course Big T and Big A don't want it legal ; it would seriously eat into their market.
I can see where you're coming from, but the problem with your hypothesis in this particular scenario is that, in the area of the country I was referring to, Big T and Big A have precisely zero influence over local politics.
No, this was just another example of assholes in power being assholes, flexing their power. Entirely too common.
he didn't invent wireless communication. look up photophone (1880) or David E. Hughes 1889 or Heinrich Hertz or Chandra Bose
Theoretical experimentation != invention.
If it did, I would be considered one of the "inventors" of anti-gravity.
One popular comic ass talks about Tesla, makes factual wrong statements about Tesla, and every self proclaimed 'nerd' starts repeating it like it's actual fact.
Or, one popular comic ass talks about Tesla, and every self-aggrandizing asshole and his brother comes out of the woodworks to accuse everyone else knowing precisely dick about the topic.
Get over yourself, dude - some of us were Tesla fanatics long before there was such a thing as shitty web comics.
Marconi and Braun, Nobel prize winners. Tesla was like 10 when they did this.
Is tree bark made of chocolate, in this fantasy world you inhabit?
Just curious...
If you are enthralled with Tesla, spend some time reading some actual books on him, not just the silly piece by the Oatmeal. He was a fascinating man and worth your time to learn about, but you need to learn about him if you want to go spouting off.
He didn't invent some magic transmission technology we can't replicate, he invented an inefficient transmission technology that we can replicate, but don't, because he was not able to solve the efficiency problems (and it may not be physically possible to).
Well, had you read some actual books on the topic, instead of spending your time coming up with snarky responses to satisfy your narcissistic need to baselessly denigrate others, you would know that Tesla had a solution indeed - many towers, spread strategically about the globe, creating a worldwide network of wireless power stations.
Had his brilliance been recognized at the time, we wouldn't be playing catch-up on century old technology. Let that be a lesson to the world - today's mad scientist may just turn out to be tomorrow's under-appreciated genius.
Interesting. How can the government legislate that you are not allowed to fence in your property?
Local ordinance; "fences must not extend beyond the back 3/4 of the structure to which they are attached."
Are you not even allowed to fence immediately around your domicile/curtilage?
I can fence my backyard, but not the front.
Is that a wild-west must allow cattle and livestock to graze on all open property and all open property must remain as open property sort of thing?
Ooh, interesting variable - hadn't considered that.. I know there are still places in TX and OK where "cattle drive" laws do still exist, so that is indeed a valid point! Kudos.
Tesla didn't have to worry about FCC regulation on how much RF power he could transmit on his coils back then in the dark ages before he invented wireless communication,
CTFY
[Clarified That For You]
Back in the day, Tesla had achieved even greater success. Though if you can charge from anywhere, how can you be billed? That is what will permanently stop this type of technology.
Exactly.
It's not that wireless power distribution is a "parlor trick" - rather, the problem is that the profiteers are doing it wrong.
Why not force folks to read the small print by having a short quiz (perhaps multiple choice) that ``ensures they read AND UNDERSTOOD the material''?
You just answered your own question - if users understood these terms of service contracts, they would likely not agree to enter them.
Yes actually. http://mediamatters.org/research/2006/08/16/gop-strategists-christen-democrat-sic-party-and/136406
Frank Luntz said so.
All that proves is that modern journalists (or rather, what passes for a 'journalist' these days) are idiots.
*thinks about election year conversations he's had with "regular" people*
Ok, considering... maybe you've got something there...
Along with higher resolution.
+1 on the full keyboards!
My kingdom for a damn 10-key...
Why do you assume the summary has any basis whatsoever in reality?
Same reason you assumed it was my suggestion, I guess - first place I read it.
The judge here is just applying that precedent to this case, and if you accept the precedent, it seems entirely appropriate and reasonable that it be applied this way here. If you don't like the outcome, don't piss on the judge for being reasonable. Talk to your legislature and get them to change the law.
You know, if we had a reasonable legislature who actually listened to their constituency, that would be a damn fine suggestion. In lieu of such an idealistic system, and assuming "just deal with it" is not a viable option, what would you recommend?
Care to address?
Anyone care to explain where, precisely, the above amendment specifies that it only applies to indoor, private property?
Apparently the word "unreasonable" is the key.
OK, so who gets to define what's "unreasonable?" The government?
Slippery Slope kinda goes without saying...
But hey, nothing wrong with having your civil liberties contingent on a subjective term, is there?
So the application of fencing around a yard turns it from an open field to a fenced enclosure, thus no longer an open field. A real lawyer would have to fight the issue for farm land. But if the field is unfenced, that's probably open field. Fenced and posted "no trespassing" fields, well, I don't think you can call those open fields anymore, even if they are not the "curtilage." .
OK, so keeping that in mind - where I live, the government has created legislation that makes it illegal to fence your own property, thereby making all property defacto "open fields."
What's to keep the feds from doing basically the same thing, and therefore being able to "legally" place their surveillance equipment right up against our homes?
I have a simple solution. The least productive people in the world will starve to death. People who have 17 children and can't feed them will soon have much less than 17 children. Problem solved.
First off, in my experience the "least productive people" in this world sit on various Boards of Directors, and I highly doubt a damn one of them even know what starving is.
I think a more accurate term for the socioeconomic demographic you are (quite blatantly) attempting to denigrate would be the "most desperate," or possibly "least fortunate."
So, your "final solution" seems contingent on the idea that the most desperate/least fortunate do not possess an inherent will to live.
That is not the case. A more likely circumstance would be that the most desperate people would do what they felt they must to survive, even if that means ending the lives of others. 17 mouths are a lot to feed, but they're also a lot to have to fight off to keep your own food supply secure.
It seems, in the course of posting your comment, that you've failed to use either analytical or empathetic thought pathways. I therefore assume you are either A) a sociopath, or B) an idiot.
Leanin' towards B.
Zing! Election is only a week away folks.
Actually, it does do a fair job of explaining why most voters seem to eschew reason in their decisions, as well as why it's so easy for politicians to distract from real issues that need analytical thought applied, by appealing to voter emotions.