Gah, you people. Hint: it was used before MS existed to ever to GUI forms. MS didn't even use the term windows until what? 80?
The term does back to 65. 10 years before MS existed.
Yet you fail to realise that arguing this in the context of 'computers' is either ignorance or being intentionally obtuse. The context is the type of product the trademark is being filed for, in the case of Windows that context is 'Operating Systems' and 'Windows' wasn't a generic term to refer to an 'Operating System'. Is OSX a Windows? No. Is GNU/Linux a Windows? No. Is Irix a Windows? No. Is BSD a Windows? No.
yeah, just don't let me catch you opening a window on your mac and a window on your ubuntu box. NOT a microsoft window, by the way.
Those are GUI elements in that context there is no such thing as a Microsoft Window. Just like in the context of Operating Systems there is no other one called 'Windows'.
You are completely aware that Windows was a computer UI term well before Microsoft came in and used it for their OS. WIMP - Windows Icons Menus Pointer (although some claim it's Mouse, but then what's the P?) was a well established UI term by then. Apple's Lisa and Mac used it for their OS before Windows came out, and let's not look further back at Xerox Parc, etc.
And how is that relevant? Microsoft hasn't trademarked their windowing system or UI element under the name 'Windows', it's an operating system.
'Windows' is an 'Operating System'. The 'App Store' is an 'App Store'. So you can see the former is not a generic term to describe what it is, the same can't be said for the latter.
Our state standardized on MS Office years ago. Now, everything comes out in docx format (used to be doc). Do they specify that you must use Office, no. But if you want to do business with the state, you must have full docx capability and that requires MS Office.
Your implicit assumption is that open source software has no value. Which is, of course, false.
Wrong, that's not at all what i implied, in fact i didn't mention open source software in there implicitly or explicitly. Go back and read what i wrote since it's obvious you have derived something that clearly is not there.
Plus, it's easier to create something better than what exists when you don't have to start from scratch
But ogg theora, a clean room implementation of a video codec, is just 10-20% less efficient than the closed h264. Are we sure that the barriers erected with excessive IP protection (silly patents) are worth the differential in innovation?
I don't know, in terms of time-to-market i would say probably yes. The main problem as i see it is that technological patents seem to have too long of a life.
The same thing that happens when a proprietary standard is abandoned, except that the source code is freely available so the government can hire someone to maintain it.
Sounds like you're confusing open standard with open source software. A standard has no source code that needs to be maintained.
That's about the only one that kind of makes sense on some level, i mean it's much easier to secure funding to develop IP when that IP itself has value.
Moving to a third-party OS you have no control over is never smart. If history should teach us anything it's that those who give up control of their platform end up dead by the side of the road somewhere.
What history are you remembering? Last i saw HP and Dell are doing just fine on that model.
That's quite a blanket statement, what is the basis for it?
Real world experience. I've debugged output of JIT compiler for.NET programs (on assembly level, naturally). It's okay - better than I expected - but its inlining capabilities are not all that impressive, for example.
Well I've certainly seen managed DirectX code perform within 5% of native code, the compilers are actually quite good, I wouldn't say there's a general rule either way but I'd definitely say synthetic benchmarks and unsafe code aren't the *only* places you'll see 'near-native' speed.
This is a very disturbing ruling if the movie industry can essentially order disconnects without evidence.
Except that the ISPs have to paid to first vet the notices and even then if they do agree to disconnect the user the movie industry body has to indemnify the ISP against any action taken by the user. Seems like a pretty big cost and gamble that the movie industry body would have to take.
You are obviously trying to be obtuse on this one.
No, i'm just trying to ascertain how you can determine a device that doesn't even exist is WAY better than purpose built devices.
You seem to be trying to take the stance that if you can find ANY case where a smaller device would work better, that means the larger one has no point.
Bullshit, where did i say it has no point? Oh yeah that's right, i didn't, you just made that up. Conversely you *are* trying to take that stance that if you can find ANY part of a case where a fictional ipad with a camera could possibly be advantageous that that makes it 'WAY better'.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes windows is a generic term used in Computers.
Gah, you people. Hint: it was used before MS existed to ever to GUI forms. MS didn't even use the term windows until what? 80?
The term does back to 65. 10 years before MS existed.
Yet you fail to realise that arguing this in the context of 'computers' is either ignorance or being intentionally obtuse. The context is the type of product the trademark is being filed for, in the case of Windows that context is 'Operating Systems' and 'Windows' wasn't a generic term to refer to an 'Operating System'. Is OSX a Windows? No. Is GNU/Linux a Windows? No. Is Irix a Windows? No. Is BSD a Windows? No.
yeah, just don't let me catch you opening a window on your mac and a window on your ubuntu box. NOT a microsoft window, by the way.
Those are GUI elements in that context there is no such thing as a Microsoft Window. Just like in the context of Operating Systems there is no other one called 'Windows'.
You are completely aware that Windows was a computer UI term well before Microsoft came in and used it for their OS. WIMP - Windows Icons Menus Pointer (although some claim it's Mouse, but then what's the P?) was a well established UI term by then. Apple's Lisa and Mac used it for their OS before Windows came out, and let's not look further back at Xerox Parc, etc.
And how is that relevant? Microsoft hasn't trademarked their windowing system or UI element under the name 'Windows', it's an operating system.
'Windows' is an 'Operating System'. The 'App Store' is an 'App Store'. So you can see the former is not a generic term to describe what it is, the same can't be said for the latter.
Our state standardized on MS Office years ago. Now, everything comes out in docx format (used to be doc). Do they specify that you must use Office, no. But if you want to do business with the state, you must have full docx capability and that requires MS Office.
Which state?
Which is WAY more than 'billions'. Not much of an expert that witness.
lol...well it is billions, just an absolute freakin' shitload of billions ;)
Your implicit assumption is that open source software has no value. Which is, of course, false.
Wrong, that's not at all what i implied, in fact i didn't mention open source software in there implicitly or explicitly. Go back and read what i wrote since it's obvious you have derived something that clearly is not there.
Plus, it's easier to create something better than what exists when you don't have to start from scratch
Of course, i didn't say nor imply that it wasn't.
But ogg theora, a clean room implementation of a video codec, is just 10-20% less efficient than the closed h264. Are we sure that the barriers erected with excessive IP protection (silly patents) are worth the differential in innovation?
I don't know, in terms of time-to-market i would say probably yes. The main problem as i see it is that technological patents seem to have too long of a life.
But, why should I have to purchase Office 2010 because my state government is now sending out informational requests in docx format?
Is there a government doing that? I don't think any government body could mandate such a thing, there would always have to be another option.
The same thing that happens when a proprietary standard is abandoned, except that the source code is freely available so the government can hire someone to maintain it.
Sounds like you're confusing open standard with open source software. A standard has no source code that needs to be maintained.
And yet, you can build innovative products that still incorporate open standards and even open code.
So what's your point?
Closed = innovation
That's about the only one that kind of makes sense on some level, i mean it's much easier to secure funding to develop IP when that IP itself has value.
Moving to a third-party OS you have no control over is never smart. If history should teach us anything it's that those who give up control of their platform end up dead by the side of the road somewhere.
What history are you remembering? Last i saw HP and Dell are doing just fine on that model.
That's quite a blanket statement, what is the basis for it?
Real world experience. I've debugged output of JIT compiler for .NET programs (on assembly level, naturally). It's okay - better than I expected - but its inlining capabilities are not all that impressive, for example.
Well I've certainly seen managed DirectX code perform within 5% of native code, the compilers are actually quite good, I wouldn't say there's a general rule either way but I'd definitely say synthetic benchmarks and unsafe code aren't the *only* places you'll see 'near-native' speed.
This is only true on:
1) artificial benchmarks written to give such results, or
2) "unsafe" code (e.g. using raw pointers to circumvent bound checking etc).
That's quite a blanket statement, what is the basis for it? Also what is your percentage definition of 'near-native' speed?
You might be technically correct but the Newton is more well known than that device despite being a failure in the marketplace.
It's well-known for being a monumental failure though, that's not a good thing.
It could have been far worse.
Especially since piracy was the reason 4 americans (who could easily have been australians) were recently gunned down on their yacht.
This is a very disturbing ruling if the movie industry can essentially order disconnects without evidence.
Except that the ISPs have to paid to first vet the notices and even then if they do agree to disconnect the user the movie industry body has to indemnify the ISP against any action taken by the user. Seems like a pretty big cost and gamble that the movie industry body would have to take.
Real programmers use butterflies.
By your logic it would be valid to say of class instances, "You get the same thing with struct pointers. What's with the buzzword?"
Not really, sure a struct is effectively just a class but a pointer is not the same - or even close to the same - as an instance.
I'd be happy for a <sarcasm> tag, but that would never work.
It's in the HTML6 proposal.
Im sure the lack of said tag will see this get inundated with '[citation needed]' responses.
The standard unit of data measurement is 1 day, so amazingly this can hold 7 data!
...does it run Linux?
And if not then does it have open source drivers?
A week's worth of NASA's data or week's worth of data on stephen hawking's sporting achievements?
...actually that might have been a bit low...
The report also mentions iPhone 4-like "Retina Display" technology, which on an iPad form factor, would translate to over 2,000 pixels.
From.
Whoah! That's nearly 1/2 the amount of pixels on my Nokia 3210!
You are obviously trying to be obtuse on this one.
No, i'm just trying to ascertain how you can determine a device that doesn't even exist is WAY better than purpose built devices.
You seem to be trying to take the stance that if you can find ANY case where a smaller device would work better, that means the larger one has no point.
Bullshit, where did i say it has no point? Oh yeah that's right, i didn't, you just made that up. Conversely you *are* trying to take that stance that if you can find ANY part of a case where a fictional ipad with a camera could possibly be advantageous that that makes it 'WAY better'.