Although I was doubtful of the idea of blowing a hundreds of billions of dollars on bailouts and whatnot, if you're going to spend that much anyway, it seems to be much better to spend it on physical things.
No kidding, this guy has posted this claim about 50 times in this thread.
Of course they found out about this stuff in discovery--where else did they get emails from Jonathan Ive? They hacked into Apples email server in 2006?
A Korean design patent for this black, rectangular, round-cornered phone was filed by Samsung in December 2006 prior to the release of the image of the iPhone[1] (Wiki)
What are you talking about? The Apple design patent doesn't mention multitouch, nor plastic or metal. It only talks about a design patent for an electronic device, and then gives a few pencil sketches of a tablet with round corners.
Again, the design patent does not include a photograph. It has pencil sketches. If someone made a pencil sketch of an F700, it would look just like what Apple submitted to the Patent Office.
There were plenty of phones with touchscreen-only (no keyboard), black, and round corners before the iPhone.
How can Apple claim something as its own original work when neither the design nor even the name was original! (The name iPhone was owned by Cisco.) Just because Apple spends a lot on marketing and the media contribute to the Apple hype doesn't mean that they deserve exclusive rights to the basic touchscreen smartphone.
The thing with the whitespace is: people don't react well to nannyism.
A lot of people bring up the point: "You would have indented it anyway."
Exactly. Since you would have indented it anyway, what's the point of enforcing it? There are myriad other rules that code shops follow. Do they all have to be hard-coded in the compiler?
Thought experiment: You would have named consonants in upper case anyway. So now the compiler will enforce that.
Like Java-style naming (thisIsAFunctionName)? The compiler will enforce it. Prefer this_is_a_function_name? Sorry, underscores not allowed.
What Python fans (meaning those who think Python is 100.00% wonderful, instead of 98% wonderful like the rest of us think) miss is: What problem is it that hardcoding a formatting rule in the compiler solves?
>Another thing I don't like about Python is the use of TABS and white space as code block separators. Really? Why??
Just because the creator happened to like that and decided to enforce it on the rest of the world.
>I'm sure Python can be great language but the style and some parts of it really put me away from it.
It is a great language, for the most part.
Here's the weird stuff: You already mentioned tabs. The stock answer is "use an editor designed for Python." Erm, what? Why should I have to use an editor specifically for one language? For any other language, I can use any editor or none (count gedit as none).
And when you decide to play with Python in a serious way, you now get to go editor-hunting, downloading, installing and trying them out, figuring out their idiosyncrasies.
Second big one: "self". For those not in the know, that's the pointer to the current object. Like this in C++. Unlike most object-oriented languages, whose claim to fame is that they handle the object-orientation for you (instead of having to hack it out in C like with gobject or GTK programming), Python asks you to manually pass the current object pointer around.
This is especially surprising because Python is positioned as a programming language for beginners and kids.
Why do you need to worry about such low-level details? Not to mention the extra typing. What happened to succinctness as a virtue?
Best thing to do is to simply not ever look up people's social networking history. Keep work related to work.
But I wonder what will happen when/if someone with a history of weird posts on his Facebook gets a job, and then goes postal. Will some greedy lawyer ram through a huge lawsuit which will then force businesses to always look through every piece of online history you have?
I think he was claiming that, generally, plants grow faster when there is more heat. Since the entire food chain is interrelated, non-plant life will (may?) also flourish.
On a very intuitive level, think of the biodiversity of a tropical jungle vs. the Himalayas.
No one's saying Apple copied the C-language source code.
But, like you just said, Apple saw Xerox's stuff, and then made their own that looked just about just like it.
If you build something yourself, but after having seen someone else's product, that's not copying, right? OK, good to have that cleared up. Meaning Samsung didn't copy Apple.
Anyway, the point of all this is to disabuse the notion that the oh-so-high Apple comes up with all this stuff on its own, and it deserves patent protection for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I was doubtful of the idea of blowing a hundreds of billions of dollars on bailouts and whatnot, if you're going to spend that much anyway, it seems to be much better to spend it on physical things.
What taxes are there on coal or natural gas use?
Yeah, I'm sure there are taxes on the sale of coal. But then there are taxes on the sale of solar panels, too.
But that doesn't include airconditioning, right? A/C is on a separate circuit, correct?
But does the method of depreciating stuff apply to all parts of the house?
E.g., say a wall costs $500 (complete with drywall). After a while, it will have depreciated to $0, along with everything in the house.
But even 30 year old houses don't sell for just the land value.
No kidding, this guy has posted this claim about 50 times in this thread.
Of course they found out about this stuff in discovery--where else did they get emails from Jonathan Ive? They hacked into Apples email server in 2006?
A Korean design patent for this black, rectangular, round-cornered phone was filed by Samsung in December 2006 prior to the release of the image of the iPhone[1] (Wiki)
What are you talking about? The Apple design patent doesn't mention multitouch, nor plastic or metal. It only talks about a design patent for an electronic device, and then gives a few pencil sketches of a tablet with round corners.
Again, the design patent does not include a photograph. It has pencil sketches. If someone made a pencil sketch of an F700, it would look just like what Apple submitted to the Patent Office.
You've bought into Apple propaganda.
Look at the graphic provided by Samsung here.
There were plenty of phones with touchscreen-only (no keyboard), black, and round corners before the iPhone.
How can Apple claim something as its own original work when neither the design nor even the name was original! (The name iPhone was owned by Cisco.) Just because Apple spends a lot on marketing and the media contribute to the Apple hype doesn't mean that they deserve exclusive rights to the basic touchscreen smartphone.
That was called Google Desktop Search.
Great point, hadn't considered this before; this should be added to the Master List of Apple Sucks.
He was trying to demonstrate that the design concepts came from real objects, which have been around basically forever (thousands of years).
The very word "tablet" shows where the design idea came from: actual tablets.
As for the "framing" effect caused by the plastic around the screen of the tablet, he showed how plastic ... frames have the same exact form factor.
If Apple can copy the form factor of plastic frames, why can't Samsung?
>You'll use cheap Chinese products for your household power supply? A power outage may be the least of your problems.
Says the AC posting on a cheap Chinese computer.
The thing with the whitespace is: people don't react well to nannyism.
A lot of people bring up the point: "You would have indented it anyway."
Exactly. Since you would have indented it anyway, what's the point of enforcing it? There are myriad other rules that code shops follow. Do they all have to be hard-coded in the compiler?
Thought experiment: You would have named consonants in upper case anyway. So now the compiler will enforce that.
Like Java-style naming (thisIsAFunctionName)? The compiler will enforce it. Prefer this_is_a_function_name? Sorry, underscores not allowed.
What Python fans (meaning those who think Python is 100.00% wonderful, instead of 98% wonderful like the rest of us think) miss is: What problem is it that hardcoding a formatting rule in the compiler solves?
>Another thing I don't like about Python is the use of TABS and white space as code block separators. Really? Why??
Just because the creator happened to like that and decided to enforce it on the rest of the world.
>I'm sure Python can be great language but the style and some parts of it really put me away from it.
It is a great language, for the most part.
Here's the weird stuff: You already mentioned tabs. The stock answer is "use an editor designed for Python." Erm, what? Why should I have to use an editor specifically for one language? For any other language, I can use any editor or none (count gedit as none).
And when you decide to play with Python in a serious way, you now get to go editor-hunting, downloading, installing and trying them out, figuring out their idiosyncrasies.
Second big one: "self". For those not in the know, that's the pointer to the current object. Like this in C++. Unlike most object-oriented languages, whose claim to fame is that they handle the object-orientation for you (instead of having to hack it out in C like with gobject or GTK programming), Python asks you to manually pass the current object pointer around.
This is especially surprising because Python is positioned as a programming language for beginners and kids.
Why do you need to worry about such low-level details? Not to mention the extra typing. What happened to succinctness as a virtue?
How is it core Python programming when it's 800 pages?
Another case of publishers coming up with one keyword and then using it for every single book they put out.
-Unleashed
-In 24 hours
-In 30 days
-Pragmatic
Good point, and I'm not necessarily claiming more heat == more biodiversity.
But do you have anything that says more energy == less biodiversity?
"Not this" meaning "negation of this statement", i.e., the following statement is false, so no, Apple isn't the first to think of a big touchscreen.
I think reverse Godwinning would be if you talked about the need of Nazis living in Argentina to not use their real name.
Best thing to do is to simply not ever look up people's social networking history.
Keep work related to work.
But I wonder what will happen when/if someone with a history of weird posts on his Facebook gets a job, and then goes postal. Will some greedy lawyer ram through a huge lawsuit which will then force businesses to always look through every piece of online history you have?
Yeah, I didn't know who the owner was. Thanks for that.
But they're in the US. Not saying that they should seize them before proving any wrongdoing in the first place.
But the servers are in jurisdiction.
I think he was claiming that, generally, plants grow faster when there is more heat. Since the entire food chain is interrelated, non-plant life will (may?) also flourish.
On a very intuitive level, think of the biodiversity of a tropical jungle vs. the Himalayas.
By algebra, do you mean the stuff they teach in 5th or 6th grade?
Or college-level foundations of mathematics-type stuff?
Because to figure out a simple (or compound) interest problem (or even to know how to operate a calculator to figure it out), you need the former.
Apple fanboys struggle to understand why Slashdot is so hostile to Apple.
Here's the reason: geeks pride themselves on logical, unemotional thinking.
Therefore, they're not too taken with the whole Saint Steve Jobs business.
Especially when innovators like Roger Fidler, Xerox, and Douglas Engelbart are completely ignored in favor of Jobs.
Let me get this straight: You claim incorporating a "DESCRIBED" (i.e., written) product design idea as a design element is not "copying". Correct?
OK. Now, why is it that Samsung cannot incorporate rounded corners from a written description as a design element into their product?
I guess it depends on what you mean by copy.
No one's saying Apple copied the C-language source code.
But, like you just said, Apple saw Xerox's stuff, and then made their own that looked just about just like it.
If you build something yourself, but after having seen someone else's product, that's not copying, right? OK, good to have that cleared up. Meaning Samsung didn't copy Apple.
Anyway, the point of all this is to disabuse the notion that the oh-so-high Apple comes up with all this stuff on its own, and it deserves patent protection for it.
It didn't, and it doesn't.