Oh how I wish you were right.
In some areas and with some people you might be correct. However, especially in the US, there is still a deep ingrained culture that assumes women know nothing about technology and math and engineering.
> Also for decades movies have influenced culture to where it is well accepted across most cultures that women are intellectually equal to men, and can do anything they want.
I WISH this were true. It's much better than it used to be, I'll give you that. But a large majority of people still view women unequally in intellect.
The systemic bias is in the culture. Despite the attempts that we keep performing to get more female engineers, culturally there is still the idea that math and science are for boys and language and communication skills are for girls. This ridiculous notion still exists in society and creates the "image" problem that most engineering has as a "not for girls" job.
You specifically stated an editorial. I have never seen any newspaper that had an editorial that did not have a disclaimer that stated since it was an editorial it did not reflect the views of the company as a whole. Thus, the editorial is a private citizen expressing their views, not representing the company.
As I said, an editorial is the same as a blog post edorsement. These are not the same as a campaign advertisement. However, could it be construed as a campaign advertisement? Perhaps, and if so, then they should be penalized for breaking the law.
The entire point here, is the effect that was bad from Citizens United was not who can make advertisements, but the fact that companies can donate unrestricted amounts of money to political campaigns and do not have to disclose it. Which results in the fact that corporations can effectively buy elections.
I keep seeing people arguing about cloning products and whatnot, and I keep saying this exact thing. While people call those who don't like patents "entitled", I say it's them who feel they are entitled to own ideas, simply because they were given the problem first...
Just because a movie about a particular candidate can hurt that candidate does not make it the same as a campaign advertisement.
I agree with you on that. Guess what, that's why there was a court case. The judge decided that the particular tone and content of the movie they made was nothing different than an elongated version of a 30 second television advertisement. If the decision was limited to the interpretation of the law and stated that the judge was wrong based on the content and tone of the movie that would have been fine. The problem I have is the expansion to remove any limitations on corporate spending with politics.
More importantly, how is an editorial endorsement of a candidate different from a campaign advertisement for that same candidate?
In the same way that a blog endorsement is different from a campaign advertisement. A private citizen making a statement (regardless of the platform) is not the same as an advertisement paid for from the general treasury of a corporation.
The reason why they were prohibited to show the movie they created, was that it was determined by the courts that it was not a "bona fide commercial activity" it was instead "an elongated version of a negative 30-second television spot." Which "served no purpose other than to discredit Clinton's candidacy for Presidency."
This is of course different from reporting, ostensibly, news from the NYT and CNN. Notice that the law does not say that they cannot publish anything they want about a candidate. It says that a corporation cannot use their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications." There's a very big difference from reporting a story and running a campaign advertisement.
Exemption from what? If the NYT is giving money directly to finance a campaign, I have a problem with that just as if any other company was financing a campaign.
There's a difference between promoting a political opinion and directly financing a campaign. If the people who have grouped together want to give money to a campaign, then they can do so of their own money and their own will. The corporation itself, the manifestation of the group, should not be able to.
You're arguing a complete straw man. I never said they weren't within their rights. I never said that what they are doing is illegal, nor even hinted at it.
I'm also not talking about things that are "OMFG why didn't I think of that." I'm talking about things that when that particular problem was put to me I went "So, why don't you just do this?" after thinking about it for roughly 5 or 10 minutes. Or problems that result in my reaction of "you mean they don't just do X? Why the hell not?" And then found out that those solutions are patented by MS, which is why they don't do it.
When there's prior art along with thousands of competent software engineers who all look at something like showing you the text in the browser while still loading the background images to make it seem faster (rather than just waiting until everything is downloaded) and go "well, duh!?" at the solution, then the patent should never have been granted.
I never said that they can't do what they are doing, or that it is illegal in anyway, I just said that I don't like it, and it's wrong for them to do it, for these patents to have been granted, etc. If you're going to argue with me, at least argue the point I am arguing, rather than a straw man.
No one said they broke any laws. And it's not just MS hate, I hate on pretty much every company that uses their patents offensively.
The patent isn't trivial because I call it that, the patent is trivial because an ordinary software engineer would find the solution to be obvious. These patents, along with many others, should never have been granted. It's more of an example why software patents are just a horrible idea. The implementation is not patented, the idea is, which is contrary to the purpose of patents.
In addition, just because they have a patent does not mean they must assert the patent just to make a buck (use it offensively). Microsoft makes more money from Android phones than from their own Windows phones, by asserting trivial patents that should not have been granted. Regardless the legality, it's what many would call being a troll.
used it to justify taking material from microsoft, apple, and oracle
Since we're just discussing microsoft here, let's take a look at the patents that Microsoft is using:
Placing a loading status icon in the content area of a browser
Browser recognizes background images and loads the text first so it loads faster
Putting controls into the OS for all applications to use rather than tabbed controls on an application by application basis
Using a handle to change the size of text for a selection region
Storing and displaying non-modifiable annotations to text
Please tell me how those aren't common sense things that are trivial to be patented. You can't because any engineer worth his salt will see the problem that needs to be solved and find the obvious solution, which is each of these. Not to mention the prior art.
When the patents they are using to hold something for ransom are trivial patents that any programmer would come up with the same solution if given the same problem, with lots of prior art, then yes. They are being a patent troll in this instance.
Like I said, if there existed examples of common red London bus/b&w Big Ben artwork before 2006, then that would constitute prior art, and the plaintiff shouldn't have won. However, TFA says that the defendant could not provide dates for the examples he offered.
This is copyright, not patents. Prior Art means nothing.
How is reading a book different from playing a video game? Both are a hobby that one can partake in that provides enjoyment. Both take a lot of work to produce. But one is referred to as an "adolescent mentality" and the other is not, that makes no sense.
Did you know the average gamer is 21 - 35 years old? You going to say that everyone in the entire industry has an adolescent mentality? Give me a break...
It's not political correctness, it's calling someone out for being a dick. Freedom of speech means that you are fully able to hurt other people's feelings without the government stopping you, it does NOT mean that you shouldn't be called out for being a fucking asshole when you do it.
Actually, if you aren't within certain parameters of the Android Comptability Test Suite, then you can't use the Android trademark, and if you aren't using the Android Trademark then you cannot include any of the google proprietary Apps, which would be Maps, Gmail, Market, etc.
The definition of "dedicated" is up to interpretation. Already under the "Operation In Our Sites" that ICE is performing, many legitimate websites have been caught in the crossfire while being claimed as "dedicated" to copyright infringement. Several were accused of copyright infringement and had their websites taken down, only to find out that the videos were given to them by the copyright owners as promotional material.
We don't give the government right to take down a website without due process, no matter what. Not only that, but even The Pirate Bay has some legitimate, non-infringing content on it.
The government and big-business do not get to decide what is and is not allowed to be accessed. If the law is being broken, then charge or sue the people who are breaking the law, that is it.
choices that have already greatly enriched the options available to consumers
They have only enriched the options available to consumers because other companies were free to see what works, copy, modify and improve upon it. You are arguing that once Apple created the iPhone, no other device would be allowed to be created during the life of the patent that uses a similar feature set. Effectively, you want patents to hinder competition even more than they already do. This is a ridiculous notion. If anything, this is an argument that that protection is not needed at all as Apple more than managed to make billions in profit without those protections.
The LG Prada makes my point very well because the LG Prada was not a big success, despite being made by a well-known factory and having a famous design imprint. Hardly anybody in the US has used it, because no US carrier even bothered to offer it. Clearly, it takes more than just a touchscreen to transform the market for phones.
What's that you say? That it takes more than having a full touchscreen and a rectangular shape and bezels to copy a device? That even though they used a similar physical design, the problem was that the iPhone had better software? Hmm....that seems suspiciously familiar....
It would seem that even Apple and all their innovative glory, imitated the LG Prada. The difference between them, was that the software for the iPhone was better.
Oh, yea. That's what I already said. You seem to have missed my point. Since we have gotten off to a large tangent, I'll try to bring it back. The conversation was talking about the form-factor, and physical design. Apple themselves copied the physical design of the LG Prada (if they didn't they've never denied it) and paired it with better software to differentiate it. They didn't pioneer anything but usable software to go with a touch screen. Just as Samsung has created a tablet in a similar design to the iPad because that design is what consumers want, Apple created the iPhone in a similar design to the LG Prada because that was the "New big idea".
As I said, the concept of a flat, rectangular, bezeled device is nothing new at all. There's nothing novel about it.The software running on it that takes advantage of the form factor and makes it as useful and easy to use, that is novel.
Exactly. There is more to a successful touch phone or pad than just the form factor. What transformed the market was Apple's felicitous combination of a particular hardware design with software designed and optimized to take advantage of it--which is why the clones have imitated both.
You even agree with me. Except where we disagree, is where you are claiming that only Android is imitating the iPhone, when instead, both are imitating each other. I'll even give you, based on the posts you linked, that the design change from a blackberry-like device to a full-screen touchscreen device was to compete against the iPhone. But for everything you could probably name where Android supposedly "copied" or "imitated" the iPhone or iPad, I could also name ways where the iPhone and iPad are imitating Android. Apple is not this shining paragon of innovation. They do the same as everyone else, figure out what features the competition has that consumers want and copy them. Then come up with new things such as improvements or new features that differentiate themselves from the competition. If you really believe that what I just described is wrong and bad....then you think that the iPhone shouldn't have Copy&Paste, that they shouldn't have drag down notifications, hell, you believe that the iPhone shouldn't have the ability to add third-party applications! All of these were design choices made by Apple after competitors had them and they copied the idea, and implemented it.
Market share is pretty misleading here, since Apple's market share of iPad-like devices was initially infinite, so clearly it would drop. In Apple's form factor (as opposed to el-cheapo 7" pads), Apple remains dominant. There is clearly a market for devices like the Fire and Nook--but it is a different market.
I never said Apple wasn't still dominant. Hell, I said they have 63% of the market. However, the Kindle and Nook are not a different market than the iPad. They are simply lower cost alternatives. That's like saying that Volkswagen cars aren't in the same market as Lexus cars. Of course they are in the same market, the VW is just a lower cost alternative. There are pros and cons based on what features you get for your money. It's still th
But while we're asking questions, what gives you the right to determine how a company choses to sell their products?
I don't care how they sell their products. But the right of a consumer to do what they like with property they own is paramount. If I am purchasing something, then I own it. End of story. What gives a company the right to tell me how to use my own property?
It's not like you did not know this before purchasing the product, or at the very worst after reading the licensing agreement and still able to return the product.
Most people actually do not know this, because they don't do their research. It's a deceptive market practice, which I'm pretty sure most people see as bad. It's called consumer protections. Not only that, but I'd have to pay a restocking fee for returning an iPhone (not that I'd ever purchase any Apple product). So I'd be out money just because a company thinks it can tell me how to use my own property and I disagreed.
It's the companies product and they can chose to sell it to whomever under what ever conditions they chose (or at least they would if there was actually a free market*). If you don't like those conditions then don't by the product
People are going to buy it regardless. They don't do their research or don't realize the damage or just don't care. Either way, Apple is making money hand over fist despite this. With more and more manufacturers going this way where they are trying to control how you use hardware you purchase, eventually the option will be to either suck it up or don't use technology. That's not a choice at all. This is why a "pure free market" doesn't work. Companies will do whatever they can to milk more money out of consumers while restricting them in more ways. There's a reason why consumer protections exist and are necessary.
And, you being the honest person that you are, would continue to pay that contract even though you no longer use the phone on the AT&T network.
Why would you no longer use the phone on the AT&T Network after you jailbreak it? The phone isn't very useful if you don't have service to it.
Me, being a far more evil person, would immediately stop paying my contract once I jail-broke my phone. What are they going to do? Slash my credit rating? Meanwhile, AT&T is still out the cost of my phone.
That's why they have ETFs. They would slash your credit rating and you'd owe them the ETF. Up to you....
Slashdot Mirror
Oh how I wish you were right. In some areas and with some people you might be correct. However, especially in the US, there is still a deep ingrained culture that assumes women know nothing about technology and math and engineering. > Also for decades movies have influenced culture to where it is well accepted across most cultures that women are intellectually equal to men, and can do anything they want. I WISH this were true. It's much better than it used to be, I'll give you that. But a large majority of people still view women unequally in intellect.
The systemic bias is in the culture. Despite the attempts that we keep performing to get more female engineers, culturally there is still the idea that math and science are for boys and language and communication skills are for girls. This ridiculous notion still exists in society and creates the "image" problem that most engineering has as a "not for girls" job.
You specifically stated an editorial. I have never seen any newspaper that had an editorial that did not have a disclaimer that stated since it was an editorial it did not reflect the views of the company as a whole. Thus, the editorial is a private citizen expressing their views, not representing the company.
As I said, an editorial is the same as a blog post edorsement. These are not the same as a campaign advertisement. However, could it be construed as a campaign advertisement? Perhaps, and if so, then they should be penalized for breaking the law.
The entire point here, is the effect that was bad from Citizens United was not who can make advertisements, but the fact that companies can donate unrestricted amounts of money to political campaigns and do not have to disclose it. Which results in the fact that corporations can effectively buy elections.
This, this, holy fucking crap this!
I keep seeing people arguing about cloning products and whatnot, and I keep saying this exact thing. While people call those who don't like patents "entitled", I say it's them who feel they are entitled to own ideas, simply because they were given the problem first...
Just because a movie about a particular candidate can hurt that candidate does not make it the same as a campaign advertisement.
I agree with you on that. Guess what, that's why there was a court case. The judge decided that the particular tone and content of the movie they made was nothing different than an elongated version of a 30 second television advertisement. If the decision was limited to the interpretation of the law and stated that the judge was wrong based on the content and tone of the movie that would have been fine. The problem I have is the expansion to remove any limitations on corporate spending with politics.
More importantly, how is an editorial endorsement of a candidate different from a campaign advertisement for that same candidate?
In the same way that a blog endorsement is different from a campaign advertisement. A private citizen making a statement (regardless of the platform) is not the same as an advertisement paid for from the general treasury of a corporation.
Just because news can benefit a particular candidate, does not make it the same as a campaign advertisement....
You have to look at the context and end results.
The reason why they were prohibited to show the movie they created, was that it was determined by the courts that it was not a "bona fide commercial activity" it was instead "an elongated version of a negative 30-second television spot." Which "served no purpose other than to discredit Clinton's candidacy for Presidency."
This is of course different from reporting, ostensibly, news from the NYT and CNN. Notice that the law does not say that they cannot publish anything they want about a candidate. It says that a corporation cannot use their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications." There's a very big difference from reporting a story and running a campaign advertisement.
Exemption from what? If the NYT is giving money directly to finance a campaign, I have a problem with that just as if any other company was financing a campaign.
There's a difference between promoting a political opinion and directly financing a campaign. If the people who have grouped together want to give money to a campaign, then they can do so of their own money and their own will. The corporation itself, the manifestation of the group, should not be able to.
It does have incognito tabs :)
You're arguing a complete straw man. I never said they weren't within their rights. I never said that what they are doing is illegal, nor even hinted at it.
I'm also not talking about things that are "OMFG why didn't I think of that." I'm talking about things that when that particular problem was put to me I went "So, why don't you just do this?" after thinking about it for roughly 5 or 10 minutes. Or problems that result in my reaction of "you mean they don't just do X? Why the hell not?" And then found out that those solutions are patented by MS, which is why they don't do it.
When there's prior art along with thousands of competent software engineers who all look at something like showing you the text in the browser while still loading the background images to make it seem faster (rather than just waiting until everything is downloaded) and go "well, duh!?" at the solution, then the patent should never have been granted.
I never said that they can't do what they are doing, or that it is illegal in anyway, I just said that I don't like it, and it's wrong for them to do it, for these patents to have been granted, etc. If you're going to argue with me, at least argue the point I am arguing, rather than a straw man.
No one said they broke any laws. And it's not just MS hate, I hate on pretty much every company that uses their patents offensively.
The patent isn't trivial because I call it that, the patent is trivial because an ordinary software engineer would find the solution to be obvious. These patents, along with many others, should never have been granted. It's more of an example why software patents are just a horrible idea. The implementation is not patented, the idea is, which is contrary to the purpose of patents.
In addition, just because they have a patent does not mean they must assert the patent just to make a buck (use it offensively). Microsoft makes more money from Android phones than from their own Windows phones, by asserting trivial patents that should not have been granted. Regardless the legality, it's what many would call being a troll.
used it to justify taking material from microsoft, apple, and oracle
Since we're just discussing microsoft here, let's take a look at the patents that Microsoft is using:
Please tell me how those aren't common sense things that are trivial to be patented. You can't because any engineer worth his salt will see the problem that needs to be solved and find the obvious solution, which is each of these. Not to mention the prior art.
When the patents they are using to hold something for ransom are trivial patents that any programmer would come up with the same solution if given the same problem, with lots of prior art, then yes. They are being a patent troll in this instance.
Like I said, if there existed examples of common red London bus/b&w Big Ben artwork before 2006, then that would constitute prior art, and the plaintiff shouldn't have won. However, TFA says that the defendant could not provide dates for the examples he offered.
This is copyright, not patents. Prior Art means nothing.
That's the thing, at this point Apple is just burning money in a large bonfire while playing whack-a-mole.
How is reading a book different from playing a video game? Both are a hobby that one can partake in that provides enjoyment. Both take a lot of work to produce. But one is referred to as an "adolescent mentality" and the other is not, that makes no sense.
Did you know the average gamer is 21 - 35 years old? You going to say that everyone in the entire industry has an adolescent mentality? Give me a break...
It's not political correctness, it's calling someone out for being a dick. Freedom of speech means that you are fully able to hurt other people's feelings without the government stopping you, it does NOT mean that you shouldn't be called out for being a fucking asshole when you do it.
Google is the new Microsoft creating a platform of ass and reaping billions for it in spite of themselves
hmm, except for the whole open source, free license, unlocked bootloaders, etc......
Actually, if you aren't within certain parameters of the Android Comptability Test Suite, then you can't use the Android trademark, and if you aren't using the Android Trademark then you cannot include any of the google proprietary Apps, which would be Maps, Gmail, Market, etc.
The definition of "dedicated" is up to interpretation. Already under the "Operation In Our Sites" that ICE is performing, many legitimate websites have been caught in the crossfire while being claimed as "dedicated" to copyright infringement. Several were accused of copyright infringement and had their websites taken down, only to find out that the videos were given to them by the copyright owners as promotional material.
We don't give the government right to take down a website without due process, no matter what. Not only that, but even The Pirate Bay has some legitimate, non-infringing content on it.
The government and big-business do not get to decide what is and is not allowed to be accessed. If the law is being broken, then charge or sue the people who are breaking the law, that is it.
choices that have already greatly enriched the options available to consumers
They have only enriched the options available to consumers because other companies were free to see what works, copy, modify and improve upon it. You are arguing that once Apple created the iPhone, no other device would be allowed to be created during the life of the patent that uses a similar feature set. Effectively, you want patents to hinder competition even more than they already do. This is a ridiculous notion. If anything, this is an argument that that protection is not needed at all as Apple more than managed to make billions in profit without those protections.
The LG Prada makes my point very well because the LG Prada was not a big success, despite being made by a well-known factory and having a famous design imprint. Hardly anybody in the US has used it, because no US carrier even bothered to offer it. Clearly, it takes more than just a touchscreen to transform the market for phones.
What's that you say? That it takes more than having a full touchscreen and a rectangular shape and bezels to copy a device? That even though they used a similar physical design, the problem was that the iPhone had better software? Hmm....that seems suspiciously familiar....
It would seem that even Apple and all their innovative glory, imitated the LG Prada. The difference between them, was that the software for the iPhone was better.
Oh, yea. That's what I already said. You seem to have missed my point. Since we have gotten off to a large tangent, I'll try to bring it back. The conversation was talking about the form-factor, and physical design. Apple themselves copied the physical design of the LG Prada (if they didn't they've never denied it) and paired it with better software to differentiate it. They didn't pioneer anything but usable software to go with a touch screen. Just as Samsung has created a tablet in a similar design to the iPad because that design is what consumers want, Apple created the iPhone in a similar design to the LG Prada because that was the "New big idea".
As I said, the concept of a flat, rectangular, bezeled device is nothing new at all. There's nothing novel about it.The software running on it that takes advantage of the form factor and makes it as useful and easy to use, that is novel.
Exactly. There is more to a successful touch phone or pad than just the form factor. What transformed the market was Apple's felicitous combination of a particular hardware design with software designed and optimized to take advantage of it--which is why the clones have imitated both.
You even agree with me. Except where we disagree, is where you are claiming that only Android is imitating the iPhone, when instead, both are imitating each other. I'll even give you, based on the posts you linked, that the design change from a blackberry-like device to a full-screen touchscreen device was to compete against the iPhone. But for everything you could probably name where Android supposedly "copied" or "imitated" the iPhone or iPad, I could also name ways where the iPhone and iPad are imitating Android. Apple is not this shining paragon of innovation. They do the same as everyone else, figure out what features the competition has that consumers want and copy them. Then come up with new things such as improvements or new features that differentiate themselves from the competition. If you really believe that what I just described is wrong and bad....then you think that the iPhone shouldn't have Copy&Paste, that they shouldn't have drag down notifications, hell, you believe that the iPhone shouldn't have the ability to add third-party applications! All of these were design choices made by Apple after competitors had them and they copied the idea, and implemented it.
Market share is pretty misleading here, since Apple's market share of iPad-like devices was initially infinite, so clearly it would drop. In Apple's form factor (as opposed to el-cheapo 7" pads), Apple remains dominant. There is clearly a market for devices like the Fire and Nook--but it is a different market.
I never said Apple wasn't still dominant. Hell, I said they have 63% of the market. However, the Kindle and Nook are not a different market than the iPad. They are simply lower cost alternatives. That's like saying that Volkswagen cars aren't in the same market as Lexus cars. Of course they are in the same market, the VW is just a lower cost alternative. There are pros and cons based on what features you get for your money. It's still th
But while we're asking questions, what gives you the right to determine how a company choses to sell their products?
I don't care how they sell their products. But the right of a consumer to do what they like with property they own is paramount. If I am purchasing something, then I own it. End of story. What gives a company the right to tell me how to use my own property?
It's not like you did not know this before purchasing the product, or at the very worst after reading the licensing agreement and still able to return the product.
Most people actually do not know this, because they don't do their research. It's a deceptive market practice, which I'm pretty sure most people see as bad. It's called consumer protections. Not only that, but I'd have to pay a restocking fee for returning an iPhone (not that I'd ever purchase any Apple product). So I'd be out money just because a company thinks it can tell me how to use my own property and I disagreed.
It's the companies product and they can chose to sell it to whomever under what ever conditions they chose (or at least they would if there was actually a free market*). If you don't like those conditions then don't by the product
People are going to buy it regardless. They don't do their research or don't realize the damage or just don't care. Either way, Apple is making money hand over fist despite this. With more and more manufacturers going this way where they are trying to control how you use hardware you purchase, eventually the option will be to either suck it up or don't use technology. That's not a choice at all. This is why a "pure free market" doesn't work. Companies will do whatever they can to milk more money out of consumers while restricting them in more ways. There's a reason why consumer protections exist and are necessary.
And, you being the honest person that you are, would continue to pay that contract even though you no longer use the phone on the AT&T network.
Why would you no longer use the phone on the AT&T Network after you jailbreak it? The phone isn't very useful if you don't have service to it.
Me, being a far more evil person, would immediately stop paying my contract once I jail-broke my phone. What are they going to do? Slash my credit rating? Meanwhile, AT&T is still out the cost of my phone.
That's why they have ETFs. They would slash your credit rating and you'd owe them the ETF. Up to you....