I suppose there will be anti-rail gun boots allowing for that ridiculous jumping around to stop me from aiming my $@%!$ rail gun.
Re:Does anyone else here wonder how long it's...
on
iTunes Europe Goes Live
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Typically, a "media" company owns its own content. Apple owns no real content (either than its ads), nor is it making a play (yet) for a content company (or vice-versa, e.g. Sony buying Apple); so it doesn't appear that Apple is moving towards becoming a media company.
However, as you noted, Apple is certainly branching into consumer electronics, so it's more likley that they will continue to be a hardware company, but just one not completely focused on the computer market only. Given Apple's numerous awards for industrial design and cachet as being "sexy" and "upscale", it's probably a smart move (as the success of the iPod has proven).
Hardware was, is and probably will remain to be what Apple's all about.
Imagine how much DVD-Audio and SACD cost, especially as they have to accommodate existing players and feature backwards compatibility. (The current projected cost is about $40 to $50! Who will pay that for a few hours worth of music?)
$40-$50???
Pink Floyd Dark Side Of The Moon, SACD: $13.49 from Amazon.com Miles Davis Sketches of Spain, DVD-A, 14.99 from Amazon.com
Whatcha talkin bout Willis???
My additional 2 cents: I have a hybrid DVD-A and SACD player and the formats are worth it (IMHO) for the 5.1 channel mixes alone -- granted, not all music lends itself to surround mixes though. But check out The Flaming Lips Yoshmi Battles the PInk Robots on DVD-A to experience something way beyond what your CD player is capable of.
I've read in a number of places that game developers have discovered that the more "real" the physics engine, the less "fun" a game feels. Of course, for simulations, you do want accuracy. But for other games, you want "just the right amount" of realism to envelop the user in a believable environment, but not so much so that it mimics the somewhat boring constraints of real-life.
As more people sign on to high-speed access, how long will it be before we start seeing the cable companies (such as Comcast) start dropping their prices to levels which compete directly with dial-up?
IMHO, cable prices are exactly in line, given the price-to-performance ratio. I pay about $40/mo for 3Mbps...isn't that ridiculously worth it (compared to dial-up)?
First, to you (and all those who noticed that my examples lacked specificity of brand): you're right, there is a difference between using the brand name and I see how the iPod compares thusly.
However (and perhaps more importantly): No, I do not see why using the iPod bothers you or anyone else. Your modifcations of my examples (using Jansport, Panasonic, etc.) don't bother me in the least. And honestly, that was the actual point I was trying to make.
I suppose this falls into the same je ne sais quoi that some people experience in using the OS X interface, but I find something about the feel of coding applications for OS X is nicer than coding for Windows (though I do admit the documentation as MSDN is better than Apple's work in progress at developer.apple.com).
And since Xcode is free, any user can choose to become a developer; like the good old days when computers came with a bundled programming language burned into the ROM. Admitedly, this is also one of the joys of Linux (and all *NIX in general) over Windows ($550 for Visual Studio Pro Upgrade?).
I'll bet he [Brown] dismisses the widely reported claim that Mozart wrote three symphonies and performed for the King of England when he was nine on the grounds that 9-year-olds don't normally do this sort of thing.
Game. Set. Match. But knowing Ken Brown, I'm sure a "KompozerImpozter" book is in the works.
People here know what these patents are about and have already come to the conclusion that they are bogus. They were bogus when the first lawsuit was filed, and they are still as bogus today.
So, the conclusions of "people here" should outweigh the fact that the jury found RIM guilty of willful infringement? The opinions of "people here" should nullify the Appeals court upholding the ruling?
Perhaps you should look at the patents yourself some time. If you come to the conclusion that they are defensible, maybe you can make an argument, but that is not an issue most people feel the need to revisit on their own.
The fact that so many people here have made up their minds counter to the jury's and the court's decision strongly suggest that "most people" should definitely "feel the need" to revisit the issue. The only explanation I can deduce for their assumptions, is that "most people" here have the mindset that all patents are "bogus."
The consequences? If these patents stand, they potentially threaten a lot of mobile text-based messaging and give NTP, a company that has contributed nothing to the state of the art, an enormous financial windfall.
NTP, as the holding company for the inventor of the technologies, appears to have contributed everything to the "state of the art." RIM was found in willful infringement, so it follows they knew they were stealing Thomas Campana's ideas. Given the serious consequences --which you point out-- RIM should have quickly settled this matter for a large sum.
I really hate the way that the patent office, lawyers and some big business types are trying to parasitise the intellectual property I, and other intellectual property creators, are making. Such people are scum.
The irony here is incredible. NTP is not owned by "big business types" (everyone here seems to assume this). NTP is a holding company for the intellectual property creator, Thomas Campana and his partners. FYI, he is a retired electrical engineer with 50 patents to his name. You, as a intellectual property creator, should be on his side.
They replaced the old user name 'super' with 'superman', and changed the old password to '21241036'. "
And thanks to Slashdot, thus begins an endless stream of firmware updates; every time Netgear "fixes" their problem, I'm sure an article here will put the cycle in motion again. Let's see, who wants to guess what they change the password to next?
It's "half the price" because it only does half of what Apple's product does: Apple Express is a Wireless Access Point/Ethernet Bridge in addition to being an audio broadcaster for iTunes music.
"Just like its big brother, AirPort Extreme, AirPort Express uses the 802.11g wireless standard to deliver blazing data rates -- up to 54 Mbps.(3) It supports both Macs equipped with an AirPort Extreme Card and Wi-Fi-compliant 802.11g Windows PCs, as well as Macs with the older AirPort Card and 802.11b Windows PCs."
This seems to be lost on a lot of people. Is the AirTunes capability confusing people that this is just a iTunes only thing?
Is this yet another case of overreaching patents gone amok? = "Is this yet another chance to stir your typical/. reader into a frenzy?"
Really folks, the very mention of the word patent here results in typical anti-IP diatribes; often neglecting what is actually actually debatable and interesting: the merits of the patent in question, its defensibiblty and its consequences.
The poster's asking himself the aforequoted question betrays he didn't even bother to read the patent.
He is reportedly "not the sharpest knife in the drawer," but nevertheless is able to converse with many intelligent people, and is accepted at fine restaurants and hotels around the world.
Mr. Brown is clearly the drawer itself, rigid and defiant in the face of well-informed and well-argued counterpoints to his (especially in the light of the sheer amount of critcism) pathetic straw grapsing.
His point -- ironic that he, the alleged "dull" knife should have one -- is almost hysterical in its adherence to semantics: he is "right" simply because a "blank screen" could not have been Linus' starting point. In the parlance of the vulgarian: no shit sherlock. Every programmer builds upon the collective works of the other (even his surely esteemed Mr. Gates wrote BASIC from existing specifications) and the line between "stealing" and "innovating" is thicker than he would care to admit.
Please. Let us leave Mr. Brown alone and collecticly close this drawer. His dellusional arrogance -- as if the U.S. Government would stop and listen to his shrill "arguments" -- betrays his objective: to attack what he does not understand, to malign what he can't comprehend and to dimiss what he cannot possibly accept: open source is here to stay, and all the covertly funded "studies" to work against the tides are surely for naught.
AdTI has now been exposed in the same light as this fishy "research" that recently surfaced; Ken Brown took the bait and shoved it down his very own throat. Now, Mr. Brown, please try to remain quiet while your book lingers on the shelves.
Technically, it was real-life that gave Bricklin his idea in the first place. To quote:
Bricklin has spoken of watching his university professor create a table of calculation results on a blackboard. When the professor found an error, he had to tediously erase and rewrite a number of sequential entries in the table, triggering Bricklin to think that he could replicate the process on a computer....
I propose this for a new Slashdot system: before posting, you are forced to read the original article/patent/etc, then take a quiz to see if you understand it.
Hopefully this will rid us of the "OMG! How can MS patent the double-click, prior-art, prior-art, prior-art!" type of comments.
Seriously, do the editors include these misleading writeups only to get everybody to jump on its "All IP is bad" bandwagon?
As many have mentioned, nobody is forcing anyone (including Californians) to use GMail.
If you live in California, I advise you to write the bill's sponsor, Liz Figueroa and ask her to find something better to do with her time and your tax dollars. In case her page is Slashdotted you can always send her an email.
It was stupid for Lindows to use that name in the first place...like forming your company and calling it "Microsopht" - you're gonna get blasted and you won't win.
Anyone who thinks they name their product Lindows to "ride on the success" of Windows is missing the point.
It wasn't stupid"for Lindows" to do this...it was slyly calculated. They knew exactly what they were doing: by naming their product "Lindows" they were going to force Microsoft to defend its trademark -- a case they thought they could win.
If they had followed your example ("Microsopht") then that indeed would have been stupid, because that's an easy case of infringement.
Their product naming strategy was simply bait to force a court to re-evaluate Microsoft's tenuous trademark. Microsoft knows this full well, which is why they wanted the case thrown out.
Trademarks 101: You cannot trademark a generic name.
I think you mean, "You cannot trademark a descriptive name."
For instance, "Crest" is a generic name, and has a long history of use before Proctor and Gamble received a trademark for its toothpaste product.
If they has instead tried to apply for a trademark for a metal shield product, they almost certainly would have failed to receive protection because "Crest" is a descriptive term for a shield.
Generic terms are fine for trademarks (see Scope, Tide, etc.) as long as they are not descriptive.
In this case, "Windows" may indeed be a descriptive term due to its use in the UI domain prior to 1985 -- and that's what the courts will have to decide.
You are correct, however, that the parent to your post is missing the point.
No need to apologize, you obviously haven't lived in the building I lived in.;-)
No way to "pull up" -- no parking in front, and spaces are in the 2nd basement, one flight of steps below the basement proper. I suppose we could have left the bags in front of the elevator and made multiple trips at the basement level. But, the basement level was kind of nasty...
I've been using Peapod in DC since 1999 and I can't imagine ever going back to a supermarket.
My conversion was simple: my wife and I lived in an apartment and a typical shopping trip was capped off by parking in the basement garage and lugging countless bags (esp. those filled with cans) up a flight of steps, waiting for an elevator, walking to our door fumbling for keys, and then heading all the way back down for one or two more trips.
When we moved into our house, I figured the need for Peapod might diminish, but if anything we use it even more. We still an organic foods market for fresh vegetables, but for staples -- especially ordering cans in bulk for the pantry -- nothing beats paying just a little more for someone to deliver it to your door.
Now if only someone could resurrect Kozmo! Ordering fresh bagels and milk on Saturday morning and having it delivered 30 minutes later -- and returning your DVDs rented the night before in kind -- amazing...
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose there will be anti-rail gun boots allowing for that ridiculous jumping around to stop me from aiming my $@%!$ rail gun.
Typically, a "media" company owns its own content. Apple owns no real content (either than its ads), nor is it making a play (yet) for a content company (or vice-versa, e.g. Sony buying Apple); so it doesn't appear that Apple is moving towards becoming a media company.
However, as you noted, Apple is certainly branching into consumer electronics, so it's more likley that they will continue to be a hardware company, but just one not completely focused on the computer market only. Given Apple's numerous awards for industrial design and cachet as being "sexy" and "upscale", it's probably a smart move (as the success of the iPod has proven).
Hardware was, is and probably will remain to be what Apple's all about.
Imagine how much DVD-Audio and SACD cost, especially as they have to accommodate existing players and feature backwards compatibility. (The current projected cost is about $40 to $50! Who will pay that for a few hours worth of music?)
$40-$50???
Pink Floyd Dark Side Of The Moon, SACD: $13.49 from Amazon.com
Miles Davis Sketches of Spain, DVD-A, 14.99 from Amazon.com
Whatcha talkin bout Willis???
My additional 2 cents: I have a hybrid DVD-A and SACD player and the formats are worth it (IMHO) for the 5.1 channel mixes alone -- granted, not all music lends itself to surround mixes though. But check out The Flaming Lips Yoshmi Battles the PInk Robots on DVD-A to experience something way beyond what your CD player is capable of.
I've read in a number of places that game developers have discovered that the more "real" the physics engine, the less "fun" a game feels. Of course, for simulations, you do want accuracy. But for other games, you want "just the right amount" of realism to envelop the user in a believable environment, but not so much so that it mimics the somewhat boring constraints of real-life.
As more people sign on to high-speed access, how long will it be before we start seeing the cable companies (such as Comcast) start dropping their prices to levels which compete directly with dial-up?
IMHO, cable prices are exactly in line, given the price-to-performance ratio. I pay about $40/mo for 3Mbps...isn't that ridiculously worth it (compared to dial-up)?
First, to you (and all those who noticed that my examples lacked specificity of brand): you're right, there is a difference between using the brand name and I see how the iPod compares thusly.
However (and perhaps more importantly): No, I do not see why using the iPod bothers you or anyone else. Your modifcations of my examples (using Jansport, Panasonic, etc.) don't bother me in the least. And honestly, that was the actual point I was trying to make.
Strap This Portable GPS Onto Your Backpack
"WTF, doods? I use a satchel. Don't TELL ME what to use to carry my books!"
Watch The Star Wars Holiday Special On Your TV
"DVD = TV???? I've got a PLASMA you bitches. What is it with the analog bias on Slashdot these days, huh????"
New NASA-developed Lens Cleaner Keeps Glasses Dry In Rain
"Why couldn't you have titled this Eyewear???? I think most people use contacts these days anyway."
My guess is: probably not. Something about the iPod just drives these people nuts.
I suppose this falls into the same je ne sais quoi that some people experience in using the OS X interface, but I find something about the feel of coding applications for OS X is nicer than coding for Windows (though I do admit the documentation as MSDN is better than Apple's work in progress at developer.apple.com).
And since Xcode is free, any user can choose to become a developer; like the good old days when computers came with a bundled programming language burned into the ROM. Admitedly, this is also one of the joys of Linux (and all *NIX in general) over Windows ($550 for Visual Studio Pro Upgrade?).
I'll bet he [Brown] dismisses the widely reported claim that Mozart wrote three symphonies and performed for the King of England when he was nine on the grounds that 9-year-olds don't normally do this sort of thing.
Game. Set. Match. But knowing Ken Brown, I'm sure a "KompozerImpozter" book is in the works.
People here know what these patents are about and have already come to the conclusion that they are bogus. They were bogus when the first lawsuit was filed, and they are still as bogus today.
So, the conclusions of "people here" should outweigh the fact that the jury found RIM guilty of willful infringement? The opinions of "people here" should nullify the Appeals court upholding the ruling?
Perhaps you should look at the patents yourself some time. If you come to the conclusion that they are defensible, maybe you can make an argument, but that is not an issue most people feel the need to revisit on their own.
The fact that so many people here have made up their minds counter to the jury's and the court's decision strongly suggest that "most people" should definitely "feel the need" to revisit the issue. The only explanation I can deduce for their assumptions, is that "most people" here have the mindset that all patents are "bogus."
The consequences? If these patents stand, they potentially threaten a lot of mobile text-based messaging and give NTP, a company that has contributed nothing to the state of the art, an enormous financial windfall.
NTP, as the holding company for the inventor of the technologies, appears to have contributed everything to the "state of the art." RIM was found in willful infringement, so it follows they knew they were stealing Thomas Campana's ideas. Given the serious consequences --which you point out-- RIM should have quickly settled this matter for a large sum.
Clear enough?
Transparently so.
I really hate the way that the patent office, lawyers and some big business types are trying to parasitise the intellectual property I, and other intellectual property creators, are making. Such people are scum.
The irony here is incredible. NTP is not owned by "big business types" (everyone here seems to assume this). NTP is a holding company for the intellectual property creator, Thomas Campana and his partners. FYI, he is a retired electrical engineer with 50 patents to his name. You, as a intellectual property creator, should be on his side.
They replaced the old user name 'super' with 'superman', and changed the old password to '21241036'. "
And thanks to Slashdot, thus begins an endless stream of firmware updates; every time Netgear "fixes" their problem, I'm sure an article here will put the cycle in motion again. Let's see, who wants to guess what they change the password to next?
"superduperman", anyone?
It's "half the price" because it only does half of what Apple's product does: Apple Express is a Wireless Access Point/Ethernet Bridge in addition to being an audio broadcaster for iTunes music.
To serve as a more functional portable wireless access point?
That's exactly what Airport Express is:
"Just like its big brother, AirPort Extreme, AirPort Express uses the 802.11g wireless standard to deliver blazing data rates -- up to 54 Mbps.(3) It supports both Macs equipped with an AirPort Extreme Card and Wi-Fi-compliant 802.11g Windows PCs, as well as Macs with the older AirPort Card and 802.11b Windows PCs."
This seems to be lost on a lot of people. Is the AirTunes capability confusing people that this is just a iTunes only thing?
Is this yet another case of overreaching patents gone amok? = "Is this yet another chance to stir your typical /. reader into a frenzy?"
Really folks, the very mention of the word patent here results in typical anti-IP diatribes; often neglecting what is actually actually debatable and interesting: the merits of the patent in question, its defensibiblty and its consequences.
The poster's asking himself the aforequoted question betrays he didn't even bother to read the patent.
Is it time to add "-1 RTFP" as a moderation type?
But the tilde is how you specify a destructor in C++, e.g.:
;-)
class CSlashDot {
public:
CSlashDot() : mModPoints(0), mTrollFilter(NULL) {}
virtual ~CSlashDot() {
if(mTrollFilter)
free(mTrollFilter);
}
protected:
long mModPoints;
char* mTrollFilter;
};
I use it every day, please don't remove it!
He is reportedly "not the sharpest knife in the drawer," but nevertheless is able to converse with many intelligent people, and is accepted at fine restaurants and hotels around the world.
Mr. Brown is clearly the drawer itself, rigid and defiant in the face of well-informed and well-argued counterpoints to his (especially in the light of the sheer amount of critcism) pathetic straw grapsing.
His point -- ironic that he, the alleged "dull" knife should have one -- is almost hysterical in its adherence to semantics: he is "right" simply because a "blank screen" could not have been Linus' starting point. In the parlance of the vulgarian: no shit sherlock. Every programmer builds upon the collective works of the other (even his surely esteemed Mr. Gates wrote BASIC from existing specifications) and the line between "stealing" and "innovating" is thicker than he would care to admit.
Please. Let us leave Mr. Brown alone and collecticly close this drawer. His dellusional arrogance -- as if the U.S. Government would stop and listen to his shrill "arguments" -- betrays his objective: to attack what he does not understand, to malign what he can't comprehend and to dimiss what he cannot possibly accept: open source is here to stay, and all the covertly funded "studies" to work against the tides are surely for naught.
AdTI has now been exposed in the same light as this fishy "research" that recently surfaced; Ken Brown took the bait and shoved it down his very own throat. Now, Mr. Brown, please try to remain quiet while your book lingers on the shelves.
The spreadsheet has no real-life corollary
Technically, it was real-life that gave Bricklin his idea in the first place. To quote:
Bricklin has spoken of watching his university professor create a table of calculation results on a blackboard. When the professor found an error, he had to tediously erase and rewrite a number of sequential entries in the table, triggering Bricklin to think that he could replicate the process on a computer....
So, I propose this for the new patent system
I propose this for a new Slashdot system: before posting, you are forced to read the original article/patent/etc, then take a quiz to see if you understand it.
Hopefully this will rid us of the "OMG! How can MS patent the double-click, prior-art, prior-art, prior-art!" type of comments.
Seriously, do the editors include these misleading writeups only to get everybody to jump on its "All IP is bad" bandwagon?
Especially if your mom's truly terrified -- she will make an excellent mark^H^H^H^Hvictim^H^H^H^H^H^Hstudent.
;-)
Oh...wait, computer programming...how about Whitespace?
As many have mentioned, nobody is forcing anyone (including Californians) to use GMail.
If you live in California, I advise you to write the bill's sponsor, Liz Figueroa and ask her to find something better to do with her time and your tax dollars. In case her page is Slashdotted you can always send her an email.
It was stupid for Lindows to use that name in the first place...like forming your company and calling it "Microsopht" - you're gonna get blasted and you won't win.
Anyone who thinks they name their product Lindows to "ride on the success" of Windows is missing the point.
It wasn't stupid"for Lindows" to do this...it was slyly calculated. They knew exactly what they were doing: by naming their product "Lindows" they were going to force Microsoft to defend its trademark -- a case they thought they could win.
If they had followed your example ("Microsopht") then that indeed would have been stupid, because that's an easy case of infringement.
Their product naming strategy was simply bait to force a court to re-evaluate Microsoft's tenuous trademark. Microsoft knows this full well, which is why they wanted the case thrown out.
Trademarks 101: You cannot trademark a generic name.
I think you mean, "You cannot trademark a descriptive name."
For instance, "Crest" is a generic name, and has a long history of use before Proctor and Gamble received a trademark for its toothpaste product.
If they has instead tried to apply for a trademark for a metal shield product, they almost certainly would have failed to receive protection because "Crest" is a descriptive term for a shield.
Generic terms are fine for trademarks (see Scope, Tide, etc.) as long as they are not descriptive.
In this case, "Windows" may indeed be a descriptive term due to its use in the UI domain prior to 1985 -- and that's what the courts will have to decide.
You are correct, however, that the parent to your post is missing the point.
No need to apologize, you obviously haven't lived in the building I lived in. ;-)
No way to "pull up" -- no parking in front, and spaces are in the 2nd basement, one flight of steps below the basement proper. I suppose we could have left the bags in front of the elevator and made multiple trips at the basement level. But, the basement level was kind of nasty...
I've been using Peapod in DC since 1999 and I can't imagine ever going back to a supermarket.
My conversion was simple: my wife and I lived in an apartment and a typical shopping trip was capped off by parking in the basement garage and lugging countless bags (esp. those filled with cans) up a flight of steps, waiting for an elevator, walking to our door fumbling for keys, and then heading all the way back down for one or two more trips.
When we moved into our house, I figured the need for Peapod might diminish, but if anything we use it even more. We still an organic foods market for fresh vegetables, but for staples -- especially ordering cans in bulk for the pantry -- nothing beats paying just a little more for someone to deliver it to your door.
Now if only someone could resurrect Kozmo! Ordering fresh bagels and milk on Saturday morning and having it delivered 30 minutes later -- and returning your DVDs rented the night before in kind -- amazing...