I could of sworn I saw this kind of thing on CD jukeboxes and when flipping through a book. Maybe I was hallucinating.
Maybe you missed the words "on a computer", which makes it a completely new innovation. "On a phone" and "on a tablet" also make it completely new all over again. I mean, who would've thunk to make something that looks and feels like reality...on a computer/phone/tablet? It's so innovative. [/sarcasm]
...we’ve decided to bid for Nortel’s patent portfolio...In the absence of meaningful reform, we believe it's the best long-term solution for Google, our users and our partners.
Personally I hope it lasts another decade or two. Seriously, screw the desktop; in 20 years we'll all have "mobile" supercomputers with us everywhere we go.
My thoughts precisely. It'll be interesting if Android becomes the successful "open" option for gaming. I haven't heard much buzz about Google TV lately, which makes me worry...
Greetings from 2163! Patents were sooo last century...can't imagine how you got any collaboration done with that crappy system. Patent law encouraging innovation...hah! (spoilers) World War IV pretty much put an end to that silly "intellectual property" idea. But for you "free software" geeks, I suggest you go into hiding before the Sharer's Inquisition a few years after WW III.
For whom? Who would be responsible for that vulnerability? Browsers? Web site designers? Users?
Certainly the browser should make it as easy as possible for users to execute (or prevent execution of) any arbitrary javascript. Anyone with Chrome or Firefox can already do this with relative ease. I don't think it would be very hard for browsers to provide this ability exclusively to users, though the Vista effect ("are you *sure* you want to...?") could be an unfortunate side-effect.
Equilibrium will happen neither instantaneously nor completely. Compare the air in Mexico City with the air of surrounding areas. This isn't about total pollution in the world. This is about moving pollution away from the people, and your equilibrium theory is completely bogus.
Unless you're talking about a timespan of thousands of years. In that case...Dear future humankind: I expect everything to be solar-powered by the year 2222.
I was skeptical, but I have to admit it went beyond my expectations
OK. Yes. I understand that most of the time, people in ads are actors. But this pushes it too far. It apparently shows the actor's real name, and (real?) age, and fake profession. Then these actors are "interviewed" about their "reaction" to the Galaxy tab. I can understand putting comments like "it's just what I need!" in a fake ad. I can also understand using an actor to portray the testimonial of some other real person. But this appears to be 100% fabricated. When you start inventing "skeptical" people that turn believer about your product, you're stepping over the line.
(That said, I think the Galaxy Tab is freaking awesome and would love to have one.)
While it's easy to paint the situation that way, the reality is a lot more complicated than "they miscalculated what they could get away with." Despite popular belief, there are benefits, as well as costs, to unrestricted information. While "we the people" see the costs as far outweighing the benefits, we're also not the ones that have to make decisions that will inevitably be criticized left and right no matter what they are. (Also despite popular belief, no one is capable of being the perfect politician.) We all see through biased eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
http://windows.kde.org/
http://cygnome.sourceforge.net/
I think green-eggs-and ham patents are still up for grabs for the variants: "in a box" and "with a fox", you just needs to "invent" those.
I suppose you /. with lynx?
I could of sworn I saw this kind of thing on CD jukeboxes and when flipping through a book. Maybe I was hallucinating.
Maybe you missed the words "on a computer", which makes it a completely new innovation. "On a phone" and "on a tablet" also make it completely new all over again. I mean, who would've thunk to make something that looks and feels like reality...on a computer/phone/tablet? It's so innovative. [/sarcasm]
wax?
Well we used to teach just Algebra, but then we improved it and now it is web scale so we call it Algebra II. (???)
RTFA; Google's not trying to stifle that detail
...we’ve decided to bid for Nortel’s patent portfolio...In the absence of meaningful reform, we believe it's the best long-term solution for Google, our users and our partners.
Wake me up when a government says the same thing.
In other words, when Google takes over?
the decade of Linux on the mobile device
Personally I hope it lasts another decade or two. Seriously, screw the desktop; in 20 years we'll all have "mobile" supercomputers with us everywhere we go.
Was there even an "open" option there?
My thoughts precisely. It'll be interesting if Android becomes the successful "open" option for gaming. I haven't heard much buzz about Google TV lately, which makes me worry...
Greetings from 2163! Patents were sooo last century...can't imagine how you got any collaboration done with that crappy system. Patent law encouraging innovation...hah! (spoilers) World War IV pretty much put an end to that silly "intellectual property" idea. But for you "free software" geeks, I suggest you go into hiding before the Sharer's Inquisition a few years after WW III.
...enormous security vulnerability...
For whom? Who would be responsible for that vulnerability? Browsers? Web site designers? Users?
Certainly the browser should make it as easy as possible for users to execute (or prevent execution of) any arbitrary javascript. Anyone with Chrome or Firefox can already do this with relative ease. I don't think it would be very hard for browsers to provide this ability exclusively to users, though the Vista effect ("are you *sure* you want to...?") could be an unfortunate side-effect.
I wonder if these numbers include "entity" accounts on Facebook/Twitter like @slashdot
Wikipedia has been on such a deletion frenzy lately
[Citation needed]
/me deletes parent post
Equilibrium will happen neither instantaneously nor completely. Compare the air in Mexico City with the air of surrounding areas. This isn't about total pollution in the world. This is about moving pollution away from the people, and your equilibrium theory is completely bogus.
Unless you're talking about a timespan of thousands of years. In that case...Dear future humankind: I expect everything to be solar-powered by the year 2222.
http://one.ubuntu.com/music has been around awhile. Sounds samey.
Nitpick: streaming is still "downloading", just with supposed restrictions on your access to the file.
correlation != causation
Placebo effect, perhaps? Just throwing that out there.
The television lies
I was suddenly reminded of Galaxy Quest. Coincidence?
This is slashdot. Old is new and new is...also new.
Look it up. Google is a verb: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/google
Look it up: Google is a verb.
FTFY in two different ways.
Not only do they say so, but they say so on the internet, so it has to be true. {/trolling}
I was skeptical, but I have to admit it went beyond my expectations
OK. Yes. I understand that most of the time, people in ads are actors. But this pushes it too far. It apparently shows the actor's real name, and (real?) age, and fake profession. Then these actors are "interviewed" about their "reaction" to the Galaxy tab. I can understand putting comments like "it's just what I need!" in a fake ad. I can also understand using an actor to portray the testimonial of some other real person. But this appears to be 100% fabricated. When you start inventing "skeptical" people that turn believer about your product, you're stepping over the line.
(That said, I think the Galaxy Tab is freaking awesome and would love to have one.)
While it's easy to paint the situation that way, the reality is a lot more complicated than "they miscalculated what they could get away with." Despite popular belief, there are benefits, as well as costs, to unrestricted information. While "we the people" see the costs as far outweighing the benefits, we're also not the ones that have to make decisions that will inevitably be criticized left and right no matter what they are. (Also despite popular belief, no one is capable of being the perfect politician.) We all see through biased eyes.
You're either for software freedom or your not.
False dichotomy