If you look at this picture, you'll see that it's still sized to be easy to carry in one hand. It looses something in usability this way, granted, but it's not too big for anything except your pants pocket.
How can google hope to claim that they have more of a right to the word froogle?
It would depend on whether the word "Froogle" ("frugal") is considered to be obviously derivative from the word "Google" ("googol"). Since Google.com existed well before Froogles.com, and since they're similarly spelled, it could be argued that "Froogles" was an attempt to capitalize on the name "Google".
I looked for a long time to find a watch that was modestly priced, and not the standard 20-something standard-issue "got my first well-paying job" watch that everyone [omega.ch] else [tagheuer.com] has.
Y'know, I thought about getting one of those for a while. But throughout my life, it seemed like any time I bought an analog watch, it'd get busted inside of a year. Granted, they were relatively cheap things, but I was a bit scared to spend real money on something that'd just get dropped or put through the wash in my pocket or otherwise get scratched ugly because I was careless about brushing against the wall one day.
So instead, I wear a $25 Timex digital with a web/faux leather wristband. The scratches hardly show on the plastic faceplate and it's endured more than all the other watches I've ever owned, combined. Plus I hate metal wristbands.
I suppose I'm too practical for my own good. Seemed like a better investment, is all.
I think it's plainly obvious that apple plans to introduce an AirTunes enabled iPod.
Don't think that's too likely, myself. WiFi is ubiquitous, but by no means cheap or small to install. I can't imagine that a WiFi broadcaster would be gentle on an iPod's battery, either.
Besides, all you'd really need to do is unplug the audio cable from your AirPort Express and stick it into your iPod instead. Why add WiFi to something that's already practically the definition of portability?
I found the multiple comments about a lack of remote interesting, since it never really occurred to me to use the thing on anything except a customized Party Shuffle. (I don't own one, mind you.) Interesting that Apple's dodging the issue.
Anyone have any word on Belkin or Griffin working on a remote?
Indeed, how do we know you are real? Or me? Or Slashdot itself? All these thing, nay, all things in the universe itself may well be naught but a hallucination experienced by me, or by someone else, trapped in a dream or a coma or a stasis pod hooked up to an enormous machine bent on harvesting our bioelectricity for their own nefarious purpos<END DATA NO CARRIER>
Computers weren't designed to think; they were designed to follow instructions.
That was then, this is now. Today humans constantly ask computers to do the thinking for them. My car has dashboard lights that tell me if my engine needs servicing or my oil need replacing; gone are the myriad dials that I would have to interpret myself. Stoplights are connected to sensors and to each other in order to optimize rush-hour traffic flow.
And that's just at the consumer level. Power plants and grids rely on systems designed not only to regulate power, but shut it down if necessary. PC software does "intelligent" background searches to locate information related to whatever I'm typing or reading. Most of the systems in a large airplane are automated because it would be impossible for a human to react quickly enough to maintain them.
The real problem with intelligent computers is that computers are still designed to live in a world of absolutes, truth and falsehood, and people never do. We don't learn about the world from logic, but instead we create logic to analyze the world. Human (and animal) brains learn by identifying patterns, and then observing when those patterns are broken. Computers are built around patterns and then, when those break, so do the computers.
Self-awareness is a property that the soul impinges on the mind, not an inherent property of neurons.
This is a metaphysical question, entirely unprovable, and one that real researchers try to avoid.
Then perhaps one of those oh-so-brilliant middle managers could figure out a way to find something different for one of those people to do? Is the first choice always to take a huge shit all over someone's career?
I understand your position, really I do, but you're either naive or socialist. Of course a company would rather relocate an existing employee than waste the time and money to fire and hire a new one. But you're talking about relocating 25,000 employees. That's one million man-hours every week that the newly-merged company simply can't use. What do you want them to do, send them all to central Africa to build a new international office?
Even if they are providing "value to the enterprise" and bring "substantial short-term cash profits to the paradigm strategy?"
If two people working similar jobs for forty hours a week are suddenly doing the same job, then they're each getting paid full-time for about twenty hours of work. That's not value to the enterprise, that's unnecessary redundancy.
Of course it's about the cash. Why pay someone to do a job someone else is already doing? This is a business, not a co-op program.
Am I correct in assuming that the only thing businesses will gladly spend substantial amounts of money on (other than catered, air-conditioned lunches) is firing people?
You make it sound malicious. Mergers normally result in mass firings because several jobs become redundant, not because they like giving people the boot. (The possibility that they do like giving people the boot still exists, mind you.)
Oh, so by "reasonable" you mean reasonable for your pocketbook? Isn't that the same argument others use for pirating games ("I'd gladly pay $5 for this game, but $50 is outrageous!") instead of buying them?
Just because the legal alternative is more expensive, doesn't mean that you should be allowed to pursue an illegal one. The Japanese PS2 console is legally importable, just as the games are. I consider that very "reasonable".
You cannot convince me that I do not have that right since I own the box, no matter what can be done legally or illegally with it after the fact.
Then let me elaborate on my first post. I own a house. Assume for the moment that I've paid off the mortgage as well, and the house and title are entirely mine. Ergo, I should be able to do anything with it, in it, or on it that I want, right?
Well, not exactly. For one thing, my land is zoned for residential use only, so I can't turn my house into an antiques shop or use it for some kind of industrial manufacturing, even if doing so doesn't affect my neighbors one bit. I can't burn things in the backyard in violation of smoke ordinances. And I certainly can't use it to house a nuclear warhead under the pretense that the Second Amendment allows me to bear arms so long as I don't use them in an illegal manner.
In short, my property is only mine insofar as I use it in line with the laws of the land in which it resides. The same goes for my car. The same, like it or not, goes for my game box.
Much of the rationalization (not from this case, but speakign generally) against mod-chipping game consoles and DVD players is to protect regionalization.
Disagree on the DVD player argument. I believe that in most of Western Europe it's common to buy and sell region-free DVD players, as well as VCRs that play both PAL (European) and NTSC (American) formats. Laws against modchipping, at least in the UK, are there to prevent piracy only.
It's like saying you can't modify your car or your house or your clothes!
Modchips serve one purpose: to circumvent technology designed to keep your box from playing pirated or otherwise illegal software. So it's really more like saying you can't modify your car to violate local pollution laws, or that you can't modify your house to violate zoning regulations.
Everything is so vague you can patent a flying car... just on a plastic model alone with some BS blueprints.
The BS blueprints are the key -- if someone else invented a flying car that used sufficiently different technology than your design, then they get a different patent.
I think you're either deliberately misunderstanding what patents really are, or just suffering from a completely inappropriate analogy.
Dude, if you would bother to RTFA then you would see that it clearly sez that they tried to approach both comapnies, and they pretty much said "you're full of shit get lost"
I cannot believe I'm getting schooled on RTFA by someone with that kind of spelling and grammar. Pardon me while I ignore you completely.
...did they even try to sell the rights to the patent to either or both company, or just take them straight to court?
Either way, they must believe they have a really strong case to go up against two of the biggest cash reserves in the entire Western hemisphere at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
If you look at this picture, you'll see that it's still sized to be easy to carry in one hand. It looses something in usability this way, granted, but it's not too big for anything except your pants pocket.
How can google hope to claim that they have more of a right to the word froogle?
It would depend on whether the word "Froogle" ("frugal") is considered to be obviously derivative from the word "Google" ("googol"). Since Google.com existed well before Froogles.com, and since they're similarly spelled, it could be argued that "Froogles" was an attempt to capitalize on the name "Google".
I looked for a long time to find a watch that was modestly priced, and not the standard 20-something standard-issue "got my first well-paying job" watch that everyone [omega.ch] else [tagheuer.com] has.
Y'know, I thought about getting one of those for a while. But throughout my life, it seemed like any time I bought an analog watch, it'd get busted inside of a year. Granted, they were relatively cheap things, but I was a bit scared to spend real money on something that'd just get dropped or put through the wash in my pocket or otherwise get scratched ugly because I was careless about brushing against the wall one day.
So instead, I wear a $25 Timex digital with a web/faux leather wristband. The scratches hardly show on the plastic faceplate and it's endured more than all the other watches I've ever owned, combined. Plus I hate metal wristbands.
I suppose I'm too practical for my own good. Seemed like a better investment, is all.
Would have helped New Hampsire save face.
Yeah, their governor really got his nose bent out of shape over that one.
I think it's plainly obvious that apple plans to introduce an AirTunes enabled iPod.
Don't think that's too likely, myself. WiFi is ubiquitous, but by no means cheap or small to install. I can't imagine that a WiFi broadcaster would be gentle on an iPod's battery, either.
Besides, all you'd really need to do is unplug the audio cable from your AirPort Express and stick it into your iPod instead. Why add WiFi to something that's already practically the definition of portability?
I found the multiple comments about a lack of remote interesting, since it never really occurred to me to use the thing on anything except a customized Party Shuffle. (I don't own one, mind you.) Interesting that Apple's dodging the issue.
Anyone have any word on Belkin or Griffin working on a remote?
How do we know Roland Piquepaille is real?
Indeed, how do we know you are real? Or me? Or Slashdot itself? All these thing, nay, all things in the universe itself may well be naught but a hallucination experienced by me, or by someone else, trapped in a dream or a coma or a stasis pod hooked up to an enormous machine bent on harvesting our bioelectricity for their own nefarious purpos<END DATA NO CARRIER>
GOATSE.CX -- and don't forget the period.
Computers weren't designed to think; they were designed to follow instructions.
That was then, this is now. Today humans constantly ask computers to do the thinking for them. My car has dashboard lights that tell me if my engine needs servicing or my oil need replacing; gone are the myriad dials that I would have to interpret myself. Stoplights are connected to sensors and to each other in order to optimize rush-hour traffic flow.
And that's just at the consumer level. Power plants and grids rely on systems designed not only to regulate power, but shut it down if necessary. PC software does "intelligent" background searches to locate information related to whatever I'm typing or reading. Most of the systems in a large airplane are automated because it would be impossible for a human to react quickly enough to maintain them.
The real problem with intelligent computers is that computers are still designed to live in a world of absolutes, truth and falsehood, and people never do. We don't learn about the world from logic, but instead we create logic to analyze the world. Human (and animal) brains learn by identifying patterns, and then observing when those patterns are broken. Computers are built around patterns and then, when those break, so do the computers.
Self-awareness is a property that the soul impinges on the mind, not an inherent property of neurons.
This is a metaphysical question, entirely unprovable, and one that real researchers try to avoid.
Then perhaps one of those oh-so-brilliant middle managers could figure out a way to find something different for one of those people to do? Is the first choice always to take a huge shit all over someone's career?
I understand your position, really I do, but you're either naive or socialist. Of course a company would rather relocate an existing employee than waste the time and money to fire and hire a new one. But you're talking about relocating 25,000 employees. That's one million man-hours every week that the newly-merged company simply can't use. What do you want them to do, send them all to central Africa to build a new international office?
Even if they are providing "value to the enterprise" and bring "substantial short-term cash profits to the paradigm strategy?"
If two people working similar jobs for forty hours a week are suddenly doing the same job, then they're each getting paid full-time for about twenty hours of work. That's not value to the enterprise, that's unnecessary redundancy.
Of course it's about the cash. Why pay someone to do a job someone else is already doing? This is a business, not a co-op program.
Am I correct in assuming that the only thing businesses will gladly spend substantial amounts of money on (other than catered, air-conditioned lunches) is firing people?
You make it sound malicious. Mergers normally result in mass firings because several jobs become redundant, not because they like giving people the boot. (The possibility that they do like giving people the boot still exists, mind you.)
Now there will only be 4 major labels
That's like complaining that there's only four different types of manure. Any way you buy it, it's still crap.
Since you are the one wanting to ban tell me....
Please don't make this personal. I'm not the one wanting to tell you that. The courts are. I'm just restating their position.
Oh, so by "reasonable" you mean reasonable for your pocketbook? Isn't that the same argument others use for pirating games ("I'd gladly pay $5 for this game, but $50 is outrageous!") instead of buying them?
Just because the legal alternative is more expensive, doesn't mean that you should be allowed to pursue an illegal one. The Japanese PS2 console is legally importable, just as the games are. I consider that very "reasonable".
You cannot convince me that I do not have that right since I own the box, no matter what can be done legally or illegally with it after the fact.
Then let me elaborate on my first post. I own a house. Assume for the moment that I've paid off the mortgage as well, and the house and title are entirely mine. Ergo, I should be able to do anything with it, in it, or on it that I want, right?
Well, not exactly. For one thing, my land is zoned for residential use only, so I can't turn my house into an antiques shop or use it for some kind of industrial manufacturing, even if doing so doesn't affect my neighbors one bit. I can't burn things in the backyard in violation of smoke ordinances. And I certainly can't use it to house a nuclear warhead under the pretense that the Second Amendment allows me to bear arms so long as I don't use them in an illegal manner.
In short, my property is only mine insofar as I use it in line with the laws of the land in which it resides. The same goes for my car. The same, like it or not, goes for my game box.
A modchip is the only reasonably way for me to play these games that I legally purchased.
Nonsense; you can also buy an import PS2 (and a power plug adapter) to play them natively.
Much of the rationalization (not from this case, but speakign generally) against mod-chipping game consoles and DVD players is to protect regionalization.
Disagree on the DVD player argument. I believe that in most of Western Europe it's common to buy and sell region-free DVD players, as well as VCRs that play both PAL (European) and NTSC (American) formats. Laws against modchipping, at least in the UK, are there to prevent piracy only.
It's like saying you can't modify your car or your house or your clothes!
Modchips serve one purpose: to circumvent technology designed to keep your box from playing pirated or otherwise illegal software. So it's really more like saying you can't modify your car to violate local pollution laws, or that you can't modify your house to violate zoning regulations.
Everything is so vague you can patent a flying car... just on a plastic model alone with some BS blueprints.
The BS blueprints are the key -- if someone else invented a flying car that used sufficiently different technology than your design, then they get a different patent.
I think you're either deliberately misunderstanding what patents really are, or just suffering from a completely inappropriate analogy.
Dude, if you would bother to RTFA then you would see that it clearly sez that they tried to approach both comapnies, and they pretty much said "you're full of shit get lost"
I cannot believe I'm getting schooled on RTFA by someone with that kind of spelling and grammar. Pardon me while I ignore you completely.
That's one smaller step for man ...
Shouldn't it be "That's 93% of a step for one man"?
...did they even try to sell the rights to the patent to either or both company, or just take them straight to court?
Either way, they must believe they have a really strong case to go up against two of the biggest cash reserves in the entire Western hemisphere at the same time.
And people who post as Anonymous Cowards immediately invalidate anything they're trying to argue. What's your point?