Apple is rapidly turning into a shitty company that litigates not innovates
I agree about litigation, it's what I've been hating about the company for a long time. Some of it I can understand, but some was just frivolous or Jobs' ego.
But you can't reasonably say they don't innovate. They basically defined the modern touch screen phone and tablet markets, and the all-in-one LCD market.Their manufacturing tech is pushing Foxconn to say the iPhone 5 is the hardest and most advanced thing they've ever assembled, and now Apple brings the first Cortex A15 tech to the mainstream market, with a hand laid-out CPU design to boot. Apple is about the most innovative large electronics company in the world, warts and all.
Not Apple, those complaining. A slight flick of the finger and I scrolled to see the warning. OH NOES, a company wants to make its latest product as prominent as possible on its front page, and they do it in other countries too.
I am worried about some of Apple's text. It says the previous statement was inaccurate. I don't remember anything inaccurate about the last one, only that the judge didn't like it.
That would be the people who say if I don't bow to their Prophet Al Gore it'll happen to me too. Nature is quite violent, with a long-time habit of wiping various pesky populations of living creatures off the planet's surface. Don't be surprised when it happens again.
Last time I heard expert meteorologists talking like this, it was right after Katrina, predicting the next year would be severe, too, which it wasn't
I heard the main hurricane watch group, can't remember what it is, saying they don't believe that Katrina was an indication that hurricanes would start getting worse. Heretics dared contradict the proclamations of His Holiness Al Gore.
Maybe 30% above the mild seasons we've had since Katrina. You know, the "OMGWEREALLGONNADIE" hurricane seasons were supposed to start having due to global warming. Now we have a storm that briefly peaked at CAT2, and did most of its damage as a CAT1, and the chicken littles are out in force again.
BLM runs the both land and what's beneath it for all public land. NFS comes in when that land is labeled as a national forest. There's duplication, and the two aren't even in the dame department.
I'm surprised they didn't have to get approval from the Fish & Wildlife Service and other agencies. They probably did, just not mentioned in the article.
Having successfully negotiated the challenging regulatory slopes of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Department of Energy, and a host of Oregon state agencies
And they wonder why it's still a pipe dream. You have to go through this even for a "green" power source.
Statutory damages are there when one copyrighted work is copied without permission, and the number of copies is either unknown or very high. They also work for free software authors, where the sale value is zero so there are no monetary damages. But a big company using the software without following the license can still be liable for big damages.
However, the statutory maximum damages are rarely imposed. The only reason it happened here is because the defendant didn't show in court. He screwed himself.
I used to use them to mark film for imagesetters, very precise, and would dry quickly even on the film.
They are refillable, but you do have to take care of them. Check out the Koh-I-Noor Rapidograph technical pen No. 3165 at 0.18 mm. But get a kit with refillable ink, also available in sets of multiple sizes.
It has settings that enable the phone app, for example, to place all the numbers within reach of your dominant hand.
Nice kludge workaround for the fact that it's just too big to be a phone. I played with one in the store before buying the iPhone, instant reaction "You gotta be kidding me." Wife and kids got Android phones before that with 4" screens. I tried them, and they worked, but pushed the limits. I remember stating then that 4" is the biggest a phone can be and still be usable with one hand. Interestingly, that's the size Apple chose for the iPhone 5 ten months later.
the government must be able to prevent industries from acting in ways that abuse the people, i.e. dumping their waste products into public waterways
Yes, protect people from harm, not claim "you're too big" by some arbitrarily set definition and then punish a company for success. That is a power the government shouldn't have. Punish a company when it starts hurting people. Otherwise, leave it alone.
I've noticed if you have average or smaller hands, the larger screens are unusable with one hand. Note Apple's statement about the iPhone 5 screen, the area the average person can access with a thumb while holding the phone. The big screens of the competition, especially the quasi-tablet Note, were another thing that drove me to the iPhone when my last Android expired.
it's a ban on the convenience of selling massive amounts of soda in the interest of public health
And the censorship is in the interests of public order.
Big overweening governments also require you to have car insurance
Different purpose: When you are on a public road you will not subject others to the damaging economic consequences of you not having insurance.
wear seat belts and now it's illegal to smoke in bars almost everywhere
Other examples of government encroachment. Smoking bans spread from government offices, required non-smoking areas, then more and more, and eventually into total bans within private establishments. You don't like smoke in a bar or restaurant? Don't patronize it or apply to work there. That's freedom.
and dump your fecal matter in rivers
Direct health hazard to others in a public area where others likely do not know you are doing it, and therefore be harmed. This is not equivalent.
I guess sometimes they can take little steps and never cross the line into absurdity.
Seat belts are a good example of this government creep. They were initally sold to the public in most states on the idea of don't worry, it's not a primary offense, you can't be pulled over for it. Once people got used to seat belt laws it changed to be a primary offense, you can get pulled over for it. Once people got used to that, we started to have "Click-it or Ticket" campaigns to specifically go after this as a primary offense.
Easy: the people rein in the state, since the state derives its power from the people
A state powerful enough to reign in any power within it is powerful enough to resist the will of the people.
If the people isn't reining in the state, then they only have themselves to blame for not doing so.
Correct. And they got to this situation by saying things like "The role of the state is NOT only to protect the weak - it is, also, a role to reign in the strong."
What we need is a government strong enough to protect the people from abuses, internal and external, and no more. It should not have the power to arbitrarily decide "you're too powerful," because the next organization it decides is "too powerful" may just be the one lobbying against government abuses of the people.
Challenge whether the government is actually abiding by its laws.
Who decides whether the government is abiding by its laws? Oh yes, that would be the government. In the US, the government has decided that public use for eminent domain as required by law now includes a private corporation building privately owned and controlled real-estate. The federal government has assumed many powers not granted to it by the Constitution, and little has been done to reign that in.
A company does not have to answer to you if you challenge it.
A company also can't legally execute you for challenging it. A government can.
Any one of them out there you can search up, the ones that produce a chart with two axes: authoritarian to libertarian on the social scale, and communist to free-market on the economic scale. I usually score right in the middle of the libertarian/free-market quadrant.
The role of the state is NOT only to protect the weak - it is, also, a role to reign in the strong.
That means the state is the strongest. Who reins that in when it becomes too large and unethical, when it becomes engrossed with its power to rein in citizens, or groups of citizens, who have become too strong in its opinion?
Regardless of definitions, every time it was tried it has failed, and resulted in severe human rights abuses. In many examples, the only keeping the economy afloat was an underground capitalist system. The problem is, everyone who wants to try communism thinks "We can do it right THIS time." Uh, no, that's what every failed one before you thought. Learn from history.
At least capitalism is based on freedom. You are free to trade with others, and others are free to trade with you. It's human nature. But then we don't have a capitalist system either with all of the government manipulations of the markets (often in the name of "fairness"). Negative unintended consequences abound abound even when intentions are good. There is also rampant buying of government favor by businesses. A government powerful enough to tell a business what to do is a government powerful enough to give businesses special privileges at the expense of the people.
Our founding fathers made the vote anonymous for a reason -- and in that day and age, the right to peacefully assemble was also the right to anonymously assemble.
Elections in the US didn't switch to a secret ballot system until the late 1800s, long after the Founding Fathers were gone. Until then, everybody knew where your loyalties lie. The secret ballot actually introduced problems, people paid in droves for their votes. With an open ballot these stunts had to be out in the open.
Be honest with yourself: How many weeks would it take before you were hopelessly in debt if every single moment you spent behind the wheel was audited by a police officer
Now you are talking about government abuse of technology. The problem is that when the poster called for "social justice" he was probably thinking of using the power of government to implement it. You remind us that the government will just abuse that power.
There are certainly people (like me) who think that copyright is big obstacle (for sharing of information, culture and science, building upon it and extending it, archiving it for future generations, it's also dangerous to freedom on internet
Copyright the concept isn't the problem. Copyright as it is today is the problem, as the above poster says. Copyright has grown far beyond what it used to be, and in the US has grown far beyond the initial reason for allowing it. A big source of the problem is foreign thinking: In the US your works don't belong to you, but instead belong to all, with a limited monopoly granted for the purpose of incentive to make more new works. In other countries, you own what you write in a classic ownership scenario. That thinking has crept into our copyright over the years, as you'll notice our worst copyright laws were meant to comply with treaties.
We just think that there are better ways to compensate authors without creating any artifical barriers (tax-payers funded foundations, where authors would sell their works to public using kickstarter-like systems for example).
Without copyright the author wouldn't be able to sell even to a taxpayer funded foundation. Why is it that people always think taxing more is the answer? I want to do something, first thought -- take money from others to make it happen. Huh?
Without copyright, the big media associations would lose control over distribution channels,
Without copyright they wouldn't exist.
it was created in response to unreasonable copyright
GPL was created in response to the most basic copyright: you can't modify and redistribute my stuff without my permission.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree about litigation, it's what I've been hating about the company for a long time. Some of it I can understand, but some was just frivolous or Jobs' ego.
But you can't reasonably say they don't innovate. They basically defined the modern touch screen phone and tablet markets, and the all-in-one LCD market.Their manufacturing tech is pushing Foxconn to say the iPhone 5 is the hardest and most advanced thing they've ever assembled, and now Apple brings the first Cortex A15 tech to the mainstream market, with a hand laid-out CPU design to boot. Apple is about the most innovative large electronics company in the world, warts and all.
Not Apple, those complaining. A slight flick of the finger and I scrolled to see the warning. OH NOES, a company wants to make its latest product as prominent as possible on its front page, and they do it in other countries too.
I am worried about some of Apple's text. It says the previous statement was inaccurate. I don't remember anything inaccurate about the last one, only that the judge didn't like it.
That would be the people who say if I don't bow to their Prophet Al Gore it'll happen to me too. Nature is quite violent, with a long-time habit of wiping various pesky populations of living creatures off the planet's surface. Don't be surprised when it happens again.
I heard the main hurricane watch group, can't remember what it is, saying they don't believe that Katrina was an indication that hurricanes would start getting worse. Heretics dared contradict the proclamations of His Holiness Al Gore.
Maybe 30% above the mild seasons we've had since Katrina. You know, the "OMGWEREALLGONNADIE" hurricane seasons were supposed to start having due to global warming. Now we have a storm that briefly peaked at CAT2, and did most of its damage as a CAT1, and the chicken littles are out in force again.
BLM runs the both land and what's beneath it for all public land. NFS comes in when that land is labeled as a national forest. There's duplication, and the two aren't even in the dame department.
I'm surprised they didn't have to get approval from the Fish & Wildlife Service and other agencies. They probably did, just not mentioned in the article.
Apple has more bribe money, so I'm surprised they lost.
And they wonder why it's still a pipe dream. You have to go through this even for a "green" power source.
He might have tried that line had he bothered to show up to defend himself.
Statutory damages are there when one copyrighted work is copied without permission, and the number of copies is either unknown or very high. They also work for free software authors, where the sale value is zero so there are no monetary damages. But a big company using the software without following the license can still be liable for big damages.
However, the statutory maximum damages are rarely imposed. The only reason it happened here is because the defendant didn't show in court. He screwed himself.
They bought the mountain to prevent it from being used for energy production.
It's in all the contracts. I didn't do the job I was trained for in the Army until two years after I got in.
And shut it down. Earl's never going to get rich.
I used to use them to mark film for imagesetters, very precise, and would dry quickly even on the film.
They are refillable, but you do have to take care of them. Check out the Koh-I-Noor Rapidograph technical pen No. 3165 at 0 .18 mm. But get a kit with refillable ink, also available in sets of multiple sizes.
Nice kludge workaround for the fact that it's just too big to be a phone. I played with one in the store before buying the iPhone, instant reaction "You gotta be kidding me." Wife and kids got Android phones before that with 4" screens. I tried them, and they worked, but pushed the limits. I remember stating then that 4" is the biggest a phone can be and still be usable with one hand. Interestingly, that's the size Apple chose for the iPhone 5 ten months later.
Yes, protect people from harm, not claim "you're too big" by some arbitrarily set definition and then punish a company for success. That is a power the government shouldn't have. Punish a company when it starts hurting people. Otherwise, leave it alone.
I've noticed if you have average or smaller hands, the larger screens are unusable with one hand. Note Apple's statement about the iPhone 5 screen, the area the average person can access with a thumb while holding the phone. The big screens of the competition, especially the quasi-tablet Note, were another thing that drove me to the iPhone when my last Android expired.
And the censorship is in the interests of public order.
Different purpose: When you are on a public road you will not subject others to the damaging economic consequences of you not having insurance.
Other examples of government encroachment. Smoking bans spread from government offices, required non-smoking areas, then more and more, and eventually into total bans within private establishments. You don't like smoke in a bar or restaurant? Don't patronize it or apply to work there. That's freedom.
Direct health hazard to others in a public area where others likely do not know you are doing it, and therefore be harmed. This is not equivalent.
Seat belts are a good example of this government creep. They were initally sold to the public in most states on the idea of don't worry, it's not a primary offense, you can't be pulled over for it. Once people got used to seat belt laws it changed to be a primary offense, you can get pulled over for it. Once people got used to that, we started to have "Click-it or Ticket" campaigns to specifically go after this as a primary offense.
A state powerful enough to reign in any power within it is powerful enough to resist the will of the people.
Correct. And they got to this situation by saying things like "The role of the state is NOT only to protect the weak - it is, also, a role to reign in the strong."
What we need is a government strong enough to protect the people from abuses, internal and external, and no more. It should not have the power to arbitrarily decide "you're too powerful," because the next organization it decides is "too powerful" may just be the one lobbying against government abuses of the people.
Who decides whether the government is abiding by its laws? Oh yes, that would be the government. In the US, the government has decided that public use for eminent domain as required by law now includes a private corporation building privately owned and controlled real-estate. The federal government has assumed many powers not granted to it by the Constitution, and little has been done to reign that in.
A company also can't legally execute you for challenging it. A government can.
Any one of them out there you can search up, the ones that produce a chart with two axes: authoritarian to libertarian on the social scale, and communist to free-market on the economic scale. I usually score right in the middle of the libertarian/free-market quadrant.
That means the state is the strongest. Who reins that in when it becomes too large and unethical, when it becomes engrossed with its power to rein in citizens, or groups of citizens, who have become too strong in its opinion?
Regardless of definitions, every time it was tried it has failed, and resulted in severe human rights abuses. In many examples, the only keeping the economy afloat was an underground capitalist system. The problem is, everyone who wants to try communism thinks "We can do it right THIS time." Uh, no, that's what every failed one before you thought. Learn from history.
At least capitalism is based on freedom. You are free to trade with others, and others are free to trade with you. It's human nature. But then we don't have a capitalist system either with all of the government manipulations of the markets (often in the name of "fairness"). Negative unintended consequences abound abound even when intentions are good. There is also rampant buying of government favor by businesses. A government powerful enough to tell a business what to do is a government powerful enough to give businesses special privileges at the expense of the people.
Elections in the US didn't switch to a secret ballot system until the late 1800s, long after the Founding Fathers were gone. Until then, everybody knew where your loyalties lie. The secret ballot actually introduced problems, people paid in droves for their votes. With an open ballot these stunts had to be out in the open.
Now you are talking about government abuse of technology. The problem is that when the poster called for "social justice" he was probably thinking of using the power of government to implement it. You remind us that the government will just abuse that power.
Copyright the concept isn't the problem. Copyright as it is today is the problem, as the above poster says. Copyright has grown far beyond what it used to be, and in the US has grown far beyond the initial reason for allowing it. A big source of the problem is foreign thinking: In the US your works don't belong to you, but instead belong to all, with a limited monopoly granted for the purpose of incentive to make more new works. In other countries, you own what you write in a classic ownership scenario. That thinking has crept into our copyright over the years, as you'll notice our worst copyright laws were meant to comply with treaties.
Without copyright the author wouldn't be able to sell even to a taxpayer funded foundation. Why is it that people always think taxing more is the answer? I want to do something, first thought -- take money from others to make it happen. Huh?
Without copyright they wouldn't exist.
GPL was created in response to the most basic copyright: you can't modify and redistribute my stuff without my permission.