Eli Whitne's cotton gin was only a minor improvement over pre existing inventions that many tried to claim was not novel & an obvious improvement. And yet...
the patent is very narrowly for a combined USB/SD port
Which is why I specifically wrote, " I guess Apple can patent a specific port shape if it wants, like one that won't let you transfer your photos to your USB hard drive."
Why is it that you're incapable of reading the whole comment?
the patent is a valid functional patent?
The patent should not be valid. The idea of combining multiple ports into one is not new, and any given combination of combined ports has an obvious and necessary design.
If you're unfamiliar with Jobs's design aesthetic you should go back and watch some of his keynotes and interviews.
How is a combined USB/SD port on a mac something that "won't let you transfer your photos to your USB hard drive"? Oh, I get it, you don't actually read TFA & go rip roaring on a tangent complaining about the thunderbolt connected which has very little to do with the port in question.
Why not make yourself clear and denounce all patents as invalid. After all I'm sure you think yourself so intelligent that everything is a trivial combination of pre existing ideas. That's in effect, the only conclusion that can be drawn from your believing that a particular USB cable somehow applies to a combined USB/sd port.
why is it that you were incapable of actually reading TFA and discovering that the patent is very narrowly for a combined USB/SD port, making every apple-bashing word about how you have some whatever combo USB cable irrelevant?
Is it that when you see apple and patent in the same sentence your mind turns off rendering you unable consider that in this case, the patent is a valid functional patent?
So what you're saying is that purple spotted baboons with green striped bottoms are following you around?
Or is it that my reply, like yours, has little to do with the parent post.
Being alive is important. Letting the courts do their job as defined in the constitution & decide just what is & what isn't constitutional is important too.
Listening to basement/. Cassandras who claim that they know better than the courts just what is & what isn't constitutional, not so much.
Do note that the government as in our elected officials, those who decide whether the laws have gone too far (the judicial branch) & of course the executive branch have all accepted the use of call records as currently implemented. The cries of "It"s UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" by laypeople often ignorant of just what the term means does not make it so.
Note that I mentioned a crime preventable through the use of call records which is a much smaller subset as I don't believe that call records are sufficient to prevent all crimes. That they are valuable for some crimes & in particular the detection & pursuit of terrorist cells is not in dispute, just that some people (but not the courts) maintain that they are an unconstitutional violation of our 4th amendment rights.
Lol, parroting back my words does not an argument make it only shows that you have no arguments of your own to make or that you're stuck at a mental age below 5.
Exactly what country is it that you get to decide what is & what isn't unconstitutional? It sure as hell isn't the US of A where the constitution defines this role to be one of those reserved for the judicial system.
You're either: ignorant of what is actually in the constitution or playing semantic games by changing unconstitutional to mean whatever the hell you decide it should be or sufficiently deluded into believing that your whims outweigh the consensus of every american that believes in the constitution & the courts as they are defined in the constitution as the real definition of what it means.
Or maybe it's just that you think that the constitution is meaningless because everyone decides what it is & there is no better definition (which immediately degenerates into might makes right).
I most clearly do understand that the constitution as written is what the USA is based on & not your badly thought out interpretation of it.
Come on, let us all know just what this higher power it is of yours that lets you contradict what is explicitly written in the constitution, the answer is bound to be amusing.
An action or law is not unconstitutional until judged to be so.
Ridiculous. A law is unconstitutional if it violates the constitution.
The only thing to be said here is that, in practice, what the courts say has the most impact. You cannot say that something can not be considered unconstitutional just because some judges haven't declared it to be so.
You've clearly never actually read the constitution our you would not be making these specious claims. The Constitution defines who the arbiter of conformity is, & it's not you basement Cassandra, it's the courts.
Nope, As a declaration of principle "we the people" and the following pages is great. Now, what's perfectly clear is that you got bored & stopped after the first couple of pages and never read the hundreds of pages that is the Constitution today and how our government actually works. That kind of superficial reading leads the ignorant into overblown declarations. Which was pretty much my original point, Cassandra.
Ah, so having a database of telephone numbers of who called whom is the definition of unchecked power? Thanks, I'd always wondered where unchecked power started...
I really wish that you would show up the next time someone inn the US dies from what would have been preventable through analysis of the call records. That way you could say "sucks to be you" the the family. It's the part right after that that I'd enjoy...
While I'd be militantly against recording of all conversations, I don't see the database of who called whom as a red line deserving of the rhetoric you're dishing out.
It most certainly is a matter of some feminists being PC and overclaiming how objectionable all women find BB'S.
I'm the father of an attractive 22 year old law student daughter who occasionally moonlights as a booth babe. In her opinion, she is making money while no more scantily dressed than she is elsewhere. The only people blanket claiming exploitation in her occasional employments are those who would never be hired for them.
Being attractive is always going to be an important advantage in getting hired in public facing positions. This is a case where the un attractive are trying to browbeat the rest of the population into believing that this natural tendency is somehow abnormal.
Parroting that a thunderbolt RAID inclosure is a full replacement for an internal (much faster) controller is asinine.
The only thing asinine here is you, attempting to argue from a position of ignorance to those who have taken the time to learn the matter in discussion.
As a nod to how wrong you are, instruct yourself on how Thunderbolt delivers DisplayPort to downstream devices. Hint: It's not competing with the data as you incorrectly indicate.
So they don't share the same bus and the same port?
The point, oh ignorant one, is that thunderbolt has enough bandwidth to saturate multiple spinning disks. Had you taken the time to instruct yourself, you would have known this and would not have been attempting to argue that multiple slower links to internal disks were necessarily faster than a single faster link to an external enclosure (oh and by the way it's spelled with an "e").
You most certainly are being obtuse when you refuse to recognize that internal spinning disks as an obligatory component of all workstation class Macs/PC's are last century's solution to disk space needs.
Closing your eyes to a superior solution by closing your eyes, plugging your ears with your fingers and mumbling "Apple Marketing" does not make you insightful. Wake up, unplug your orifices & read the reviews of devices like the Promise Thunderbolt RAID enclosure.
As a nod to how wrong you are, instruct yourself on how Thunderbolt delivers DisplayPort to downstream devices. Hint: It's not competing with the data as you incorrectly indicate.
I don't plan on buying the new Mac Pro as both the CPU or GPU power it delivers are beyond my needs, but much like the blade servers I install in Data Centers connected to dedicated storage devices, separating these functions into two separate devices can be better than attempting to put everything in a single chassis.
For people who need faster storage (video editing comes to mind) NAS won't cut it but using an external RAID box connected over Tbolt is just the ticket.
Kielistic's problem is that he's certainly accustomed to building/modding up his own PCs & prefers using a huge enclosure so that he can setup RAID inside them.
Apple has been eliminating spinning disks from their products for years & has a perfectly capable means of accessing external RAID boxes over Thunderbolt but because that's not how he's used to doing it, that's bad. He reminds me of the people who panned the Ipod years, back.
No, you were being obtuse. Though it may not be popular with the homebuilt RAID server crowd that downmodded me above, with Thunderbolt it is no longer necessary to install the disks in the same chassis that the CPU/GPU comes in. Just buy the external Thunderbolt RAID enclosure of your choice (there are several given in a neighboring post) & plug it into your Mac.
No, it is not "how you are used to doing it". Yes, it is more expensive. From the performances I see from reviews of external Tbolt RAID chassis, it is NOT slower.
I'm still willing to bet that much like in the data center where spinning disks are disappearing into specialized enclosures that integrated spinning disks in Macs are history.
Go ahead, mod me down. whine that "If I cannot install spinning hard disks into my PC^H^HMac then I'll hold my breath until I pass out". Apple is not bringing them back.
Once Tbolt 2 compatible RAID enclosures with PCIe Flash disks like that inside the Mac Pro come out, spinning disks are going to be pushed even further back into the background.
Yeah, because integrated spinning hard disks is the future...
Your comment just shows that you still don't understand what thunderbolt has made possible & desirable. Anyone really needing spinning storage can add it through the thunderbolt ports.
Now that you've set your conclusions in stone & you've denounced the NSA for lying, would you mind giving us the proof that what your basing all this on is actually from the NSA & not some disinformation? What? You don't actually have any proof & all your conclusions are based on hot air? I'm astonished, astonished, I tell you...
Slashdot Mirror
Eli Whitne's cotton gin was only a minor improvement over pre existing inventions that many tried to claim was not novel & an obvious improvement. And yet...
Lol, trust the lawyers to make the language as incomprehensible and as widely applicable as possible. Thanks for the correction
the patent is very narrowly for a combined USB/SD port
Which is why I specifically wrote, " I guess Apple can patent a specific port shape if it wants, like one that won't let you transfer your photos to your USB hard drive."
Why is it that you're incapable of reading the whole comment?
the patent is a valid functional patent?
The patent should not be valid. The idea of combining multiple ports into one is not new, and any given combination of combined ports has an obvious and necessary design.
If you're unfamiliar with Jobs's design aesthetic you should go back and watch some of his keynotes and interviews.
How is a combined USB/SD port on a mac something that "won't let you transfer your photos to your USB hard drive"? Oh, I get it, you don't actually read TFA & go rip roaring on a tangent complaining about the thunderbolt connected which has very little to do with the port in question.
Why not make yourself clear and denounce all patents as invalid. After all I'm sure you think yourself so intelligent that everything is a trivial combination of pre existing ideas. That's in effect, the only conclusion that can be drawn from your believing that a particular USB cable somehow applies to a combined USB/sd port.
You'd actually have a point if you could plug SD cards into eSATAp ports. The difference in function & design is what renders this patent valid.
why is it that you were incapable of actually reading TFA and discovering that the patent is very narrowly for a combined USB/SD port, making every apple-bashing word about how you have some whatever combo USB cable irrelevant?
Is it that when you see apple and patent in the same sentence your mind turns off rendering you unable consider that in this case, the patent is a valid functional patent?
So what you're saying is that purple spotted baboons with green striped bottoms are following you around?
Or is it that my reply, like yours, has little to do with the parent post.
Being alive is important. Letting the courts do their job as defined in the constitution & decide just what is & what isn't constitutional is important too.
Listening to basement /. Cassandras who claim that they know better than the courts just what is & what isn't constitutional, not so much.
Do note that the government as in our elected officials, those who decide whether the laws have gone too far (the judicial branch) & of course the executive branch have all accepted the use of call records as currently implemented. The cries of "It"s UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" by laypeople often ignorant of just what the term means does not make it so.
Note that I mentioned a crime preventable through the use of call records which is a much smaller subset as I don't believe that call records are sufficient to prevent all crimes. That they are valuable for some crimes & in particular the detection & pursuit of terrorist cells is not in dispute, just that some people (but not the courts) maintain that they are an unconstitutional violation of our 4th amendment rights.
Lol, parroting back my words does not an argument make it only shows that you have no arguments of your own to make or that you're stuck at a mental age below 5.
Exactly what country is it that you get to decide what is & what isn't unconstitutional? It sure as hell isn't the US of A where the constitution defines this role to be one of those reserved for the judicial system.
You're either:
ignorant of what is actually in the constitution or
playing semantic games by changing unconstitutional to mean whatever the hell you decide it should be or
sufficiently deluded into believing that your whims outweigh the consensus of every american that believes in the constitution & the courts as they are defined in the constitution as the real definition of what it means.
Or maybe it's just that you think that the constitution is meaningless because everyone decides what it is & there is no better definition (which immediately degenerates into might makes right).
I most clearly do understand that the constitution as written is what the USA is based on & not your badly thought out interpretation of it.
Come on, let us all know just what this higher power it is of yours that lets you contradict what is explicitly written in the constitution, the answer is bound to be amusing.
An action or law is not unconstitutional until judged to be so.
Ridiculous. A law is unconstitutional if it violates the constitution.
The only thing to be said here is that, in practice, what the courts say has the most impact. You cannot say that something can not be considered unconstitutional just because some judges haven't declared it to be so.
You've clearly never actually read the constitution our you would not be making these specious claims. The Constitution defines who the arbiter of conformity is, & it's not you basement Cassandra, it's the courts.
Nope, As a declaration of principle "we the people" and the following pages is great. Now, what's perfectly clear is that you got bored & stopped after the first couple of pages and never read the hundreds of pages that is the Constitution today and how our government actually works. That kind of superficial reading leads the ignorant into overblown declarations. Which was pretty much my original point, Cassandra.
Determining if it is legal or not would be a job for the courts, not /. Cassandra's.
Ah, so having a database of telephone numbers of who called whom is the definition of unchecked power? Thanks, I'd always wondered where unchecked power started...
I really wish that you would show up the next time someone inn the US dies from what would have been preventable through analysis of the call records. That way you could say "sucks to be you" the the family. It's the part right after that that I'd enjoy...
While I'd be militantly against recording of all conversations, I don't see the database of who called whom as a red line deserving of the rhetoric you're dishing out.
It most certainly is a matter of some feminists being PC and overclaiming how objectionable all women find BB'S.
I'm the father of an attractive 22 year old law student daughter who occasionally moonlights as a booth babe. In her opinion, she is making money while no more scantily dressed than she is elsewhere. The only people blanket claiming exploitation in her occasional employments are those who would never be hired for them.
Being attractive is always going to be an important advantage in getting hired in public facing positions. This is a case where the un attractive are trying to browbeat the rest of the population into believing that this natural tendency is somehow abnormal.
All that free time would be well used if you could finally go on a date with a real woman...
Yeah, because that single, thin round cable between the Mac Pro to the RAID enclosure below the desk causes so much clutter. Twit.
& he still thinks that the DisplayPort 1.1a reserved bandwiidth in thunderbolt somehow slowing down data transfers...
No Virginia, it doesn't.
Parroting that a thunderbolt RAID inclosure is a full replacement for an internal (much faster) controller is asinine.
The only thing asinine here is you, attempting to argue from a position of ignorance to those who have taken the time to learn the matter in discussion.
As a nod to how wrong you are, instruct yourself on how Thunderbolt delivers DisplayPort to downstream devices. Hint: It's not competing with the data as you incorrectly indicate.
So they don't share the same bus and the same port?
The point, oh ignorant one, is that thunderbolt has enough bandwidth to saturate multiple spinning disks. Had you taken the time to instruct yourself, you would have known this and would not have been attempting to argue that multiple slower links to internal disks were necessarily faster than a single faster link to an external enclosure (oh and by the way it's spelled with an "e").
You most certainly are being obtuse when you refuse to recognize that internal spinning disks as an obligatory component of all workstation class Macs/PC's are last century's solution to disk space needs.
Closing your eyes to a superior solution by closing your eyes, plugging your ears with your fingers and mumbling "Apple Marketing" does not make you insightful. Wake up, unplug your orifices & read the reviews of devices like the Promise Thunderbolt RAID enclosure.
As a nod to how wrong you are, instruct yourself on how Thunderbolt delivers DisplayPort to downstream devices. Hint: It's not competing with the data as you incorrectly indicate.
I don't plan on buying the new Mac Pro as both the CPU or GPU power it delivers are beyond my needs, but much like the blade servers I install in Data Centers connected to dedicated storage devices, separating these functions into two separate devices can be better than attempting to put everything in a single chassis.
Anyone needing storage over the size of the internal SSD will be looking at external Thunderbolt connected RAID boxes like this one.
For people who need faster storage (video editing comes to mind) NAS won't cut it but using an external RAID box connected over Tbolt is just the ticket.
Kielistic's problem is that he's certainly accustomed to building/modding up his own PCs & prefers using a huge enclosure so that he can setup RAID inside them.
Apple has been eliminating spinning disks from their products for years & has a perfectly capable means of accessing external RAID boxes over Thunderbolt but because that's not how he's used to doing it, that's bad. He reminds me of the people who panned the Ipod years, back.
No, you were being obtuse. Though it may not be popular with the homebuilt RAID server crowd that downmodded me above, with Thunderbolt it is no longer necessary to install the disks in the same chassis that the CPU/GPU comes in. Just buy the external Thunderbolt RAID enclosure of your choice (there are several given in a neighboring post) & plug it into your Mac.
No, it is not "how you are used to doing it". Yes, it is more expensive. From the performances I see from reviews of external Tbolt RAID chassis, it is NOT slower.
I'm still willing to bet that much like in the data center where spinning disks are disappearing into specialized enclosures that integrated spinning disks in Macs are history.
Go ahead, mod me down. whine that "If I cannot install spinning hard disks into my PC^H^HMac then I'll hold my breath until I pass out". Apple is not bringing them back.
Once Tbolt 2 compatible RAID enclosures with PCIe Flash disks like that inside the Mac Pro come out, spinning disks are going to be pushed even further back into the background.
Yeah, because integrated spinning hard disks is the future...
Your comment just shows that you still don't understand what thunderbolt has made possible & desirable. Anyone really needing spinning storage can add it through the thunderbolt ports.
Now that you've set your conclusions in stone & you've denounced the NSA for lying, would you mind giving us the proof that what your basing all this on is actually from the NSA & not some disinformation? What? You don't actually have any proof & all your conclusions are based on hot air? I'm astonished, astonished, I tell you...