No. But if I'm looking for a component to fit my metric device, and there are offers from India, China, Japan and the US, All else being equal, I'll go for a country that speaks metric so I don't have to also invest in a bunch of imperial tools to maintain the thing.
That between them they represent a couple of billion people, so if anyone is going to change to accommodate others, [perhaps it should be the 300 million or so in the US.
Not really. Not enough to justify changing it anyway. There are devices (usually clocks) that expect a 60Hz input. 50Hz is a more common standard but enough of the world uses 60Hz to stick to it.
Also I've heard that 60Hz televisions can cause strobing issues with 50Hz fluorescent tubes, although that may just be something I read on the internet.
Oh yes. And of course, most of his customers will be fairly close to the city centre. Traffic in parts of Bristol are pretty bad at times but half hour journeys were uncommon when I lived there.
I just can't see this succeeding and wonder if there's another motive behind this lawsuit.
It would be hard for the users to plausibly claim innocent infringement. Limewire's creators may argue that they weren't aware and it wasn't intended that it would be used for infringing purposes. It's up to the prosecutors to prove that they were aware and did intend this.
With CNet it's the same, except they would have to prove that CNet knew or should have known that one of the many application they offered was being used primarily for copyright infringement.
It's a scattergun approach. Honestly, seems pretty poor form from Oracle's legal team but their job is to win, not to play fair.
The tactic seems to be to file every claim that could conceivably be relevant. Hope a few will stick. As it happens 3 did. That's 200% more than they needed.
It's probably more or less rehashed from a press release that described it that way. Variety writers aren't necessarily all that up to speed on video games and the readers aren't that interested so they'll just repeat what they're told be the marketing people.
So, devils advocate time, can you suggest examples of things that should have been patentable? I can certainly find a lot of things that by this argument shouldn't but have been.
What should be patentable then? Nintendo's Wii controller? All the hardware used to make it already existed, the actual wiring should be fairly obvious once the purpose was described. I'm sure the technology for identifying a bright spot in an image is already well known.
The innovation was in putting this all together and combining it into a means of controlling video games.
This is a patent for a method of information storage and retrieval. The algorithm can be used for other purposes, although most of them are pretty abstract without violating the patent.
Elliptical curve cryptography is patentable even though the algorithms are well known for describing elliptic curves. Unless there's a mathematical notation to explain what a secret is, then this new application is patentable.
The iPad breached expectations by actually being successful. Tablets have been around for ages now. There have been dozens of the things. So far one of them has succeeded.
Why did it succeed? I have no idea. But expecting another tablet to succeed because it's vaguely similar isn't going to work. Sony had a tablet PC 10 years ago. There have been various tablet versions of Windows for a while now. Apple appears to have done the same but must have done something different. The question is, what?
Neurologist/Author Oliver Sacks autobiographical work Uncle Tungsten goes into some detail about his playing with chemicals as he was growing up. He learned a lot about chemistry just through personal experimentation. He had access to a lot of chemicals that could easily kill him, but people were willing to trust that he was going to be reasonably sensible about things.
Kids these days aren't trusted that much, and as a result they don't have the urge to learn. Those of us who like computers or electronics are fine. Nobody thinks those are inherently dangerous at the moment, but the poor kids who have exactly the same eagerness about chemistry just don't get the chance.
This is seriously harming the science of chemistry.
I'd say it's just a computer company. When Apple started, the idea of selling an OS as a separate item was unusual. All the computer companies produced their own OS. Even the ones that licensed an OS never made much distinction of what it was, since it was just a component. It was mentioned in the technical documentation along with the type of CPU but it was largely seen as a design detail.
Microsoft is in the unusual position of making the OS the brand. My satnav runs Linux, but you wouldn't know it. Blackberry's tablet runs QNX, but they don't make much mention of this because the OS is just a component. Sony write their own OS for their consoles as do Nintendo.
There are companies that only make hardware and companies that only make software, but it's not like they have to be one or the other.
Certainly if MS was doing this it would be plausible, since they'd actually have something to gain other than the loss of a competitor.
The main reason Samsung use Android is because there's not a lot of choice. Sure they could use Windows Mobile or possibly Symbian but there's no way a lawsuit like this is going to stop Samsung from making tablets entirely, and Apple aren't going to offer Samsung iOS. Even if it would, it's costing Apple about as much as it's costing Samsung so by the same logic, surely Apple would be disuading themselves from the cost of the iPad.
you can't contract your way around murder, around theft, nor around any statute or case law created at any level.
Surely any time you create a contract transferring ownership, whether by a formal legal transfer or simply by purchasing something in a shop (technically a contract), you're contracting around theft by both parties agreeing that you're the legal owner.
But really the problem is consumer protection laws. Companies are all too willing to add to terms and conditions "By agreeing you waive your right under XXX laws", which tends not to be an enforcible condition in the US or anywhere else. Consumer protection laws would be useless if they could be circumvented so easily.
The main problem is a perception that they can be, and also the perception that challenging the company is expensive. The fact is most countries have a small claims system.
If they sell at a loss, then they're taking a risk. It's their risk. It's not up to the rest of us to subsidise them if the risk doesn't pan out. We only do that for bankers.
Or you just paint one-foot marks on the ground or put posts every one foot at the side of the road. Simple, low tech, and hard to get wrong.
Surprised it isn't standard everywhere. In Britain we use these markings
You can even superimpose markings on the road (used for the mobile cameras). You know where the camera is, and can calibrate that quite easily. Take account of error by allowing a certain threshold.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does everyone assume there's a single specific reason?
The psychology is a factor. The currency thing is a factor. Having extra cash sitting around is a factor.
It's a constant battle for supremacy. Firefox hasn't won anything. It's simply the leader at the moment.
Microsoft realise this. Mozilla's advocates would be well advised to keep this in mind and not get complacent.
No. But if I'm looking for a component to fit my metric device, and there are offers from India, China, Japan and the US, All else being equal, I'll go for a country that speaks metric so I don't have to also invest in a bunch of imperial tools to maintain the thing.
America is losing out in the export market.
That between them they represent a couple of billion people, so if anyone is going to change to accommodate others, [perhaps it should be the 300 million or so in the US.
Interesting. Sounds like a lot of work. Surely it would be possible to design bogies that work on either gauge. Evidently not, but I can't see why.
Hey, get China and India to standardise on your units and we'll consider it ourselves.
Thing is we all think standardisation is good. Most of the world uses metric. It's easier for the 5% to change than the 95%.
Not really. Not enough to justify changing it anyway. There are devices (usually clocks) that expect a 60Hz input. 50Hz is a more common standard but enough of the world uses 60Hz to stick to it.
Also I've heard that 60Hz televisions can cause strobing issues with 50Hz fluorescent tubes, although that may just be something I read on the internet.
Yes. Beats. But there was a single timezone, so you might wake up at @900, get to work at @950 and leave at @350 the following day.
An elegant system but no pressing need to change when everyone's standardised on hours minutes and seconds.
Oh yes. And of course, most of his customers will be fairly close to the city centre. Traffic in parts of Bristol are pretty bad at times but half hour journeys were uncommon when I lived there.
Perhaps you should make up your own mind. This is just information. It's not a decision.
I just can't see this succeeding and wonder if there's another motive behind this lawsuit.
It would be hard for the users to plausibly claim innocent infringement. Limewire's creators may argue that they weren't aware and it wasn't intended that it would be used for infringing purposes. It's up to the prosecutors to prove that they were aware and did intend this.
With CNet it's the same, except they would have to prove that CNet knew or should have known that one of the many application they offered was being used primarily for copyright infringement.
Bit of a stretch.
It's a scattergun approach. Honestly, seems pretty poor form from Oracle's legal team but their job is to win, not to play fair.
The tactic seems to be to file every claim that could conceivably be relevant. Hope a few will stick. As it happens 3 did. That's 200% more than they needed.
It's probably more or less rehashed from a press release that described it that way. Variety writers aren't necessarily all that up to speed on video games and the readers aren't that interested so they'll just repeat what they're told be the marketing people.
So, devils advocate time, can you suggest examples of things that should have been patentable? I can certainly find a lot of things that by this argument shouldn't but have been.
What should be patentable then? Nintendo's Wii controller? All the hardware used to make it already existed, the actual wiring should be fairly obvious once the purpose was described. I'm sure the technology for identifying a bright spot in an image is already well known.
The innovation was in putting this all together and combining it into a means of controlling video games.
This is a patent for a method of information storage and retrieval. The algorithm can be used for other purposes, although most of them are pretty abstract without violating the patent.
Elliptical curve cryptography is patentable even though the algorithms are well known for describing elliptic curves. Unless there's a mathematical notation to explain what a secret is, then this new application is patentable.
The iPad breached expectations by actually being successful. Tablets have been around for ages now. There have been dozens of the things. So far one of them has succeeded.
Why did it succeed? I have no idea. But expecting another tablet to succeed because it's vaguely similar isn't going to work. Sony had a tablet PC 10 years ago. There have been various tablet versions of Windows for a while now. Apple appears to have done the same but must have done something different. The question is, what?
Neurologist/Author Oliver Sacks autobiographical work Uncle Tungsten goes into some detail about his playing with chemicals as he was growing up. He learned a lot about chemistry just through personal experimentation. He had access to a lot of chemicals that could easily kill him, but people were willing to trust that he was going to be reasonably sensible about things.
Kids these days aren't trusted that much, and as a result they don't have the urge to learn. Those of us who like computers or electronics are fine. Nobody thinks those are inherently dangerous at the moment, but the poor kids who have exactly the same eagerness about chemistry just don't get the chance.
This is seriously harming the science of chemistry.
I'd say it's just a computer company. When Apple started, the idea of selling an OS as a separate item was unusual. All the computer companies produced their own OS. Even the ones that licensed an OS never made much distinction of what it was, since it was just a component. It was mentioned in the technical documentation along with the type of CPU but it was largely seen as a design detail.
Microsoft is in the unusual position of making the OS the brand. My satnav runs Linux, but you wouldn't know it. Blackberry's tablet runs QNX, but they don't make much mention of this because the OS is just a component. Sony write their own OS for their consoles as do Nintendo.
There are companies that only make hardware and companies that only make software, but it's not like they have to be one or the other.
Young hip trendy people more likely to own macs. Young hip trendy people more likely to be liberal.
A common cause is pretty obvious here.
Certainly if MS was doing this it would be plausible, since they'd actually have something to gain other than the loss of a competitor.
The main reason Samsung use Android is because there's not a lot of choice. Sure they could use Windows Mobile or possibly Symbian but there's no way a lawsuit like this is going to stop Samsung from making tablets entirely, and Apple aren't going to offer Samsung iOS. Even if it would, it's costing Apple about as much as it's costing Samsung so by the same logic, surely Apple would be disuading themselves from the cost of the iPad.
you can't contract your way around murder, around theft, nor around any statute or case law created at any level.
Surely any time you create a contract transferring ownership, whether by a formal legal transfer or simply by purchasing something in a shop (technically a contract), you're contracting around theft by both parties agreeing that you're the legal owner.
But really the problem is consumer protection laws. Companies are all too willing to add to terms and conditions "By agreeing you waive your right under XXX laws", which tends not to be an enforcible condition in the US or anywhere else. Consumer protection laws would be useless if they could be circumvented so easily.
The main problem is a perception that they can be, and also the perception that challenging the company is expensive. The fact is most countries have a small claims system.
If they sell at a loss, then they're taking a risk. It's their risk. It's not up to the rest of us to subsidise them if the risk doesn't pan out. We only do that for bankers.
Or you just paint one-foot marks on the ground or put posts every one foot at the side of the road. Simple, low tech, and hard to get wrong.
Surprised it isn't standard everywhere. In Britain we use these markings
You can even superimpose markings on the road (used for the mobile cameras). You know where the camera is, and can calibrate that quite easily. Take account of error by allowing a certain threshold.
. An unintended consequence was that traffic fatalities dropped
Surely people were driving less when fuel prices went higher, which would have had an effect.