Did you read what I said? MS brought Motorola to court, not the other way around. Motorola sent a letter setting out standard payment amounts as a starting point for negotiations on standard, absolutely necessary technology which they invented and MS is using, and MS took them straight to court claiming it is "unfair". This comes off to me as MS being litigatious, not Motorola (or, for that matter, Google).
Hence the use of "essentially". Although, in hindsight, it is a bit of a bastardisation of the English language - "effectively" probably would have been better.
And so far I've seen nothing to suggest that the Higgs field is in any way affected by being on the surface of a relatively small planet vs. in orbit of said planet.
So, VFAT is worth 2.25% but the standards-essential wifi-implementation patents aren't? What planet are you from? If MS was willing to cross-licence they could get away with far less than 2.25%, but they want to play hardball with their own patents still, so they've really chosen to bring this down on themselves.
How much value does having Wifi add to the Surface? Say 50%? I know I wouldn't buy a Surface without Wifi unless it cost at least 1/3 less... So, this patent gives more than 15x return on licence fees. Sounds pretty Fair and Reasonable to me.
Hell, Microsoft gets more than 2.5% on Android devices ($15) just to use VFAT long filenames. Talk about skewed perceptions of value.
This is entirely different. 1. MS brought Motorola to court. 2. They think 2.25% is high for a patent which allows them to use Wifi. Seriously, how much value does using Wifi add to the device? Maybe 50%? So, a 15x return on investment for this patent, which seems Fair and Reasonable. 3. Other companies also get the 2.25% first offer, but most of them are willing to cross-licence patents so they pay less. MS isn't willing to do this, so they have to pay the full 2.25%. 4. A lot of R&D went into developing Wifi tech, which is why this got FRAND status anyway. Are you saying people shouldn't get reimbursed for their R&D if they release it freely and agree to a lower licence cost so that it can be a standard? 2.25% is VERY low for something as complicated as Wifi. MS wants 2.25% just for their stupid long-filenames VFAT.
Sorry to disappoint you here, but MS actually sued Motorola here because they are being whiny and don't want to pay FRAND rates. 2.25% is nothing for being able to use Wifi on your device - how much would you pay for a Surface if it didn't have Wifi on it? Or rather, if you were offered a Surface without Wifi, how much more would you be willing to pay to get Wifi? Significantly more than 2.25% - probably closer to 50% at least, considering a tablet without Wifi is pretty useless - which means that this patent will give returns of more than 15x the licencing cost - which is extremely Fair and Reasonable.
MS could get a better deal (less than 2.25%) if they were willing to do a patent trade with Motorola, where the 2.25% was exchanged for the use of patent(s) of similar value, but MS (and Apple) aren't happy with that because they don't want to share with any of the Android device manufacturers (never mind Google), so they are stuck with the 2.25%.
Yes, but Apple is claiming that Samsung is in the wrong for not mentioning the Seagate trial earlier, so that opens the case that Apple also knew about it earlier, and should have mentioned it so that a different juror could be called.
They can't jam everywhere all the time and it would require a lot of new equipment which they aren't going to get hold of easily. Drone videos are unencrypted for entirely different reasons, mostly that you need much better signal conditions to send encrypted data because just one noisy bit can destroy an entire chunk of frames instead of a single pixel.
GPS gives the time as well as location, so I'm not sure why they'd bother with batteries that run flat or other such nonsense.
Nope, doesn't work like that. If you blow the EEPROM fuse the code can't be read back. Just give each system a different set of public/private keys, so even if one is cracked in a high tech lab the others are still safe. It's easy to add deep inside the control and stabilisation code, a simple if(public key doesn't match)abort(1); It could even do a full self-destruct of circuits (and explosives, if they are still attached) to prevent tampering attempts. Military grade equipment is on a whole different level to mass-produced civilian gaming consoles. And if you're suggesting a high-tech lab deconstruction for each and every missile, well, they could probably save a bunch of time making their own missiles to begin with.
Why would you design a secure system with an easily bypassed circuit? The GPS circuit can prove authentication to the other electronics by signing all locations and instructions with a private key. These systems need a lot of in-flight stabilisation and navigation so just shorting the "FULL POWER" line on the hardware controls isn't going to get you very far.
The spoofing doesn't work on the encrypted military GPS, it can only be jammed, so if they make that the only source for the location spoofing doesn't work either. Of course, their enemies could jam the encrypted GPS to prevent them firing, but such is the nature of these things.
I'm not arguing that every religious person is an idiot. I never said that. I'm arguing against the citing of Einstein (or anybody else) as a reason that religion is justified, because appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. This wasn't strictly on topic, but I find Einstein being used as a reason to promote religion frequently and it touched a nerve for me; by the amount of up-mods the post got I'm guessing it hit home for others as well.
If I quote somebody, it's because I like what they said, not because I like the person. I personally think Dawkins is an asshole, but he happens to be a very eloquent asshole who says things which do a great job at summarising the reasoning behind atheism, so I may occasionally quote him. Putting his name at the end isn't to give weight to the words I say, it is to give credit so people don't think I thought this up myself. If you're going to argue for religion, don't quote figures in authority expecting their status to provide extra weight to the words. Provide logical arguments, and if you are stealing these arguments from somebody then provide a reference so that you aren't plagiarising.
Please explain your reasoning. The conclusions you draw make no sense whatsoever. I'll agree that a logical fallacy provided as an example is no defence, but I think you have your cause and effect mixed up. And I'm not sure how this is even relevant to what I said.
It may have started with somebody trolling, but that doesn't change the fact that a religious person invoked Einstein in an attempt to prove that an authority figure (to atheists) agrees that religious people are correct in their convictions. What they didn't realise is that their attempts were futile because atheism does not have authority figures, only spokespeople. Richard Dawkins doesn't set the agenda for atheism, he simply verbalises what the others were too politically correct to say themselves. There is no 'leader' of atheism, just as there is no 'leader' of Anonymous. Atheists are a bunch of people who have come to the same conclusion independently, without (and often despite) somebody pushing a power-motivated agenda down their throats.
What I think what religious people don't get is that the non-religious people don't care what Einstein's views on religious were, because they don't need constant confirmation of their beliefs. Not running into god(s) every single day of their lives is enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you actually used LibreOffice in the last 6 months or so? There have been huge improvements in the .docx handling.
How else do you expect them to know whose blacklist to use?
Did you read what I said? MS brought Motorola to court, not the other way around. Motorola sent a letter setting out standard payment amounts as a starting point for negotiations on standard, absolutely necessary technology which they invented and MS is using, and MS took them straight to court claiming it is "unfair". This comes off to me as MS being litigatious, not Motorola (or, for that matter, Google).
Hence the use of "essentially". Although, in hindsight, it is a bit of a bastardisation of the English language - "effectively" probably would have been better.
And so far I've seen nothing to suggest that the Higgs field is in any way affected by being on the surface of a relatively small planet vs. in orbit of said planet.
So, VFAT is worth 2.25% but the standards-essential wifi-implementation patents aren't? What planet are you from? If MS was willing to cross-licence they could get away with far less than 2.25%, but they want to play hardball with their own patents still, so they've really chosen to bring this down on themselves.
They have the same mass in space. Their weight is essentially 0.
Thanks for putting it clearly... please mod parent up!
How much value does having Wifi add to the Surface? Say 50%? I know I wouldn't buy a Surface without Wifi unless it cost at least 1/3 less...
So, this patent gives more than 15x return on licence fees. Sounds pretty Fair and Reasonable to me.
Hell, Microsoft gets more than 2.5% on Android devices ($15) just to use VFAT long filenames. Talk about skewed perceptions of value.
This is entirely different.
1. MS brought Motorola to court.
2. They think 2.25% is high for a patent which allows them to use Wifi. Seriously, how much value does using Wifi add to the device? Maybe 50%? So, a 15x return on investment for this patent, which seems Fair and Reasonable.
3. Other companies also get the 2.25% first offer, but most of them are willing to cross-licence patents so they pay less. MS isn't willing to do this, so they have to pay the full 2.25%.
4. A lot of R&D went into developing Wifi tech, which is why this got FRAND status anyway. Are you saying people shouldn't get reimbursed for their R&D if they release it freely and agree to a lower licence cost so that it can be a standard? 2.25% is VERY low for something as complicated as Wifi. MS wants 2.25% just for their stupid long-filenames VFAT.
Sorry to disappoint you here, but MS actually sued Motorola here because they are being whiny and don't want to pay FRAND rates. 2.25% is nothing for being able to use Wifi on your device - how much would you pay for a Surface if it didn't have Wifi on it? Or rather, if you were offered a Surface without Wifi, how much more would you be willing to pay to get Wifi? Significantly more than 2.25% - probably closer to 50% at least, considering a tablet without Wifi is pretty useless - which means that this patent will give returns of more than 15x the licencing cost - which is extremely Fair and Reasonable.
MS could get a better deal (less than 2.25%) if they were willing to do a patent trade with Motorola, where the 2.25% was exchanged for the use of patent(s) of similar value, but MS (and Apple) aren't happy with that because they don't want to share with any of the Android device manufacturers (never mind Google), so they are stuck with the 2.25%.
Yes, but Apple is claiming that Samsung is in the wrong for not mentioning the Seagate trial earlier, so that opens the case that Apple also knew about it earlier, and should have mentioned it so that a different juror could be called.
You clearly have much to learn, and Foxconn is willing to teach you.
There were actually two posts in between OP and the response which were on Einstein's views on religious. The topic had changed.
I've had issues with resistive screens, but multi-touch capacitive screens have all been fine.
They can't jam everywhere all the time and it would require a lot of new equipment which they aren't going to get hold of easily. Drone videos are unencrypted for entirely different reasons, mostly that you need much better signal conditions to send encrypted data because just one noisy bit can destroy an entire chunk of frames instead of a single pixel.
GPS gives the time as well as location, so I'm not sure why they'd bother with batteries that run flat or other such nonsense.
We could give them a public-key-encrypted GPS decryption key, and each missile has the private key. Asymmetric encryption is awesome =)
Nope, doesn't work like that. If you blow the EEPROM fuse the code can't be read back. Just give each system a different set of public/private keys, so even if one is cracked in a high tech lab the others are still safe. It's easy to add deep inside the control and stabilisation code, a simple if(public key doesn't match)abort(1); It could even do a full self-destruct of circuits (and explosives, if they are still attached) to prevent tampering attempts. Military grade equipment is on a whole different level to mass-produced civilian gaming consoles. And if you're suggesting a high-tech lab deconstruction for each and every missile, well, they could probably save a bunch of time making their own missiles to begin with.
DVDs don't have military encrypted GPSs attached to them.
Why would you design a secure system with an easily bypassed circuit? The GPS circuit can prove authentication to the other electronics by signing all locations and instructions with a private key. These systems need a lot of in-flight stabilisation and navigation so just shorting the "FULL POWER" line on the hardware controls isn't going to get you very far.
The spoofing doesn't work on the encrypted military GPS, it can only be jammed, so if they make that the only source for the location spoofing doesn't work either. Of course, their enemies could jam the encrypted GPS to prevent them firing, but such is the nature of these things.
If you give them an 'expiry date' then they can't be used for future incidents. Couple that with geographical lock and it should be fairly safe.
I'm not arguing that every religious person is an idiot. I never said that. I'm arguing against the citing of Einstein (or anybody else) as a reason that religion is justified, because appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. This wasn't strictly on topic, but I find Einstein being used as a reason to promote religion frequently and it touched a nerve for me; by the amount of up-mods the post got I'm guessing it hit home for others as well.
If I quote somebody, it's because I like what they said, not because I like the person. I personally think Dawkins is an asshole, but he happens to be a very eloquent asshole who says things which do a great job at summarising the reasoning behind atheism, so I may occasionally quote him. Putting his name at the end isn't to give weight to the words I say, it is to give credit so people don't think I thought this up myself. If you're going to argue for religion, don't quote figures in authority expecting their status to provide extra weight to the words. Provide logical arguments, and if you are stealing these arguments from somebody then provide a reference so that you aren't plagiarising.
Please explain your reasoning. The conclusions you draw make no sense whatsoever. I'll agree that a logical fallacy provided as an example is no defence, but I think you have your cause and effect mixed up. And I'm not sure how this is even relevant to what I said.
P != E
It may have started with somebody trolling, but that doesn't change the fact that a religious person invoked Einstein in an attempt to prove that an authority figure (to atheists) agrees that religious people are correct in their convictions. What they didn't realise is that their attempts were futile because atheism does not have authority figures, only spokespeople. Richard Dawkins doesn't set the agenda for atheism, he simply verbalises what the others were too politically correct to say themselves. There is no 'leader' of atheism, just as there is no 'leader' of Anonymous. Atheists are a bunch of people who have come to the same conclusion independently, without (and often despite) somebody pushing a power-motivated agenda down their throats.
What I think what religious people don't get is that the non-religious people don't care what Einstein's views on religious were, because they don't need constant confirmation of their beliefs. Not running into god(s) every single day of their lives is enough.