It is indeed a harsh reality you speak of. I know many more people who do play games on linux because WINE solves the problem of a linux port faster than the company making the game will. WINE keeps getting better, and with each new release, and each new user-generated page explaining how to get games working, gaming companies have less incentive to port to it.
-- Yes, improper accounting of the classes I had taken led to a high-school counselor telling me I needed nearly remedial math when I was a freshman in high school (note that it wasn't grades, it was simply a counselor looking at checkmarks, seeing one not checked and ending her assessment of my needs right then and there). So yes, I believe that counselors do retarded things with math requirements and matching students to them.
-- As a result of this stupid counselor (they're all stupid), I didn't even start trigonometry/calculus until college.
-- It turns out I really liked calculus and did extremely well once in those classes.
-- I ended up majoring in and completing 2 degrees in Physics.
-- I still don't use much complex math on a day-to-day basis. HOWEVER, it does save my bacon from time to time, and I enjoy being able to setup solutions for problems.
Star Trek was simply the original television nerdgasm, it's not serious science-fiction. It's hollywood, so everyone is generally happy, conflict is rare, money and class is obsolete, and there's always a happy ending. It can't be serious science fiction on that basis alone.
What an infuriating argument. First it's about form over function and how Samsung copied the appearance and look of Apple's product, but as soon as you suggest that the idea for the form has existed since the 1980s people suggest it's about the code functionality... Which has also existed since the 1980s (icons as tools are OOOOLD), at which point if you re-suggest that the concepts patented are ancient it becomes about form again.... Pick a reason to be upset at Samsung, they all seem to work so it doesn't matter, amirite?
Here's the fact about Apple that their fanboys cannot seem to swallow: THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER UNIQUE OR SPECIAL ABOUT APPLE PRODUCTS. YOU ARE NOT SOME UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE FOR OWNING ONE. As a consumer of their products, you were likely concerned more about FORM over FUNCTION, and hence that makes you a consumer of FASHION not TECHNOLOGY. But far be it from me to suggest that apple fans are no different than women who insist they must have the latest Louis Vuitton purse.
Companies build products that are easily as similar as what Apple is complaining about, and they never even hit arbitration. Apple is only pursuing legal action because they can afford it (they're likely the most over-capitalized company in the world) and they think they stand to gain market share by suing everyone into being afraid of them.
They all owe money to your local science fiction writer
There are numerous examples of automakers with near-identical body appearance styles, do they sue each other? There are countless copycat monitor and desktop box styles for computers, do you ever see HP sue them? Samsung has done nothing that any of these other industries are doing and have been doing for decades. It is only this arrogant fashion-worship of Apple that allows anyone to even consider that this lawsuit has merit.
The DOJ did a decent job litigating Microsoft. However, the lawsuit had little to do with Microsoft's decline. They did that to themselves by failing to see where the markets were going.
There are few if any issues w/AT&T having a monopoly in phones.
The issue comes up when AT&T (or any other monopoly) uses their monoply in one area to leverage their position in another (think "shutting down the air supply of innovators)
Is the problem with monopolies perhaps more clear now? They *ALWAYS* end in less innovation... ALWAYS.
In fairness, voting has historically been about the lesser of two evils. You seem to be suggesting that allowing openly gay marriage is more important than preventing despotism. I think your priorities are entirely out-of-whack.
“Under this scheme, Al-Haramain can bring a suit for damages against the United States for use of the collected information, but cannot bring suit against the government for collection of the information itself,” Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the majority. She was joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins and Judge Harry Pregerson. ”Although such a structure may seem anomalous and even unfair, the policy judgment is one for Congress, not the courts.”
Huh? The judiciary is abdicating its own power here. It is the actions of the executive in violation of clearly spelled out laws that is the problem here. Are they suggesting that government workers cannot be sued for clear negligence w.r.t. the law because Congress did not authorize it? Did the lawyers in this case sue the legislative branch, or the executive? They should have sued the executive, and they should have won.
The very name brings to mind the reason rule of law was brought into being in the first place, so that there was one set of rules for everyone. The elite of the world seem historically hell-bent on creating one set of rules for a ruling class, and one for everyone else.
The purpose of posting anonymously is to say things coherently that might not otherwise be said if you put a name on it. You wrote something incoherent that should have been left in the bin of broken troll posts.
Well, at least the men of the west would allow you to use Encryption as you see fit. I would imagine the great power in the east might try to outlaw it.
Then I got slapped, and I realized all the crappy things the UN does to try to expand it's own power.
You may make any and all complaints about U.S. control/dominance of the internet, and I accept them. I do not accept that UN control would be better, in fact I'm convinced it would be much worse.
Honestly, other than live sports broadcasts, paid TV is crap. HBO and Showtime have good shows they put out, but I don't need to see them first-air, and they don't play relatively-recent movie releases anymore on those channels.
Cable Television used to be the best thing ever. It used to be you would see amazing amounts of programming that were simply unavailable through traditional networks. This content existed because the major networks had frankly rejected a lot of good ideas. Well those great ideas turned into formulas in a mature industry, formulas that are now followed without deviation. The Discovery channel used to pick up all the untouched NOVA ideas and it was awesome, now when I turn on the multitude of science/engineering channels I'm left to try to not punch my television into pieces because it's telling me that Egypt was built by aliens. The comedy channel used to be almost 24-hour-a-day stand up routines, which was fantastic, it changed from that a long time ago. Thankfully the cartoon network is still the lone shining beacon of basic cable that still provides true entertainment, but it's the only one at this point.
Cable died because they got cheap, they went low-margin-formulaic on their content generation, and hence their content is essentially all crap.
There is a misconception here that this is a trail before the court of public opinion.
That's not a misconception at all. These are two companies fighting for market share in a fast-changing technology market. If Samsung can paint Apple as being ridiculously litigious and petty (which they do to themselves anyway), that's marketing win. Do you really think that all the tech-saavy crowd isn't being influenced in their future purchasing decisions by the behavior of these two companies? Trials like this are always going to have marketing implications, and the fight for the market is still ongoing.
As for my own bias, Apple has a long history of litigious behavior, even so far low as to sue a woman for making iPhone shaped cookies and selling them. It's justice to see them exposed for such behavior, win or lose in court.
...like Kahn Noonian Singh pushing down on the bizarrely non-intuitive user-interface to the genesis device, Jobs dying wish will ultimately fail. If only he had targeted his overcapitalization for good, like putting men on Mars, I might respect him. Instead he blew it all on childish ego.
Slashdot Mirror
It is indeed a harsh reality you speak of. I know many more people who do play games on linux because WINE solves the problem of a linux port faster than the company making the game will. WINE keeps getting better, and with each new release, and each new user-generated page explaining how to get games working, gaming companies have less incentive to port to it.
-- Yes, improper accounting of the classes I had taken led to a high-school counselor telling me I needed nearly remedial math when I was a freshman in high school (note that it wasn't grades, it was simply a counselor looking at checkmarks, seeing one not checked and ending her assessment of my needs right then and there). So yes, I believe that counselors do retarded things with math requirements and matching students to them.
-- As a result of this stupid counselor (they're all stupid), I didn't even start trigonometry/calculus until college.
-- It turns out I really liked calculus and did extremely well once in those classes.
-- I ended up majoring in and completing 2 degrees in Physics.
-- I still don't use much complex math on a day-to-day basis. HOWEVER, it does save my bacon from time to time, and I enjoy being able to setup solutions for problems.
The best use of security question is to answer them dishonestly/humorously with responses you will remember, or can write down.
Favorite movie? Gigli
First Car? Moon Rover
Mother In Laws Name? Dead
etc..etc..
Star Trek was simply the original television nerdgasm, it's not serious science-fiction. It's hollywood, so everyone is generally happy, conflict is rare, money and class is obsolete, and there's always a happy ending. It can't be serious science fiction on that basis alone.
What an infuriating argument. First it's about form over function and how Samsung copied the appearance and look of Apple's product, but as soon as you suggest that the idea for the form has existed since the 1980s people suggest it's about the code functionality... Which has also existed since the 1980s (icons as tools are OOOOLD), at which point if you re-suggest that the concepts patented are ancient it becomes about form again.... Pick a reason to be upset at Samsung, they all seem to work so it doesn't matter, amirite?
Here's the fact about Apple that their fanboys cannot seem to swallow: THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER UNIQUE OR SPECIAL ABOUT APPLE PRODUCTS. YOU ARE NOT SOME UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE FOR OWNING ONE. As a consumer of their products, you were likely concerned more about FORM over FUNCTION, and hence that makes you a consumer of FASHION not TECHNOLOGY. But far be it from me to suggest that apple fans are no different than women who insist they must have the latest Louis Vuitton purse.
oh of course...
I mean, the Honda Fit, the Chevy Aveo, the Suzuki Aerio and Nissan Versa are so different looking there's no possible way I just mixed them all up.
Companies build products that are easily as similar as what Apple is complaining about, and they never even hit arbitration. Apple is only pursuing legal action because they can afford it (they're likely the most over-capitalized company in the world) and they think they stand to gain market share by suing everyone into being afraid of them.
http://s1.static.gotsmile.net/images/2012/07/05/picard-tablet_134149797969.jpg
http://www.netbooknews.com/wp-content/2011/08/2001-tablet-550x247.jpg
They all owe money to your local science fiction writer
There are numerous examples of automakers with near-identical body appearance styles, do they sue each other? There are countless copycat monitor and desktop box styles for computers, do you ever see HP sue them? Samsung has done nothing that any of these other industries are doing and have been doing for decades. It is only this arrogant fashion-worship of Apple that allows anyone to even consider that this lawsuit has merit.
The DOJ did a decent job litigating Microsoft. However, the lawsuit had little to do with Microsoft's decline. They did that to themselves by failing to see where the markets were going.
Restated for a different era:
There are few if any issues w/AT&T having a monopoly in phones.
The issue comes up when AT&T (or any other monopoly) uses their monoply in one area to leverage their position in another (think "shutting down the air supply of innovators)
Is the problem with monopolies perhaps more clear now? They *ALWAYS* end in less innovation... ALWAYS.
In fairness, voting has historically been about the lesser of two evils. You seem to be suggesting that allowing openly gay marriage is more important than preventing despotism. I think your priorities are entirely out-of-whack.
I guess that means if I want to torrent movies I have to accept surveillance on my activities?
sorry, trying to find the funny. I know there's one there...
FTA:
Huh? The judiciary is abdicating its own power here. It is the actions of the executive in violation of clearly spelled out laws that is the problem here. Are they suggesting that government workers cannot be sued for clear negligence w.r.t. the law because Congress did not authorize it? Did the lawyers in this case sue the legislative branch, or the executive? They should have sued the executive, and they should have won.
I thought that's what their stock portfolio reports were for. I mean, how else are all these elected officials becoming rich?
"Sovereign Immunity"
The very name brings to mind the reason rule of law was brought into being in the first place, so that there was one set of rules for everyone. The elite of the world seem historically hell-bent on creating one set of rules for a ruling class, and one for everyone else.
I'd really hate to be Youtube in such a situation. They'd essentially be damned either way.
I wish astronomers would stop training their telescopes on the activities in this region.
Total freedom is better than government control, that's easy to accept. The topic here is whether the UN would be better than the US at it.
The purpose of posting anonymously is to say things coherently that might not otherwise be said if you put a name on it. You wrote something incoherent that should have been left in the bin of broken troll posts.
IPv6 adoption should also eliminate most of ICANNs inflated power.
Well, at least the men of the west would allow you to use Encryption as you see fit. I would imagine the great power in the east might try to outlaw it.
Entirely privatized darknets are just around the corner. They'll be slower, but totally unregulatable.
Then I got slapped, and I realized all the crappy things the UN does to try to expand it's own power.
You may make any and all complaints about U.S. control/dominance of the internet, and I accept them. I do not accept that UN control would be better, in fact I'm convinced it would be much worse.
...interactive.
Honestly, other than live sports broadcasts, paid TV is crap. HBO and Showtime have good shows they put out, but I don't need to see them first-air, and they don't play relatively-recent movie releases anymore on those channels.
Cable Television used to be the best thing ever. It used to be you would see amazing amounts of programming that were simply unavailable through traditional networks. This content existed because the major networks had frankly rejected a lot of good ideas. Well those great ideas turned into formulas in a mature industry, formulas that are now followed without deviation. The Discovery channel used to pick up all the untouched NOVA ideas and it was awesome, now when I turn on the multitude of science/engineering channels I'm left to try to not punch my television into pieces because it's telling me that Egypt was built by aliens. The comedy channel used to be almost 24-hour-a-day stand up routines, which was fantastic, it changed from that a long time ago. Thankfully the cartoon network is still the lone shining beacon of basic cable that still provides true entertainment, but it's the only one at this point.
Cable died because they got cheap, they went low-margin-formulaic on their content generation, and hence their content is essentially all crap.
There is a misconception here that this is a trail before the court of public opinion.
That's not a misconception at all. These are two companies fighting for market share in a fast-changing technology market. If Samsung can paint Apple as being ridiculously litigious and petty (which they do to themselves anyway), that's marketing win. Do you really think that all the tech-saavy crowd isn't being influenced in their future purchasing decisions by the behavior of these two companies? Trials like this are always going to have marketing implications, and the fight for the market is still ongoing.
As for my own bias, Apple has a long history of litigious behavior, even so far low as to sue a woman for making iPhone shaped cookies and selling them. It's justice to see them exposed for such behavior, win or lose in court.
...like Kahn Noonian Singh pushing down on the bizarrely non-intuitive user-interface to the genesis device, Jobs dying wish will ultimately fail. If only he had targeted his overcapitalization for good, like putting men on Mars, I might respect him. Instead he blew it all on childish ego.