It's all quite irrelevant. 2% does not violate FRAND because Motorola was not a member or party of any agreement associated with the standard. Motorola was not owned by Google when it started.
Microsoft did not negotiate let alone negotiate in good faith. Microsoft simply didn't want to pay at all. I do side with Microsoft on that though. There should be no payment for software patents because there should be no software patents.
This kind of nonsense can't keep going on. It saddens and sickens me.
The right to own a gun is an extension of the right to self preservation. If the threat of guns could be nulified in ways other than the threat of counter-attack, then you might be right. But since the most effective individual means of self-defense is a personally owned firearm, the right to own a gun is a specific instance of the natural right to self defense and self preservation.
The constitution is a document which limits government. As another commenter clarified previously, the constitution does not grant rights, it limits what the government can do. The right to bear arms is a natural right under the constitution.
You just made an admittedly unsubstantiated claim that the opposite of my substantiated claim is true? Are you seriously making that kind of argument? An imaginary argument that you think people who legally carry weapons routinely escalate disagreements into assaults with deadly weapons?! And that it can't be as easily searched because the news doesn't report on those incidents?! Quite possibly the second worst argument ever... the first being "nuh-uh!"
It *IS* the right to form a militia. The trouble people have is understanding what a militia is and what it isn't. At the time of the writing, the meaning and intent of militia is pretty much everyone. In time of need, everyone should be expected to defend the land. WE ARE ALL MILITIA. I know it's a really foreign and stupid idea, but when you are faced with a 3rd amendment situation, you'll wish you were more prepared to exercise your 2nd.
And "well regulated" does not and did not mean "trained and doing practice drills." It means that your guns work... which implies that you are individually trained (usually by your friends or parents) and that you know how to keep your gun clean and ready.
Screw what you THINK the constitution means. Learn what it meant when they wrote it to understand what it means. "Gay" meant happy back then and you probably already know that. So why on earth does anyone think "militia" means a [government] organized military? What's more, even if it did mean a civilian organized military, why then hell aren't people screaming about such militia organizations being outlawed and put on terrorist lists?
I'm a non-gun owner but I recognize and understand the value and the importance of the right. And ironically, the moment I no longer have the legal right to own a gun is the very moment I will seek to own one. I see gun ownership as a natural right, not a legal one. The right to defend one's self is a natural right and I will exercise it when I feel the need to. (I am lucky. I have never needed to. But I'm not foolish enough to think I will NEVER need to. And yes, I know I am actually making the argument that I need to buy a gun NOW, but that's another talk.)
What I find more threatening than not owning a gun is that people KNOW I do not own a gun or don't have one with me at the moment. I will NEVER eat at Denny's again knowing that they are a "gun free kill zone." It's disgusting and obvious that making it an offense to carry in a Denny's makes everyone within MUCH more vulnerable to attack by criminals who don't care about the signs on the doors. I know why they do it -- because a bunch of frightened idiots might feel uncomfortable eating in such places. Trouble is, you only need to google "denny's gun free zone" to find a long list of news stories about Denny's restaurants being robbed at gunpoint and people getting shot and killed by actual criminals. (There is also the occasional story about an illegal gun carrier thwarting a crime in Denny's.)
Let's all agree that having guns is dangerous. (The discussion that follows that agreement should be about how dangerous it actually is and then we'll start making car and driver analogies.) But here's the thing I can't get past. When people have good reason to believe that large groups of people are unarmed, there's quite certainly a much higher chance that such locations will be exploited by criminals...usually criminals with guns. That makes anti-gun law and policy FAR more dangerous than gun ownership... far more dangerous to the very [civilian/pedestrian] people who think they want anti-gun legislation and policy.
When I think "V" I think victory. Seems most people are more comfortable with "V" for victimhood.
The idea that "sure, robotics put dozens of people out of work, but robots need technicians to maintain them" is absurd. Not that machines don't need maintenance, but that the number of people displaced approaches the number of people needed to maintain machines. And even if that WERE the case (which is most certainly isn't) then surely we have to face that most people should realize that being a tech isn't something everyone can do effectively. This leaves people who are not technically inclined and not lucky enough to be trained and/or have talent in other areas, to do what? Career criminal? Lifetime welfare recipient? Both?
Bottom line? The more people out of work, the bigger the tax burden on those remaining who have income or have a job. I don't quite advocate not modernizing or anything like that, so this rant is actually more about outsourcing labor than new labor for in-sourced robotics. But I think there is a lot going on here that is harming good people who just don't have ability. That's kind of sad. Some could call it evolution except that we're doing it in reverse -- the people who don't have jobs and stuff end up having more babies than those with ability and jobs and money.
The normal way these things go is through "cross licensing deals." In this case, cross licensing was not offered by Microsoft. It is widely recognized that without such agreements, patent disputes would have melted civilization into a molten pool long ago.
2% isn't much. Care to guess what Microsoft wants for their alleged patents in Android?
And once again, if you had been paying attention to the case, the issue was between Motorola and Microsoft BEFORE Google got involved. It has taken quite some time for this to even get into the courts let alone headlines. (Surely you didn't think the legal system was instantaneous.)
You've never worked with money transfer business before have you? I have. It's hilarious how much the government interferes with and gets involved with money issues. Hell, even with CASH transactions the government likes to take first and then asks questions. It's a weak argument to suggest that "paypal is not government regulated" especially when there are dozens and dozens of US laws Paypal must comply with. So don't go there. It's a horrible argument and one that just makes it look as if you're completely ignorant of the laws and practices of the US government.
Motorola DID NOT ENTER into an agreement which is one of the points of this case. Google has not yet acquired Motorola and only Google was in the agreement in question.
If you bought a company that did something prior to your buying it, are you evil?
In any case, Microsoft is the evil one in this case because, if you followed the case at all, you would have noticed that Motorola actually asked for a reasonable amount by industry standards but Microsoft didn't even attempt to negotiate and, instead, went straight to a court challenge arguing things that aren't quite even law.
It stinks of the government and/or IRS abuse. Forget boycotting business for its behaviour [read: complicity]. Isn't it time we start boycotting government a bit?
Perhaps you are correct in the sense that this is not "new for nerds" but it is a story which has a darker side which no one is yet talking about.
This case stems from some very crappy police work with a clear and obvious agenda. "Defense attorneys have called Cary police work 'inept' and 'dishonest,' saying investigators were concerned about the town's reputation for being a safe community and that they ignored evidence and witnesses that didn't support their theory that Brad Cooper killed his wife." What's the underlying theme? Bad police? They have a crime problem there and they don't want people knowing it. I have additional ideas about what other issues are at play, but "random crime" at the hands of "bored teenagers" is a problem all over the nation and that's not a secret -- it's just a lot of misrepresented facts meant to steer people away from some very ugly conclusions.
I agree. It seems they just want to push their profit margins while forgetting the early adopters (us) have a pretty good understanding of what we're [thinking of] buying. Build your market and following and THEN focus on profits when you've got a market. Here's what will happen, especially in Linux/Android based devices. Someone will ALWAYS be cheaper and they will use some of your ideas in the process. May as well accept it now. You will not own or dominate your section of the market without fans and followers as your 'edge' over others. This means acting more like Samsung than like Apple.
I want a car-puter that's worth a damn and I'm flexible about what I would find acceptable in that regard.
1. I want it in a car (obviously) but that means it requires some things other computing devices will not but among these are power/heat management and tolerance most might begin to realize is completely hostile to computer devices. 2. I want it to meet current expectations in software and in hardware. (For example, 1280x800 minimum display, not 800x480 and Android 4.x, not Android 2.x! I am looking at YOU Parrot! You insult us all with your specs.) 3. I want it to be flexible and more general purpose even if it is limited by its use in a car. This means having a wide range of peripheral inputs and outputs and the ability to use a variety of displays and display types. It also means keeping it open and not restricted. (Parrot, could you explain to me your parrot store or whatever you call it? I get that things *can* be side-loaded, but I think that was more of a concession than anything else.) 4. I want it to be open as Android was intended. This means we will buy your hardware, but don't try to tell us what we can do with it. We KNOW what's on your mind and we don't approve. It's not so much about "quality control" as much as it is consumer control. Parrot, once again, I'm looking at you. There are competitors coming hard and fast and you don't want to be forgotten simply because you thought being among the first means you can take advantage of the lacking consumer choice. Some consumers have a short memory while others like me do not. I will NEVER buy Sony again, for example. Sony doesn't respect consumers. I won't buy into that ever.
I can't believe there isn't a market for what I want.
I think what you describe is the last time Microsoft will ever be [allowed] to pull that stuff off.
Word did not crush Word Perfect. Microsoft [ab]used their Windows monopoly to harm a competing product.
Microsoft's multiple attempts into mobile have all been disgraceful failures and they've been making attempts for decades. Microsoft screwed over Orange mobile more than once (really Orange? And you're still playing with Microsoft?) and Microsoft accused of stealing mobile phone trade secrets as they go back on their deals [again] with another Microsoft partnership gone bad.
I see the term "Microsoft Partner" as the thing which happens before something bad happens... you know, like getting kissed by a mafia boss or something.
If they could convert their microsoft phones into being a mouse or a keyboard, they might have something there. Microsoft branded mice and keyboards are still moving sort of...
Microsoft's credibility and the US credibility seem to mirror each other in some ways. I doubt, after recent events, the rest of the world will trust either as much as it once did.
Global warming (climate change) means the water in the air [weather] changes the way it behaves. We're in flux right now so it's pretty impossible to make long-term predictions, but it is safe enough to say that some places will get more rain while other places get less.
This shift in where water goes will also make a shift in where and how well plants grow. Some plants will die while others will begin to thrive and flourish. The animal life which depend on the water and the plant life will also shift, die and surge in different areas depending on how things go. Larger animals which depend on water, plants and other animals will also experience serious changes. Humans, conscious and observant of these changes, will be able to adjust to these changes in some ways (while others will not be able to adjust due to resource limitations). The value of some lands will decrease while others land values will go up.
Have I missed anything? Suffering? World wars? Food shortage?
Not as easy as you think. First you have to get over yourself. That's HUGE when you're rich because you tend to think you're better than those below you and your status and ability to rise to your level convinces you of it. So, no it's not as easy as you think. In reality, it's easy to imagine being generous when you don't have much to give.
Not just carbs, but incompatible carbs. Real sugar is better than HFCS or even eating processed grains. They aren't all that compatible with our surgar processing organs and lead to strain on them. Another effect is those foods take longer to trigger our satisfaction response signaling us to stop eating which leads to overeating.
Cancer will reduce when our food intake becomes better... also as people learn to avoid other problems. Hip replacement and others are under the category of weird cases. They are, relatively speaking, rather rare. But also, some problems associated with bodily wear and tear? I have mixed feelings about those in the first place. The whole point of being healthier is managing things better. Being too sterile leads to a weaker immune system. A large mix of carbs and fats lead to choleterol which leads to heart problems. Lowering carbs reduces strain on sugar processing organs. (Carbs from fruits and real sugars are better because the body processes them more easily and more quickly)
Still, industry wants what is best for industry's bottom line, not what's best for people. It doesn't matter than industry is run by people. It kind of makes it worse because competition forces a game of chicken among them where the first one who makes a healthy or humanitarian change in the way they do things loses because the profits and prices of the others will attract more buyers -- people don't shop with conscience. They shop with as few dollars as possible. Only government can force quality changes on industry without harming competition too badly since (in theory) what affects one, affects them all.
Seriously and honestly though, I didn't stop drinking milk because I thought it would make me not sick any longer. My brother recommended it because my allergies resulted in a lot of mucous and he informed me stopping milk reduces mucous. It did. And other benefits were merely a surprise. And on top of that, my seasonal allergies essentially disappeared! Weird right? It was only later that I learned about the antibiotics in common homogenized bovine milk. And it explained a lot as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel like we're sinking deeper each and every time I find myself saying "We have just reached a new low in stupidity."
It's all quite irrelevant. 2% does not violate FRAND because Motorola was not a member or party of any agreement associated with the standard. Motorola was not owned by Google when it started.
Microsoft did not negotiate let alone negotiate in good faith. Microsoft simply didn't want to pay at all. I do side with Microsoft on that though. There should be no payment for software patents because there should be no software patents.
This kind of nonsense can't keep going on. It saddens and sickens me.
The right to own a gun is an extension of the right to self preservation. If the threat of guns could be nulified in ways other than the threat of counter-attack, then you might be right. But since the most effective individual means of self-defense is a personally owned firearm, the right to own a gun is a specific instance of the natural right to self defense and self preservation.
The constitution is a document which limits government. As another commenter clarified previously, the constitution does not grant rights, it limits what the government can do. The right to bear arms is a natural right under the constitution.
You just made an admittedly unsubstantiated claim that the opposite of my substantiated claim is true? Are you seriously making that kind of argument? An imaginary argument that you think people who legally carry weapons routinely escalate disagreements into assaults with deadly weapons?! And that it can't be as easily searched because the news doesn't report on those incidents?! Quite possibly the second worst argument ever... the first being "nuh-uh!"
It *IS* the right to form a militia. The trouble people have is understanding what a militia is and what it isn't. At the time of the writing, the meaning and intent of militia is pretty much everyone. In time of need, everyone should be expected to defend the land. WE ARE ALL MILITIA. I know it's a really foreign and stupid idea, but when you are faced with a 3rd amendment situation, you'll wish you were more prepared to exercise your 2nd.
And "well regulated" does not and did not mean "trained and doing practice drills." It means that your guns work... which implies that you are individually trained (usually by your friends or parents) and that you know how to keep your gun clean and ready.
Screw what you THINK the constitution means. Learn what it meant when they wrote it to understand what it means. "Gay" meant happy back then and you probably already know that. So why on earth does anyone think "militia" means a [government] organized military? What's more, even if it did mean a civilian organized military, why then hell aren't people screaming about such militia organizations being outlawed and put on terrorist lists?
I'm a non-gun owner but I recognize and understand the value and the importance of the right. And ironically, the moment I no longer have the legal right to own a gun is the very moment I will seek to own one. I see gun ownership as a natural right, not a legal one. The right to defend one's self is a natural right and I will exercise it when I feel the need to. (I am lucky. I have never needed to. But I'm not foolish enough to think I will NEVER need to. And yes, I know I am actually making the argument that I need to buy a gun NOW, but that's another talk.)
What I find more threatening than not owning a gun is that people KNOW I do not own a gun or don't have one with me at the moment. I will NEVER eat at Denny's again knowing that they are a "gun free kill zone." It's disgusting and obvious that making it an offense to carry in a Denny's makes everyone within MUCH more vulnerable to attack by criminals who don't care about the signs on the doors. I know why they do it -- because a bunch of frightened idiots might feel uncomfortable eating in such places. Trouble is, you only need to google "denny's gun free zone" to find a long list of news stories about Denny's restaurants being robbed at gunpoint and people getting shot and killed by actual criminals. (There is also the occasional story about an illegal gun carrier thwarting a crime in Denny's.)
Let's all agree that having guns is dangerous. (The discussion that follows that agreement should be about how dangerous it actually is and then we'll start making car and driver analogies.) But here's the thing I can't get past. When people have good reason to believe that large groups of people are unarmed, there's quite certainly a much higher chance that such locations will be exploited by criminals...usually criminals with guns. That makes anti-gun law and policy FAR more dangerous than gun ownership... far more dangerous to the very [civilian/pedestrian] people who think they want anti-gun legislation and policy.
When I think "V" I think victory. Seems most people are more comfortable with "V" for victimhood.
The idea that "sure, robotics put dozens of people out of work, but robots need technicians to maintain them" is absurd. Not that machines don't need maintenance, but that the number of people displaced approaches the number of people needed to maintain machines. And even if that WERE the case (which is most certainly isn't) then surely we have to face that most people should realize that being a tech isn't something everyone can do effectively. This leaves people who are not technically inclined and not lucky enough to be trained and/or have talent in other areas, to do what? Career criminal? Lifetime welfare recipient? Both?
Bottom line? The more people out of work, the bigger the tax burden on those remaining who have income or have a job. I don't quite advocate not modernizing or anything like that, so this rant is actually more about outsourcing labor than new labor for in-sourced robotics. But I think there is a lot going on here that is harming good people who just don't have ability. That's kind of sad. Some could call it evolution except that we're doing it in reverse -- the people who don't have jobs and stuff end up having more babies than those with ability and jobs and money.
So what are we breeding here?
The normal way these things go is through "cross licensing deals." In this case, cross licensing was not offered by Microsoft. It is widely recognized that without such agreements, patent disputes would have melted civilization into a molten pool long ago.
2% isn't much. Care to guess what Microsoft wants for their alleged patents in Android?
And once again, if you had been paying attention to the case, the issue was between Motorola and Microsoft BEFORE Google got involved. It has taken quite some time for this to even get into the courts let alone headlines. (Surely you didn't think the legal system was instantaneous.)
You've never worked with money transfer business before have you? I have. It's hilarious how much the government interferes with and gets involved with money issues. Hell, even with CASH transactions the government likes to take first and then asks questions. It's a weak argument to suggest that "paypal is not government regulated" especially when there are dozens and dozens of US laws Paypal must comply with. So don't go there. It's a horrible argument and one that just makes it look as if you're completely ignorant of the laws and practices of the US government.
Correction: "had not yet..." not "has not yet..."
Motorola DID NOT ENTER into an agreement which is one of the points of this case. Google has not yet acquired Motorola and only Google was in the agreement in question.
Motorola.
If you bought a company that did something prior to your buying it, are you evil?
In any case, Microsoft is the evil one in this case because, if you followed the case at all, you would have noticed that Motorola actually asked for a reasonable amount by industry standards but Microsoft didn't even attempt to negotiate and, instead, went straight to a court challenge arguing things that aren't quite even law.
It stinks of the government and/or IRS abuse. Forget boycotting business for its behaviour [read: complicity]. Isn't it time we start boycotting government a bit?
Actually, I disagree.
Perhaps you are correct in the sense that this is not "new for nerds" but it is a story which has a darker side which no one is yet talking about.
This case stems from some very crappy police work with a clear and obvious agenda. "Defense attorneys have called Cary police work 'inept' and 'dishonest,' saying investigators were concerned about the town's reputation for being a safe community and that they ignored evidence and witnesses that didn't support their theory that Brad Cooper killed his wife." What's the underlying theme? Bad police? They have a crime problem there and they don't want people knowing it. I have additional ideas about what other issues are at play, but "random crime" at the hands of "bored teenagers" is a problem all over the nation and that's not a secret -- it's just a lot of misrepresented facts meant to steer people away from some very ugly conclusions.
I agree. It seems they just want to push their profit margins while forgetting the early adopters (us) have a pretty good understanding of what we're [thinking of] buying. Build your market and following and THEN focus on profits when you've got a market. Here's what will happen, especially in Linux/Android based devices. Someone will ALWAYS be cheaper and they will use some of your ideas in the process. May as well accept it now. You will not own or dominate your section of the market without fans and followers as your 'edge' over others. This means acting more like Samsung than like Apple.
I want a car-puter that's worth a damn and I'm flexible about what I would find acceptable in that regard.
1. I want it in a car (obviously) but that means it requires some things other computing devices will not but among these are power/heat management and tolerance most might begin to realize is completely hostile to computer devices.
2. I want it to meet current expectations in software and in hardware. (For example, 1280x800 minimum display, not 800x480 and Android 4.x, not Android 2.x! I am looking at YOU Parrot! You insult us all with your specs.)
3. I want it to be flexible and more general purpose even if it is limited by its use in a car. This means having a wide range of peripheral inputs and outputs and the ability to use a variety of displays and display types. It also means keeping it open and not restricted. (Parrot, could you explain to me your parrot store or whatever you call it? I get that things *can* be side-loaded, but I think that was more of a concession than anything else.)
4. I want it to be open as Android was intended. This means we will buy your hardware, but don't try to tell us what we can do with it. We KNOW what's on your mind and we don't approve. It's not so much about "quality control" as much as it is consumer control. Parrot, once again, I'm looking at you. There are competitors coming hard and fast and you don't want to be forgotten simply because you thought being among the first means you can take advantage of the lacking consumer choice. Some consumers have a short memory while others like me do not. I will NEVER buy Sony again, for example. Sony doesn't respect consumers. I won't buy into that ever.
I can't believe there isn't a market for what I want.
Yes, and Nokia is definitely Finnish[ed].
I think what you describe is the last time Microsoft will ever be [allowed] to pull that stuff off.
Word did not crush Word Perfect. Microsoft [ab]used their Windows monopoly to harm a competing product.
Microsoft's multiple attempts into mobile have all been disgraceful failures and they've been making attempts for decades. Microsoft screwed over Orange mobile more than once (really Orange? And you're still playing with Microsoft?) and Microsoft accused of stealing mobile phone trade secrets as they go back on their deals [again] with another Microsoft partnership gone bad.
I see the term "Microsoft Partner" as the thing which happens before something bad happens... you know, like getting kissed by a mafia boss or something.
If they could convert their microsoft phones into being a mouse or a keyboard, they might have something there. Microsoft branded mice and keyboards are still moving sort of...
Microsoft's credibility and the US credibility seem to mirror each other in some ways. I doubt, after recent events, the rest of the world will trust either as much as it once did.
The world is face-palming both right about now.
Global warming (climate change) means the water in the air [weather] changes the way it behaves. We're in flux right now so it's pretty impossible to make long-term predictions, but it is safe enough to say that some places will get more rain while other places get less.
This shift in where water goes will also make a shift in where and how well plants grow. Some plants will die while others will begin to thrive and flourish. The animal life which depend on the water and the plant life will also shift, die and surge in different areas depending on how things go. Larger animals which depend on water, plants and other animals will also experience serious changes. Humans, conscious and observant of these changes, will be able to adjust to these changes in some ways (while others will not be able to adjust due to resource limitations). The value of some lands will decrease while others land values will go up.
Have I missed anything? Suffering? World wars? Food shortage?
Let's see foxcom do that. Perhaps there will be fewer suicides while making apple things.
Not as easy as you think. First you have to get over yourself. That's HUGE when you're rich because you tend to think you're better than those below you and your status and ability to rise to your level convinces you of it. So, no it's not as easy as you think. In reality, it's easy to imagine being generous when you don't have much to give.
Not just carbs, but incompatible carbs. Real sugar is better than HFCS or even eating processed grains. They aren't all that compatible with our surgar processing organs and lead to strain on them. Another effect is those foods take longer to trigger our satisfaction response signaling us to stop eating which leads to overeating.
Cancer will reduce when our food intake becomes better... also as people learn to avoid other problems. Hip replacement and others are under the category of weird cases. They are, relatively speaking, rather rare. But also, some problems associated with bodily wear and tear? I have mixed feelings about those in the first place. The whole point of being healthier is managing things better. Being too sterile leads to a weaker immune system. A large mix of carbs and fats lead to choleterol which leads to heart problems. Lowering carbs reduces strain on sugar processing organs. (Carbs from fruits and real sugars are better because the body processes them more easily and more quickly)
Still, industry wants what is best for industry's bottom line, not what's best for people. It doesn't matter than industry is run by people. It kind of makes it worse because competition forces a game of chicken among them where the first one who makes a healthy or humanitarian change in the way they do things loses because the profits and prices of the others will attract more buyers -- people don't shop with conscience. They shop with as few dollars as possible. Only government can force quality changes on industry without harming competition too badly since (in theory) what affects one, affects them all.
Seriously and honestly though, I didn't stop drinking milk because I thought it would make me not sick any longer. My brother recommended it because my allergies resulted in a lot of mucous and he informed me stopping milk reduces mucous. It did. And other benefits were merely a surprise. And on top of that, my seasonal allergies essentially disappeared! Weird right? It was only later that I learned about the antibiotics in common homogenized bovine milk. And it explained a lot as well.