It's something that has existed for years and that is extremely obvious, yet somehow they were granted a patent on it because "on a smartphone".
Funny how the patent doesn't mention "phone" anywhere - nor "computer" or "internet" for that matter. But hey, you claim shit like that all the time, so what else is new. Frankly, I blame you - Apple gets all these patents because you are so dumb.
When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?
Uh, more to the point, when Apple wins a patent, why would you assume it was ever something we asked for or needed in a cell phone?
So you complain that Apple does something so nobody but them can put something you would never want on any phone you would ever want? Why?
For the very reason we're having this conversation. Or more to the point, so we can avoid having this conversation in the future.
Marketing useless features and wasting millions on pointless patents (round corners anyone?) does nothing but clog up the entire system, and shines a questionable light on any patent and the system that protects it, no matter how valid or worthwhile.
At the moment, there is no adjustable camera lens system in existence for smartphones, although there are lots of third party macro lens products that consumers can buy to clip onto their smartphone."
The need have been shown by third party, the next natural step is to integrate it.
There is no reason for this patent to be granted. Hopefully it is a joke but sadly enough it as obvious as it should be.
Okay, from all the silly things said in this discussion, this sure is in the top three - "because there are third party products, doing it different than any of them is totally obvious."
More like the Nikon F...wait...no, looks like it goes on clockwise...like a Canon and every *other* bayonet mount in the history of photography, then.
Seriously, except for the scale, how is this novel and non-obvious?
"The attachment mechanisms may release from one another in a drop event or other incidence of force applied thereto by allowing a bayonet to radially move outwardly out of contact with a corresponding bayonet of the second attachment mechanism."
If you don't have the source, you just need to bring the original binaries along with all of the original libraries. The kernel API calls haven't changed (though there are new ones). Getting the link path configured correctly for the old code will be a PITA, but it can be done.
Take it up with the guy who claimed "you only need a recompile".
I'm taking it up with the guy who claimed that recompiling might not be possible, and therefore implied that you might be screwed because you can't recompile.
So your point is that Linux advocates can't be believed. Thanks for making that thing certain. Case closed.
If you don't have the source, you just need to bring the original binaries along with all of the original libraries. The kernel API calls haven't changed (though there are new ones). Getting the link path configured correctly for the old code will be a PITA, but it can be done.
Take it up with the guy who claimed "you only need a recompile". But sure, if your (in this case) ATM user interface is has hard-linked libraries (including the GUI manager), all should be fine. Apart from your fucking ATM interface.
But that can't be so. According to Trenbreth and other morons the extra energy is hiding at the bottom of the ocean. If it's hiding there, how the hell is it generating "weather" in the US? You need to think through your hypothesis.
Gee whiz, don't the "sceptics" keep talking about El Niño and La Niña? How the hell do you think they work?
Hurricanes aren't the only form of severe weather. Droughts, storms happening elsewhere can be the "effect" of a lower number of hurricanes in your area.
And let's not even get into the "only the US matters" part of his argument.
You are assuming that companies will actually have access to the source of the applications they bought, even if they were written for them instead of some off the shelf software. And that's mostly the case even when they run Linux beneath. So all this does is to change the problem from "Microsoft won't support XP after 10 years" to "I sure hope Billy Bob's Software will still support (as in just recompile) my software for the next RHEL version."
Maybe those credentials were posted on github by devels and then scraped from there. Or from google, there is a bunch of id_rsa that pop up with trivial searchs.
Anyway, 25.000 linux/unix servers looks like a very low number, considering the 500.000.000 servers running apache or nginx, even with multiple domain hosted in a lot of them.
Is that "better"? That were over a million Linux servers defaced in 2010, most of them actually rooted.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe because he wasn't yet born?
Then maybe he should keep his mouth shut when grown-ups are talking.
IOW because you are an idiot and hate Apple.
Yes, because Apple encompasses the entirety of the problems in the USPTO.
As opposed to Samsung, who has much more patents.
When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?
Uh, more to the point, when Apple wins a patent, why would you assume it was ever something we asked for or needed in a cell phone?
So you complain that Apple does something so nobody but them can put something you would never want on any phone you would ever want? Why?
So, you get all these features in a phone you never asked for,
So don't fucking buy one, you moron.
It's something that has existed for years and that is extremely obvious, yet somehow they were granted a patent on it because "on a smartphone".
Funny how the patent doesn't mention "phone" anywhere - nor "computer" or "internet" for that matter. But hey, you claim shit like that all the time, so what else is new. Frankly, I blame you - Apple gets all these patents because you are so dumb.
When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?
Uh, more to the point, when Apple wins a patent, why would you assume it was ever something we asked for or needed in a cell phone?
So you complain that Apple does something so nobody but them can put something you would never want on any phone you would ever want? Why?
For the very reason we're having this conversation. Or more to the point, so we can avoid having this conversation in the future.
Marketing useless features and wasting millions on pointless patents (round corners anyone?) does nothing but clog up the entire system, and shines a questionable light on any patent and the system that protects it, no matter how valid or worthwhile.
IOW because you are an idiot and hate Apple.
More like the Nikon F...wait...no, looks like it goes on clockwise...like a Canon and every *other* bayonet mount in the history of photography, then.
Seriously, except for the scale, how is this novel and non-obvious?
It's wasn't novel and non-obvious when it was first used for cameras, which is sort of obvious from the "bayonet" part of bayonet mount.
Sadly, with the current patent office, April fools jokes are indistinguishable from reality.
Why didn't you complain at the first patent for a photographic bayonet mount, let alone for all the others? Because they weren't granted to Apple?
BTW, these "bayonet" mounts were used long before bayonets, so cease and desist calling them that.
The April Fool is you.
And there, right in the summary we have:
At the moment, there is no adjustable camera lens system in existence for smartphones, although there are lots of third party macro lens products that consumers can buy to clip onto their smartphone."
The need have been shown by third party, the next natural step is to integrate it. There is no reason for this patent to be granted. Hopefully it is a joke but sadly enough it as obvious as it should be.
Okay, from all the silly things said in this discussion, this sure is in the top three - "because there are third party products, doing it different than any of them is totally obvious."
When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?
Uh, more to the point, when Apple wins a patent, why would you assume it was ever something we asked for or needed in a cell phone?
So you complain that Apple does something so nobody but them can put something you would never want on any phone you would ever want? Why?
More like the Nikon F...wait...no, looks like it goes on clockwise...like a Canon and every *other* bayonet mount in the history of photography, then. Seriously, except for the scale, how is this novel and non-obvious?
"The attachment mechanisms may release from one another in a drop event or other incidence of force applied thereto by allowing a bayonet to radially move outwardly out of contact with a corresponding bayonet of the second attachment mechanism."
As an author with more than 10 self published works for sale on Amazon, you can be sure that I have not sold my soul to the devil (a.k.a. Publishers).
No, you sold your soul to Amazon. And without evil Apple they'd still take 65% of the selling price.
Ars quotes WSJ and appears to directly contradict what you just asserted:
The nonstandard portion. Neither ClearQAM nor IP.
What do you think "Internet protocol" is acronymed to? Are you actually as technologically incompetent as a WSJ hack?
I currently access the Play Store on a forked Android derivative.
All you had to do is install a hacked PlayStore app from a special site. What could possibly go wrong.
Ah, I see. You're an ass. Sorry, I hadn't understood that, else I'd never have responded.
You didn't respond, you proved that you have no clue. Big difference.
You did bullshit. You talked bullshit. You have no idea that you contradicted yourself. You are a climate confusionist.
If you don't have the source, you just need to bring the original binaries along with all of the original libraries. The kernel API calls haven't changed (though there are new ones). Getting the link path configured correctly for the old code will be a PITA, but it can be done.
Take it up with the guy who claimed "you only need a recompile".
I'm taking it up with the guy who claimed that recompiling might not be possible, and therefore implied that you might be screwed because you can't recompile.
So your point is that Linux advocates can't be believed. Thanks for making that thing certain. Case closed.
If you don't have the source, you just need to bring the original binaries along with all of the original libraries. The kernel API calls haven't changed (though there are new ones). Getting the link path configured correctly for the old code will be a PITA, but it can be done.
Take it up with the guy who claimed "you only need a recompile". But sure, if your (in this case) ATM user interface is has hard-linked libraries (including the GUI manager), all should be fine. Apart from your fucking ATM interface.
Are you suggesting El Niño and La Niña are influenced by the temperature of the atmosphere as influenced by man with a few parts per million of CO2?
No, I answered your stupid question. Now you suddenly claim the opposite you implied in it. Like a true climate confusionist has to.
But that can't be so. According to Trenbreth and other morons the extra energy is hiding at the bottom of the ocean. If it's hiding there, how the hell is it generating "weather" in the US? You need to think through your hypothesis.
Gee whiz, don't the "sceptics" keep talking about El Niño and La Niña? How the hell do you think they work?
Hurricanes aren't the only form of severe weather. Droughts, storms happening elsewhere can be the "effect" of a lower number of hurricanes in your area.
And let's not even get into the "only the US matters" part of his argument.
You are assuming that companies will actually have access to the source of the applications they bought, even if they were written for them instead of some off the shelf software. And that's mostly the case even when they run Linux beneath. So all this does is to change the problem from "Microsoft won't support XP after 10 years" to "I sure hope Billy Bob's Software will still support (as in just recompile) my software for the next RHEL version."
So how is support for RHEL 2.1 (a year younger than XP) these days?
Maybe those credentials were posted on github by devels and then scraped from there. Or from google, there is a bunch of id_rsa that pop up with trivial searchs.
Anyway, 25.000 linux/unix servers looks like a very low number, considering the 500.000.000 servers running apache or nginx, even with multiple domain hosted in a lot of them.
Is that "better"? That were over a million Linux servers defaced in 2010, most of them actually rooted.
So... All of the USB phone charges I have ever owned have all been non-standard?
Yes. That's exactly what they are.
Charging at a rate of 2amps or more has been available in Android phones for years.
Yes. And it's NON-STANDARD. Get it into your skull already.
Not any more. Its now the official standard.
You mean the NEW standard, that no devices use yet and needs NEW cables that only look like the old ones.