MacOS (pre-OSX) was exactly as stable and reliable as MS-DOS/Win3.x in that all it took was a single poorly-behaved process to bring the system down either by refusing to yield or by spewing all over RAM. Yes, it's possible to have a very stable system as long as you are very careful about what software you run but that reliability is not a function of the OS at all.
Yet somehow it was a function of the type of programmers that each OS attracted.
Thanks for being a moron: All of my hits are about the port breaking, making the phone useless, yours are about the plug breaking making your argument useless.
More importantly, you make widget-function technology and have approached every widget manufacturer and said, "Friends, colleagues, competitors, lend me your ears! Having a dozen different function technologies impairs interoperability, and pisses off consumers. If you all agree to standardize on my widget technology, I will charge everyone a fair and reasonable royalty. Then we can all use the same technology, consumers will be happy, we'll all make more money, and everything is wonderful!"... and then a few years later, you say: "Hey, you, iWidgets Corp.! You sued me when I copied your designs, so I'm going to double your royalties for my widget standard."
That is being a jerk.
Hey, at least Samsung waited until after Apple sued them, unlike Motorola.
"Asked whether viewers might also see the recovered episodes, without having to pay Apple £1.89 per episode or £9.99 to download the complete stories, BBC Worldwide said licence-fee payers had already enjoyed a chance to watch the programmes in the late 60s"
No, WE DID NOT! Here in the suburban US, I find myself surrounded by Dr. Who fans younger than myself who, when shown the classic series, just want to see more and more (except for the Tennant-only fangirls, but I don't count them as fans of the show).
I was born in the late 70s.
So, exactly how old ARE the BBC Worldwide execs who penned that opinion? And do they have their secretaries print their e-mail so they can read it?
So you demand that the BBC give you these episodes for free despite never having paid a single cent - or rather penny - of licensing fee?
It's not fair for them to try a collect more money off these from BBC license payers. These people are paying BBC right now for content.
But they aren't paying now for past content, but for new content. Heck, back when these episodes were broadcast, people loudly complained about wasted fees when the BBC dared to rebroadcast anything.
The judge is now caught in whether a ruling that allows bias in contractual conditions that goes against the spirit of patent law, anti trust laws (artificial distortion of competitive access to a market) and against free speech can stand especially when both players can push it right up to the high court.
That sounds almost like you just claimed the fact that "free speech" exists makes all wiretapping legal. Because if its free, its open as in can of beer.
I second this notion. How else does one actually want to guarantee FRAND?
Yeah, this is why the non-FRAND-term patent license between Apple and Nokia should be forced out in the open, while Samsung can keep the actual licensing terms for different parties of the standard essential patents Apple supposedly violates a secret.
Except your secrets are being shared because you're the party taking the other one to court. This was Apple-Nokia trying to get Samsung to pay for their patents
It seems even more obvious now that you have no fucking clue what was going on. "Apple-Nokia trying to get Samsung to pay for their patents"?
Patent deals shouldn't be a private matter, since a patent is an agreement between the patent holder and the public, dealings and licensing of patents should also be public.
So why doesn't Samsung re.lease any of their patent deals?
Slashdot Mirror
actually most fortune 500 companies do something like this. they find loopholes in the american taxes by funneling money through other countries,
Of course this "loophole" has nothing to do with American taxes, and everything with EU taxes (and some non-EU but EMEA country taxes).
I read enough pages to know you are fucking full of it. Take your beloved Micro-USB and shove it.
MacOS (pre-OSX) was exactly as stable and reliable as MS-DOS/Win3.x in that all it took was a single poorly-behaved process to bring the system down either by refusing to yield or by spewing all over RAM. Yes, it's possible to have a very stable system as long as you are very careful about what software you run but that reliability is not a function of the OS at all.
Yet somehow it was a function of the type of programmers that each OS attracted.
Well why don't you show us, scientifically, how micro-usb is less durable than mini-usb?
I'd rather prove that it sinks all the time - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+micro-usb+port+android
Hmmm 1.9million hits.
I wonder... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+lightning+port
10.6million hits. Thanks proof accepted.
Thanks for being a moron: All of my hits are about the port breaking, making the phone useless, yours are about the plug breaking making your argument useless.
Well why don't you show us, scientifically, how micro-usb is less durable than mini-usb?
I'd rather prove that it sinks all the time - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=broken+micro-usb+port+android
It was developed to be the fragile single point of failure for all manufacturers.
Actually micro-usb is designed to be more durable than previous USB designs
And the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable.
Make up your fucking mind, popey. You insisted on quarter performance. Stop moving those goalposts.
Silly Apple: Spending $5 billion on a building, when they could have bought a tape real for $4 to do the same thing.
In a financial world that sees a single fiscal quarter as a lifetime, I don't think so.
AAPL is up 20% over the last quarter.
Except that GCHQ cost £337 million. Is the Apple building really expected to cost $5B? It is not mentioned anywhere in TFA.
Well, you could almost fit two of those inside the inner yard of the Apple building.
Just remember that everyone was (more or less) playing nice until iWidgets Corp came along.
Are you fucking serious?
More importantly, you make widget-function technology and have approached every widget manufacturer and said, "Friends, colleagues, competitors, lend me your ears! Having a dozen different function technologies impairs interoperability, and pisses off consumers. If you all agree to standardize on my widget technology, I will charge everyone a fair and reasonable royalty. Then we can all use the same technology, consumers will be happy, we'll all make more money, and everything is wonderful!" ... and then a few years later, you say: "Hey, you, iWidgets Corp.! You sued me when I copied your designs, so I'm going to double your royalties for my widget standard."
That is being a jerk.
Hey, at least Samsung waited until after Apple sued them, unlike Motorola.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/iruk/5840082663/ - screen isn't blue, but the first word on it is "Blue"
The biggest problem I have is with them putting them on iTunes store first..
Well, be glad that you are just misinformed then. Your biggest problem is now gone.
"Asked whether viewers might also see the recovered episodes, without having to pay Apple £1.89 per episode or £9.99 to download the complete stories, BBC Worldwide said licence-fee payers had already enjoyed a chance to watch the programmes in the late 60s"
No, WE DID NOT! Here in the suburban US, I find myself surrounded by Dr. Who fans younger than myself who, when shown the classic series, just want to see more and more (except for the Tennant-only fangirls, but I don't count them as fans of the show).
I was born in the late 70s. So, exactly how old ARE the BBC Worldwide execs who penned that opinion? And do they have their secretaries print their e-mail so they can read it?
So you demand that the BBC give you these episodes for free despite never having paid a single cent - or rather penny - of licensing fee?
It's not fair for them to try a collect more money off these from BBC license payers. These people are paying BBC right now for content.
But they aren't paying now for past content, but for new content. Heck, back when these episodes were broadcast, people loudly complained about wasted fees when the BBC dared to rebroadcast anything.
A little effort on your part would prevent your statements looking quite so stupid:
http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2013/samsungs-big-move-into-ebooks/
So does Samsung sell ebooks yet? Answer: despite several announcements, still not quite yet.
I wonder if you will shut up once they find a way to break the law there too.
The judge is now caught in whether a ruling that allows bias in contractual conditions that goes against the spirit of patent law, anti trust laws (artificial distortion of competitive access to a market) and against free speech can stand especially when both players can push it right up to the high court.
That sounds almost like you just claimed the fact that "free speech" exists makes all wiretapping legal. Because if its free, its open as in can of beer.
I second this notion. How else does one actually want to guarantee FRAND?
Yeah, this is why the non-FRAND-term patent license between Apple and Nokia should be forced out in the open, while Samsung can keep the actual licensing terms for different parties of the standard essential patents Apple supposedly violates a secret.
Except your secrets are being shared because you're the party taking the other one to court. This was Apple-Nokia trying to get Samsung to pay for their patents
It seems even more obvious now that you have no fucking clue what was going on. "Apple-Nokia trying to get Samsung to pay for their patents"?
On the contrary, what I want to create is a system where legal extortion does not exist
- by making plain extortion legal. Yeah, we understand that.
Sorry but no. If it reached the courts it should not be private anymore.
Maybe Samsung should begin releasing the court papers they demand be kept a secret first?
Patent deals shouldn't be a private matter, since a patent is an agreement between the patent holder and the public, dealings and licensing of patents should also be public.
So why doesn't Samsung re.lease any of their patent deals?
Okay... Allow me to counter with:
Apple Guilty of Price Fixing
Where did that goalpost go? The one with "breaking the law in the same industry" written on it?
And that's not even going into Apple not actually setting prices like Samsung did.
Samsung is ripe to get in more trouble than Apple, because they're a vastly larger company,
Yeah, it has nothing to do with them being scum-buckets.