... Steve Jobs was supposed to be a "driven", "detail oriented" guy. Whoops! How do you NOT handle a basic trademark situation in a country as large as Mexico for EIGHT YEARS since you began developing the iPhone? Did he ever hear of one of the richest guys in the world - Carlos Slim - who made his fortune SELLING PHONE SERVICE IN MEXICO???
Like the immensely fat Baron Vladimir Harkonnen floating around on his suspensors in Dune? http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Vladimir_Harkonnen. Nah - in fact, many Americans are completely obsessed with exercise.
It enhances leg muscle strength by stimulating the muscles into contracting and relaxing while the paralyzed person uses it to walk. As the legs get stronger, the exoskeleton does less of the work. I'll bet that 10 years from now, almost all paralyzed people in developed countries will be using these types of devices to get around.
Hasn't happened to me - don't know why you're busting my balls. I drive carefully in the rain, and I know where the water builds up and I avoid it. However, there's no denying that a lot of cars do get caught out here. We simply have a lot more country roads with water crossings where the county or the state hasn't built a bridge.
Personally, I'm holding out for all the super principled slashdotters who hate patents in any way shape and form to chime in and argue that Motorola should just put their patents in the public domain and stop hindering progress.
I'm all for it - this seems like a messy and unseemly business to me.
Yes, it's very reasonable and not burdensome to apple. $13.50 per device, 100 million iphones sold to date, is more than a billion in damages. No problem, apple should afford that no problem, right? why not just pay now and let's put this whole messy business behind us?
I don't drive an electric vehicle -- I've got a pick-up truck. Where the hell would I put my semi-automatic assault rifle gun rack in a Prius??? Where would I throw the carcasses of the wild boars? This is Texas we're talking about - got to have room for stuff.
Hahaha - in the countryside south and east of Austin, Texas, everything is "low lying". The problem with the flash floods is they can occur just from a normal rain storm. A few years ago, a colleague of mine left work late one night, rounded a corner in an industrial complex and ran straight into several feet of water in a dip in the road with no warning. Her car stalled, and the mud and water killed the engine and ruined the car. But at least she was able to get out and walk away.
That's the point of "flash" flooding. It's unexpected. Perfectly good drivers turn a bend in the road on a rainy night and run straight into a gulley with 4 feet of water. We've got a lot of country roads with no lighting and poor visibility. Happens every summer around here - except deaths are extremely rare. But - if your car exploded before you could get out? Very bad.
We have flash floods every summer in Texas. Most cars that run into a few feet of water simply stall. If instead, your car explodes and kills all the occupants, then you've got a potential death trap.
No - from my reading, it was a hung jury on the 10 charges - prosecution has a right to re-try those charges. It's only double jeopardy if the prosecution attempts to re-try a charge that was already decided by a jury.
That's a much better idea. Although the other question remains - does the court really have the right to the information, just because it suspects he might have violated the court's instructions not to peek at the news? Its been known since the beginning of the juror system that many jurors a). read news about the trial as it progresses; b). watch tv news about the trial; c). talk to their wives/neighbors/co-workers about the trial; d). talk among themselves about the trial prior to being sent for deliberation. How is this situation any different from the millions of previous times a juror violated the judge's instructions?
Exactly! How did the court determine that the online communication came from a juror? Nothing about it seems obvious at all - which means it may just be a fishing expedition.
Slashdot Mirror
You are hipster royalty in a way, I guess.
... Steve Jobs was supposed to be a "driven", "detail oriented" guy. Whoops! How do you NOT handle a basic trademark situation in a country as large as Mexico for EIGHT YEARS since you began developing the iPhone? Did he ever hear of one of the richest guys in the world - Carlos Slim - who made his fortune SELLING PHONE SERVICE IN MEXICO???
Like the immensely fat Baron Vladimir Harkonnen floating around on his suspensors in Dune? http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Vladimir_Harkonnen. Nah - in fact, many Americans are completely obsessed with exercise.
It enhances leg muscle strength by stimulating the muscles into contracting and relaxing while the paralyzed person uses it to walk. As the legs get stronger, the exoskeleton does less of the work. I'll bet that 10 years from now, almost all paralyzed people in developed countries will be using these types of devices to get around.
Hasn't happened to me - don't know why you're busting my balls. I drive carefully in the rain, and I know where the water builds up and I avoid it. However, there's no denying that a lot of cars do get caught out here. We simply have a lot more country roads with water crossings where the county or the state hasn't built a bridge.
Personally, I'm holding out for all the super principled slashdotters who hate patents in any way shape and form to chime in and argue that Motorola should just put their patents in the public domain and stop hindering progress.
I'm all for it - this seems like a messy and unseemly business to me.
Yes, it's very reasonable and not burdensome to apple. $13.50 per device, 100 million iphones sold to date, is more than a billion in damages. No problem, apple should afford that no problem, right? why not just pay now and let's put this whole messy business behind us?
But - aren't some cell phone makers already paying MS $10-$15 per device? http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/07/06/1721227/microsoft-wants-15-per-android-smartphone
How is $13.50 unreasonable - looks like it is almost right down the middle.
But in the meantime I think your bias against this person is clouding your ability to understand simple facts.
Yeah, I don't know if that argument's going to work to well in defense of old Florian...
No! Google STOLE the smartphone concept! They must be destroyed!
Oh wait, St. Steve is dead. Never mind.
My Blackberry was pretty durned smart before the first iPhone development meeting ever occurred. Just sayin'
Why would Google want to "defeat" Apple? They must make a ton of cash from Apple users' searches.
I don't drive an electric vehicle -- I've got a pick-up truck. Where the hell would I put my semi-automatic assault rifle gun rack in a Prius??? Where would I throw the carcasses of the wild boars? This is Texas we're talking about - got to have room for stuff.
Hahaha - in the countryside south and east of Austin, Texas, everything is "low lying". The problem with the flash floods is they can occur just from a normal rain storm. A few years ago, a colleague of mine left work late one night, rounded a corner in an industrial complex and ran straight into several feet of water in a dip in the road with no warning. Her car stalled, and the mud and water killed the engine and ruined the car. But at least she was able to get out and walk away.
That's the point of "flash" flooding. It's unexpected. Perfectly good drivers turn a bend in the road on a rainy night and run straight into a gulley with 4 feet of water. We've got a lot of country roads with no lighting and poor visibility. Happens every summer around here - except deaths are extremely rare. But - if your car exploded before you could get out? Very bad.
We have flash floods every summer in Texas. Most cars that run into a few feet of water simply stall. If instead, your car explodes and kills all the occupants, then you've got a potential death trap.
No, there aren't. This article is about the judge who *already* answered those questions.
Agreed - but I was responding to his hypothetical about electronically tracking a suspected credit card thief.
No - from my reading, it was a hung jury on the 10 charges - prosecution has a right to re-try those charges. It's only double jeopardy if the prosecution attempts to re-try a charge that was already decided by a jury.
Yup - its a big problem. Someone could tie the courts up in knots just by faking posts on articles mid-trial that appeared to be from a juror.
And, does sequestration even work? We know that jurors sometimes violate the instructions.
That's a much better idea. Although the other question remains - does the court really have the right to the information, just because it suspects he might have violated the court's instructions not to peek at the news? Its been known since the beginning of the juror system that many jurors a). read news about the trial as it progresses; b). watch tv news about the trial; c). talk to their wives/neighbors/co-workers about the trial; d). talk among themselves about the trial prior to being sent for deliberation. How is this situation any different from the millions of previous times a juror violated the judge's instructions?
What about that particular post made the court "convinced" it was a juror?
I agree - really hard to see it.
Prosecutors can usually re-try charges that resulted in a hung jury.
He was found innocent of 10 of the 11 charges.
For the defense, that's 1 too many. For the prosecution, that's 10 too few. I'm sure there's more to it, but...
That's exactly how I saw it.
Its a reference to a moronic South Park episode that lampooned Johnny Cochran's courtroom tactics.
Exactly! How did the court determine that the online communication came from a juror? Nothing about it seems obvious at all - which means it may just be a fishing expedition.
4. Use a crayon to write your message on a webernet-monitor.