The key fact is that none of the other applications get to run under those conditions (though Samsung gets squishy on this point) and so the cheated benchmark ends up representing an unrealistic performance level.
Not me. I'd love to know who is still buying Apple devices when Android gizmos do pretty much the same thing for a fraction of the cost.
What you're experiencing is called cognitive dissonance. The idea that other people could prefer something that you yourself do not approve of can be difficult for those who cling to their beliefs as if they were some kind of religion. But companies aren't gods, and the choice of smart phone isn't a faith. They are products, and different people will make different choices based on what they value. Some will choose simply for the size or apparent superiority of the feature list, and others will choose based on finesse or ease any of a number of other factors. Those are their choices, and the fact that you made a different choice does not in any way mean that your choice should apply to everyone else.
Perhaps a bit of introspection on your part as to why you hold your beliefs so dear would be helpful.
And Celsius is easily the most [i]pointless[/i] of all the so-called metric scales. In fact, there's almost nothing metric about Celsius at all, save for some magical property that happens at 100 C (which, incidentally, isn't what the Celsius scale is currently tied to).
It's better to have a feature available and choose not to use it, than it is to not have the feature and never be able to.
False. Every single feature increases system complexity, saps development and quality resources, and increases development cost. Most of those features also impose additional complexity on the UI itself.
Anyone who has ever developed a system of even moderate complexity understands this principal intrinsically. I have to assume by your comment that you don't write code or design HW for a living.
There's NO WAY that in the low-margin cell phone business Samsung would be able to pay 2% of the total system price just for a video codec!
And yet that's exactly what Samsung demanded from Apple for use of a patent embedded in a chip that Apple happened to be using and where the maker of the chip had already paid a royalty for use of that very same technology.
I find your re-telling of the story to be lacking in factual basis. I'd also like to point out that the modern era of PJ at Groklaw is one of gross and obvious bias, as evidenced by the fact that her telling of the story completely and utterly failed to anticipate the actual outcome of this dispute.
It's mostly escalation. Microsoft has been trying to damage Android's marketability by making patent demands to everyone. Motorola is now attacking Microsoft in the same way. Nobody takes the high road.
I disagree. While I'm certainly no Microsoft fan, Motorola has dirty hands here. Attempting to weaponize a standards-essential patent to harm Microsoft is dirty pool, and the courts agreed. If Microsoft were trying to do the same with standards-essential patents, you'd have a point. But AFAIK Microsoft is using regular patents not encumbered by FRAND terms in their war.
Microsoft is using heavy artillery. Motorola is using nerve gas. Get the picture?
Actually, 2.25% was the opening request - the same opening request they made to Nokia, Sony, and a bunch of other companies. MS ran to the courts to complain rather than negotiate. Not sure how it's abusive to make an initial offer that's higher than you expect to get. Now, had Motorola/Google refused to negotiate that 2.25%, it might be abusive - but that's not what happened.
It might not be illegal, but it's a ridiculous amount for the patent at issue and the height of arrogance to ask for such a large amount.
And I would like to point out that it's not illegal for Microsoft to take their complaint to the courts, either. Since the courts seemed to have sided with Microsoft here, I guess we can conclude that Microsoft made the right choice.
Once everyone started using USB it BECAME a standard because if you came out with your own proprietary data port then largely that would fail, except for bitches like Apple that created their own proprietary device ports, but they still hook into a USB port anyways.
Nope. Firewire doesn't hook into a USB port. USB was never fast enough to support the kind of sustained throughput that FireWire was capable of. There are some ethernet dongles that plug into USB, but that's hardly proprietary. For that matter, FireWire isn't proprietary either -- it's an open standard with a small royalty attached, and Apple is hardly the only company holding patents on the standard.
All that emphasizes to me is that ALL PATENTS are EVIL, COUNTER PRODUCTIVE, and ANTI PROGRESS.
The way that grown-up, adult engineers and standards-setting bodies pragmatically deal with that fact is to impose a FRAND clause for any patented technology that is included in a technical standard, rather than screaming and yelling about what is or is not evil. The patent in dispute is subject to said FRAND terms, and therefore Motorola doesn't get to extort large sums from people who use that standard.
In other words, there areactually some shades of gray to this process, even though most Slashdotters only see black or white.
The FAT patents are an essential standard since all devices use it.
You're not a lawyer. Neither am I, but I'm at least savvy enough to recognize the difference between phrases with specific legal meaning and phrases that merely sound good. "Standards-Essential Patent" has a specific legal meaning, and it doesn't really matter whether you think similar phrases sound just as important. They're not.
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.
I hate Microsoft with every ounce of my being, but even I think you're full of shit here. Demanding large royalties for standards-essential patents on a small part of a large product is the road to hell for the technology industry.
My question is: In a time where everyone is screaming, "Green!!!", why is every little object packaged in a large plastic case 10 times the size of the little object?
It's a theft deterrent. Keeps the dirty hippies from stealing stuff by being environmentally unfriendly and too large to stuff in their pants.
SCO last week tried to subpoena Jones as a witness in the case, but efforts to locate her in the town of Darien, Conn., -- where she supposedly calls home -- proved fruitless, according to a report on Forbes.com that was confirmed to InformationWeek on Wednesday by a SCO insider.
She's a lovely source of starting-points, from which to do one's connection matrix. As I noted elsewhere in this discussion, a copyright maximalist or a NSA fanboy would see her as an attractive target.
That barely even passes the blush test. Yes, these are times to be paranoid. I remain unconvinced, however, that Groklaw and its contributors had anything in particular to be paranoid about.
I find it odd that the NSA would give a fuck about Groklaw.
You lack imagination. The NSA has the content of all of Groklaw's communications. Anyone with political pull can get that data and use it however they wish. NSA claims they can't, of course, but "haven't yet" and "never will" are two very different things.
That seems pretty far fetched. I'm not discounting the ability of the NSA to overstep its bounds, but to spin that into a conspiracy of corporations attempting to silence Groklaw through the NSA (or similar means) comes off as... Well, less than well-reasoned.
I don't particularly care to be involved in Groklaw's political crusades
Evidently you don't know much about Groklaw, but it doesn't matter. PJ's "political crusades" (your words) are over.
I know a lot about Groklaw. I read the site every single day through the entire SCO saga, from beginning to end. Lately, Groklaw has become just a place for PJ to post her screeds about the companies that she thinks are opposed to the companies she likes. She willfully ignores subtle detailed points (like, say, the role of FRAND in patent cases) because they are inconvenient to her argument.
I was very much pro-Groklaw back in the day. Today, I do not mourn the loss of another website full of willfully ignorant people spouting hate.
Slashdot Mirror
The key fact is that none of the other applications get to run under those conditions (though Samsung gets squishy on this point) and so the cheated benchmark ends up representing an unrealistic performance level.
The only people who ever used powers of 1024 were RAM manufacturers since it makes sense there.
Well, them and every software engineer on the planet.
(Yes, I think in K. And yes, I will continue to define 1k as 1024, no matter how many pedantic monkeys object)
You had me until I saw your sig. Then I realized you were just another one of them.
The privileged nature of those documents is precisely to allow parties like Apple to prey on others.
That doesn't even make sense.
Not me. I'd love to know who is still buying Apple devices when Android gizmos do pretty much the same thing for a fraction of the cost.
What you're experiencing is called cognitive dissonance. The idea that other people could prefer something that you yourself do not approve of can be difficult for those who cling to their beliefs as if they were some kind of religion. But companies aren't gods, and the choice of smart phone isn't a faith. They are products, and different people will make different choices based on what they value. Some will choose simply for the size or apparent superiority of the feature list, and others will choose based on finesse or ease any of a number of other factors. Those are their choices, and the fact that you made a different choice does not in any way mean that your choice should apply to everyone else.
Perhaps a bit of introspection on your part as to why you hold your beliefs so dear would be helpful.
Gah! Markup fail!
And Celsius is easily the most [i]pointless[/i] of all the so-called metric scales. In fact, there's almost nothing metric about Celsius at all, save for some magical property that happens at 100 C (which, incidentally, isn't what the Celsius scale is currently tied to).
One day I got up and walked out of the meeting and left him sitting there.
How long before he noticed you were gone?
It's better to have a feature available and choose not to use it, than it is to not have the feature and never be able to.
False. Every single feature increases system complexity, saps development and quality resources, and increases development cost. Most of those features also impose additional complexity on the UI itself.
Anyone who has ever developed a system of even moderate complexity understands this principal intrinsically. I have to assume by your comment that you don't write code or design HW for a living.
If you'd RTFC you'd see that he was commenting on Thunderbolt, not Firewire.
If you'd RTF specs, you'd see that Thunderbolt doesn't connect through USB, either. Quite the opposite, in fact.
On the other hand, in Europe Samsung has been threatened with major fines if they didn't stop trying to get money for FRAND patents.
Which is absolutely the correct response by the European courts. Samsung was playing dirty pool with their FRAND patents.
There's NO WAY that in the low-margin cell phone business Samsung would be able to pay 2% of the total system price just for a video codec!
And yet that's exactly what Samsung demanded from Apple for use of a patent embedded in a chip that Apple happened to be using and where the maker of the chip had already paid a royalty for use of that very same technology.
I find your re-telling of the story to be lacking in factual basis. I'd also like to point out that the modern era of PJ at Groklaw is one of gross and obvious bias, as evidenced by the fact that her telling of the story completely and utterly failed to anticipate the actual outcome of this dispute.
It's mostly escalation. Microsoft has been trying to damage Android's marketability by making patent demands to everyone. Motorola is now attacking Microsoft in the same way. Nobody takes the high road.
I disagree. While I'm certainly no Microsoft fan, Motorola has dirty hands here. Attempting to weaponize a standards-essential patent to harm Microsoft is dirty pool, and the courts agreed. If Microsoft were trying to do the same with standards-essential patents, you'd have a point. But AFAIK Microsoft is using regular patents not encumbered by FRAND terms in their war.
Microsoft is using heavy artillery. Motorola is using nerve gas. Get the picture?
Actually, 2.25% was the opening request - the same opening request they made to Nokia, Sony, and a bunch of other companies. MS ran to the courts to complain rather than negotiate.
Not sure how it's abusive to make an initial offer that's higher than you expect to get. Now, had Motorola/Google refused to negotiate that 2.25%, it might be abusive - but that's not what happened.
It might not be illegal, but it's a ridiculous amount for the patent at issue and the height of arrogance to ask for such a large amount.
And I would like to point out that it's not illegal for Microsoft to take their complaint to the courts, either. Since the courts seemed to have sided with Microsoft here, I guess we can conclude that Microsoft made the right choice.
Once everyone started using USB it BECAME a standard because if you came out with your own proprietary data port then largely that would fail, except for bitches like Apple that created their own proprietary device ports, but they still hook into a USB port anyways.
Nope. Firewire doesn't hook into a USB port. USB was never fast enough to support the kind of sustained throughput that FireWire was capable of. There are some ethernet dongles that plug into USB, but that's hardly proprietary. For that matter, FireWire isn't proprietary either -- it's an open standard with a small royalty attached, and Apple is hardly the only company holding patents on the standard.
Bitches.
All that emphasizes to me is that ALL PATENTS are EVIL, COUNTER PRODUCTIVE, and ANTI PROGRESS.
The way that grown-up, adult engineers and standards-setting bodies pragmatically deal with that fact is to impose a FRAND clause for any patented technology that is included in a technical standard, rather than screaming and yelling about what is or is not evil. The patent in dispute is subject to said FRAND terms, and therefore Motorola doesn't get to extort large sums from people who use that standard.
In other words, there areactually some shades of gray to this process, even though most Slashdotters only see black or white.
The FAT patents are an essential standard since all devices use it.
You're not a lawyer. Neither am I, but I'm at least savvy enough to recognize the difference between phrases with specific legal meaning and phrases that merely sound good. "Standards-Essential Patent" has a specific legal meaning, and it doesn't really matter whether you think similar phrases sound just as important. They're not.
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.
I hate Microsoft with every ounce of my being, but even I think you're full of shit here. Demanding large royalties for standards-essential patents on a small part of a large product is the road to hell for the technology industry.
Maybe the problem isn't with the devices, but your location.
Because Google.
My question is: In a time where everyone is screaming, "Green!!!", why is every little object packaged in a large plastic case 10 times the size of the little object?
It's a theft deterrent. Keeps the dirty hippies from stealing stuff by being environmentally unfriendly and too large to stuff in their pants.
Citation, please?
From Information Week
SCO last week tried to subpoena Jones as a witness in the case, but efforts to locate her in the town of Darien, Conn., -- where she supposedly calls home -- proved fruitless, according to a report on Forbes.com that was confirmed to InformationWeek on Wednesday by a SCO insider.
She's a lovely source of starting-points, from which to do one's connection matrix. As I noted elsewhere in this discussion, a copyright maximalist or a NSA fanboy would see her as an attractive target.
That barely even passes the blush test. Yes, these are times to be paranoid. I remain unconvinced, however, that Groklaw and its contributors had anything in particular to be paranoid about.
You lack imagination. The NSA has the content of all of Groklaw's communications. Anyone with political pull can get that data and use it however they wish. NSA claims they can't, of course, but "haven't yet" and "never will" are two very different things.
That seems pretty far fetched. I'm not discounting the ability of the NSA to overstep its bounds, but to spin that into a conspiracy of corporations attempting to silence Groklaw through the NSA (or similar means) comes off as... Well, less than well-reasoned.
Evidently you don't know much about Groklaw, but it doesn't matter. PJ's "political crusades" (your words) are over.
I know a lot about Groklaw. I read the site every single day through the entire SCO saga, from beginning to end. Lately, Groklaw has become just a place for PJ to post her screeds about the companies that she thinks are opposed to the companies she likes. She willfully ignores subtle detailed points (like, say, the role of FRAND in patent cases) because they are inconvenient to her argument.
I was very much pro-Groklaw back in the day. Today, I do not mourn the loss of another website full of willfully ignorant people spouting hate.