There's a bit of a difference between your case of the real James Bond and Ian Fleming's James Bond. The real James Bond wasn't a spy, and Ian Fleming certainly wasn't trying to pass of the books' character James Bond as if they were the real James Bond-the-spy. The real james bond was an ornithologist, says wikipedia with some citation to lord knows whether it's a credible source, but whatever.
This Donal Blaney chap, however, is complaining that somebody else posting under the name Donal Blaney is actually trying to pass themselves off as being this particular Donal Blaney chap... using not only his name, but his picture, his actual blog's name, etc.
Whether or not he has a case will be up to the courts to decide anyway, but I do believe he's got -a- point.. even if it's not a very sharp one, given that twitter does usually look into these things to make sure celebrities get to use their own name if a fan or foe set up a twitter account with that celebrity's name and was posing as them. ( not too sure what they do if it's really just an account from somebody else with the same name and they do -not- pose as the celebrity; I should hope they'd tell the celeb to go take a hike and open a new account under a different name. )
For the same reason that giant archives of newspaper articles are not available in paper form, but rather microfilm.
That said - yes, good quality paper with good quality inks (not some cheapo inkjet thing, but proper ink like they used centuries ago) works well, too. I honestly wouldn't know about toner - I suspect that should hold quite well, too, but text reproduction is quite a bit outside of my field./nokarma
Honestly, Slashdot editors, can we put a moritarium on these "whrrr what medium do I choose to back my stuff up on so that it will still be readable N year from now???" stories? We just HAD one of these less than two weeks ago! http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/29/1646251
The top comment there?
Holy crap we're approaching the need for an Ask Slashdot FAQ. I feel old.
Slashdot askers: could you please, please, just browse back a month or two to see this discussion dealt with over, and over, and over?
No. Your mentioning that this is for a *museum* doesn't change anything - all of those discussions are from people who want to achieve immortality through archived proof that they once lived and want their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren to see the bodyshots they took off of their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother. No. Your mentioning that this doesn't have to be cheap doesn't change anything either - all of those discussions will have replies varying in cost, right on up to suggesting you etch the data into a platinum carrier.
I'll summarize the replies from all of those discussions for you here.. by the time I'm done, they'll probably all appear as replies in -this- 'story' again as well.
A. Back up to any media, make duplicates, refresh these duplicates onto whatever media is now-current and reliable enough that it doesn't die the very next morning, keep the old ones around. This ensures that you always have overlapping technologies so that you -can- transfer the data just fine, and that the data will live on until somebody gets sick and tired of doing this. Note that the burden with this falls onto the museum - in both time and cost - but thankfully they can then do so for entire collections, and not just your stuff.
B. Drop it on a filesharing network, invoke the "once it's on the internet" claim.. although good luck finding, say, Fearless (1993 movie, not the Jet Li thing) which -was- easily found at least 5 years ago (I should know, I grabbed it to check out the plane crash; didn't care for the rest of the movie). So, scratch that.
C. If graphics: turn them into archival quality negatives. If audio: slap 'm on a phonographic record. Yes, they will degrade, but they will degrade 'gracefully' and even if some future generation has no idea what the heck to do with an SD card, figuring out negatives (or positives if you will) and records is rather simple.
When you go that fast, there's no point in being scared of much.
I think Jeremy Clarkson put it well when he wrote the following about the Bugatti Veyron at top speed:
Happily, stopping distances become irrelevant because you won't see the obstacle in the first place. By the time you know it was there, you'll have gone through the windscreen, through the Pearly Gates and be half way across God's breakfast table.
agreed with most of your post.. actually, not really, as most of it is pretty far fetched, but I wouldn't put it past 'the industry' to go for these things.
But 'what counts' should at least be clarified in both letter and spirit. Spirit because as soon as the letter is written down, thousands of people will write up (contrived) work-arounds that don't go against the letter of the legislation; even though it would likely be against the spirit.
That said, then...
So yeah, I have a problem with effectively taking away my primary means of communication with the rest of the world [...] for anyone under 40, depriving them of internet access amounts
tfs and tfa are talking about bandwidth restrictions. So you can still be totally social with your friends on Facebook, MySpace, watch YouTube videos, etc. You may not be able to discuss the series premiere of FlashForward with them because you didn't watch it 'live' nor did you TiVo it, and because of your constricted bandwidth your FlashForward torrent looks like it'll be taking another 2 weeks to finish, but it's hardly as severe as taking away your interwebz.
Take someone fully new to computers and have them learn Linux or Windows and chances are they will figure out Linux faster
I'm confused.. weren't you talking about word processors just two lines back? Now it's operating systems? What aspects of that operating system, exactly? Are you talking about the desktop management or the CLI?
That said.. I understand what you're trying to say.. that people are biased from their experience with a 'competing' product.
On the other hand, that bias may not be a bad thing.
Just as an example... The GIMP vs Photoshop. If somebody had never touched a graphics editing application before and just got around to copy/pasting something and would be wondering how he or she might rotate and enlarge that bit they just pasted. In The GIMP, this is very straightforward. There's a rotate tool, and a scale tool. Almost couldn't be easier. The GIMP developers rejoice. Yet, they don't, and are seeking a unified transformations tool. Why? Because people's experience with other graphics editors shows them that users realize the added value of a transformation tool that can do rotating and scaling (and sometimes more) at the same time via on-screen feedback; both in terms of workflow -and- in terms of the quality of the result. But if you only let people who never touched another graphics editor test the existing tools, you'll have to wait for that one-in-N person who goes "wouldn't it be easier/better if..." to get to that "wow. that's so obvious when we look at it now, why didn't we think of that" point.
That's why you want a diverse set of testers, and that includes testers intimately familiar with competing products. It's your task as a developer (or usability expert) to find out whether their bias is justified (i.e. the expectation isn't odd, it's simply logical) or not (expectation -is- odd).
lighting and exposure is one thing... making it seem like it's a 1280x960 display through a high DPI print even though it's only 320x240, however...
I don't think I've seen any actual photos of mobile devices in professional ads in some time, though - they're mostly CG. A local cheap phone shop not keen on waiting for marketing materials (if they even get them) may take his own shots in a lightbox off of e-bay, though.. but they usually don't bother with even displaying anything on the screens (devices turned off).
I don't know about you, but any company that feels the only way they can sell their product is to basically slander their competitors isn't likely to get my attention.
P.S. just because the summary on/. uses the term "slander" doesn't mean they engaged in slander. It may be a smear campaign, or probably more appropriately: FUD, but slander has a very specific legal meaning and nothing in the back-and-forth 'interview' appears to be slanderous.
I've been in a discussion about this before and last time it was "iTunes exports an XML that your app can then parse for syncing", and no talk of this iTunes plugin API thing.
So I'm wondering.. what is the difference - if any - in, say, workflow and capabilities between how the iPod/iPhone(/Pre, for now) sync, and when syncing through such a plugin API?
What if we could see the originals? Now -that- would truly be interesting. Not just a disclaimer saying a picture's been altered.. that could be anything. What if we could see -exactly- what has been altered?
I know there's websites out there that show some of these as examples - though usually from enthusiasts taking a celeb's pic and fancying that up, and not from actual published material.
I'd find it fascinating to see what was altered between two pictures of a person, or pictures of a mobile device (they already have disclaimers here stating that the image on the device's screen has been simulated; i.e. it's never quite that crisp/bright) and, indeed, as mentioned way at the top of the comments thread... food shots - although those usually aren't altered, just rigged from the get-go.
Yeah, but then you're talking about counterparts...
As much as I personally dislike Photoshop (for a multitude of reasons but mostly because that thing is backwards), there is a big difference between The GIMP being a counterpart of Photoshop, and The GIMP being a replacement for Photoshop.
That said, 99.9% may be reasonably accurate even there. 999 out of 1000 people using Photoshop probably -would- be fine with The GIMP. The 1 guy/gal that needs it because he has to roll into the professional graphics world where knowing how to be backwards along with Photoshop, or -is- a graphics professional and absolutely needs some of Photoshop's features that The GIMP does not (yet) have... well, Linux may not be for him/her.
( not counting WINE, btw, which would extend the list further )
Your computer has problems? Wanna hear the "industry's" solution? That's right, your software isn't working - so what do they suggest? Use more software to solve the problem(!) Listen to what you're being told: they want you to purchase software so the software you already purchased will work!.. What!? The problem is.. we've come to think of this as being perfectly acceptable. So stop accepting! There's been a solution all along, but you've rarely heard of it. That's right! You spent maybe hundreds maybe thousands of dollars over the years that you didn't have to. It's time for the secret to be told. Thousands of businesses, universities and even Wall Street have been using: Linux! For years. What do they know that you don't? Linux is free. It doesn't need any virus protection and 99.9% of the software you'll ever need comes free as well. It's as easy as clicking a mouse! That's it. No more crashes, no more viruses, no more blue screens of death. And get this: with Linux, you don't have to reboot after installing new software. Linux runs on old hardware. No need to buy a new computer every time the industry decides to boost profits and release another buggy system. So why are you still paying for the privilege of using your computer? There's a better way: Linux.
Somehow the flow between the 2nd and 3rd sentence is... odd, but there ya go.
No, what I am saying is you can't have both without making some manner of compromise at the moment.
There's currently no real incentive for Intel to make more energy-efficient Core 2 Duos because the market -is- very segmented between those who are perfectly fine with the Core 2 Duos as they are (fairly powerful and reasonable battery life, though not fo true mobility), and those who really need longer battery life and are on the go a lot, who are fine with a netbook using a Core 2 Solo or Atom (or any of the AMD equivalents) processor.
Of course it -is- possible to get something in between, but you have to accept (unless you have millions to pursuade Intel otherwise ahead of any schedule they might have to introduce a more efficient platforms after all) that it is a fairly niche market.
Companies do cater to that niche market, however; Lenovo, for example. The Lenovo T400 runs a nice Core 2 Duo. Its battery life is a bit above that of the average notebook - but you -can- even extend that by upgrading from a 4-cell (~4 hours) to a 6-cell or even a 9-cell battery (~10 hours) and go beyond that if you add the external bay battery. Take the figures with a pinch of the usual 'battery life claims' salt and you should still be very comfortable with the 9-cell w/o bay battery.
No, adding batteries doesn't make the platform more efficient, but it -is- the next best thing available right now, especially if the desire is for 'longer battery life' and not necessarily a more efficient platform.
If you want battery life - consider a netbook. If you want a beefy portable desktop replacement, consider this thing. If you want both, get an aftermarket battery extension kit.. it'll bulk out of the bottom of your notebook, however.
But if upper end players are failing the bot tests (determined to be a bot, by some process), then maybe that'd be okay - just move them over to a server with other upper-end players and, yes, those bots. They've clearly gotten too good for mere mortals anyway, might as well let them brag about how they pwned the latest aimbot?:)
I wonder if this (legal action from some party) is why publications usually state something along the lines of "However, X has not been shown to have any Y benefits in independent studies", rather than saying "X doesn't do Y".
I can understand why scientific publications don't; they're scientific, after all.. maybe the studies done had flaws, or were inconclusive, etc. But popular media does the same thing.
as with the countless other companies that introduced digital/internet-enabled services to cut their own costs and don't pass that on to their customers but instead bill the customers who don't switch......they'll just have some accountant-ish spokesguy come out in an obscure interview (if even interviewed about it) in some trade magazine (that the popular media then get to cite; though no mere mortal could run into a supermarket and pick the magazine up to read the whole story, lol) that costs of doing business are rising, especially in these troubled times, so instead of charging everybody $1.50 extra and those who want paper bills $3.00 extra, they're already passing on their cost savings by only changing the pricing by $0.00 and +$1.50 respectively.
Good luck wading through their financial records to prove that they're lying through their grinning teeth.
Call me a cynic, but I somehow think he, and everyone else that looks at OS security, will still find things to complain about.
Isn't that human nature? Well, some humans' nature, anyway?
Such as... >> Gates foundation to donate $2.5B to cancer researh > BOO! HISS! HE'S JUST USING IT AS A TAX WRITE-OFF AND AS INDIRECT GOOD-WILL FORMING PR FOR M$!!!!!
*shrug*
If, in the end, it makes OS X an even better operating system, then I say to the tech blog and journalism industry: complain on.
In summary (summarizing a twitter post, really?;)).. they're pixel-for-pixel the same. He's not claiming copyright on 'a generic woodgrain pattern'. He's claiming copyright on -that exact- woodgrain image.
They're at different scales so a pixel-for-pixel comparison won't work for those two, but it should give you a reasonable indication of the exact pattern and whether or not you believe they indeed match.
I mean seriously, it isn't hard to make a woodgrain texture lots better than that one
Which should lead to the rather obvious question that most people who state that it's "just a stupid background image" seem not to naturally stumble into...
If it's so easy, why didn't the accused do so, instead of copy/pasting from this guy?
Slashdot Mirror
Except that PSP Go is not a replacement (okay, maybe long-term it is).. they're still making and selling the PSP.
*twitch*
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=intensive+purposes
THAT out of the way...
There's a bit of a difference between your case of the real James Bond and Ian Fleming's James Bond. The real James Bond wasn't a spy, and Ian Fleming certainly wasn't trying to pass of the books' character James Bond as if they were the real James Bond-the-spy.
The real james bond was an ornithologist, says wikipedia with some citation to lord knows whether it's a credible source, but whatever.
This Donal Blaney chap, however, is complaining that somebody else posting under the name Donal Blaney is actually trying to pass themselves off as being this particular Donal Blaney chap... using not only his name, but his picture, his actual blog's name, etc.
Whether or not he has a case will be up to the courts to decide anyway, but I do believe he's got -a- point.. even if it's not a very sharp one, given that twitter does usually look into these things to make sure celebrities get to use their own name if a fan or foe set up a twitter account with that celebrity's name and was posing as them.
( not too sure what they do if it's really just an account from somebody else with the same name and they do -not- pose as the celebrity; I should hope they'd tell the celeb to go take a hike and open a new account under a different name. )
For the same reason that giant archives of newspaper articles are not available in paper form, but rather microfilm.
That said - yes, good quality paper with good quality inks (not some cheapo inkjet thing, but proper ink like they used centuries ago) works well, too. I honestly wouldn't know about toner - I suspect that should hold quite well, too, but text reproduction is quite a bit outside of my field. /nokarma
Honestly, Slashdot editors, can we put a moritarium on these "whrrr what medium do I choose to back my stuff up on so that it will still be readable N year from now???" stories?
We just HAD one of these less than two weeks ago!
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/29/1646251
The top comment there?
- Zlurg; http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1371703&cid=29449669
Slashdot askers: could you please, please, just browse back a month or two to see this discussion dealt with over, and over, and over?
No. Your mentioning that this is for a *museum* doesn't change anything - all of those discussions are from people who want to achieve immortality through archived proof that they once lived and want their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren to see the bodyshots they took off of their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother.
No. Your mentioning that this doesn't have to be cheap doesn't change anything either - all of those discussions will have replies varying in cost, right on up to suggesting you etch the data into a platinum carrier.
I'll summarize the replies from all of those discussions for you here.. by the time I'm done, they'll probably all appear as replies in -this- 'story' again as well.
A. Back up to any media, make duplicates, refresh these duplicates onto whatever media is now-current and reliable enough that it doesn't die the very next morning, keep the old ones around. This ensures that you always have overlapping technologies so that you -can- transfer the data just fine, and that the data will live on until somebody gets sick and tired of doing this. Note that the burden with this falls onto the museum - in both time and cost - but thankfully they can then do so for entire collections, and not just your stuff.
B. Drop it on a filesharing network, invoke the "once it's on the internet" claim.. although good luck finding, say, Fearless (1993 movie, not the Jet Li thing) which -was- easily found at least 5 years ago (I should know, I grabbed it to check out the plane crash; didn't care for the rest of the movie). So, scratch that.
C. If graphics: turn them into archival quality negatives. If audio: slap 'm on a phonographic record. Yes, they will degrade, but they will degrade 'gracefully' and even if some future generation has no idea what the heck to do with an SD card, figuring out negatives (or positives if you will) and records is rather simple.
When you go that fast, there's no point in being scared of much.
I think Jeremy Clarkson put it well when he wrote the following about the Bugatti Veyron at top speed:
( From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article596580.ece )
agreed with most of your post..
actually, not really, as most of it is pretty far fetched, but I wouldn't put it past 'the industry' to go for these things.
But 'what counts' should at least be clarified in both letter and spirit. Spirit because as soon as the letter is written down, thousands of people will write up (contrived) work-arounds that don't go against the letter of the legislation; even though it would likely be against the spirit.
That said, then...
tfs and tfa are talking about bandwidth restrictions. So you can still be totally social with your friends on Facebook, MySpace, watch YouTube videos, etc. You may not be able to discuss the series premiere of FlashForward with them because you didn't watch it 'live' nor did you TiVo it, and because of your constricted bandwidth your FlashForward torrent looks like it'll be taking another 2 weeks to finish, but it's hardly as severe as taking away your interwebz.
Mod parent up. He's right.
and probably up to 100 miles inland from the actual border, too.
https://www.checkpointusa.org/
I'm confused.. weren't you talking about word processors just two lines back? Now it's operating systems? What aspects of that operating system, exactly? Are you talking about the desktop management or the CLI?
That said.. I understand what you're trying to say.. that people are biased from their experience with a 'competing' product.
On the other hand, that bias may not be a bad thing.
Just as an example... The GIMP vs Photoshop.
If somebody had never touched a graphics editing application before and just got around to copy/pasting something and would be wondering how he or she might rotate and enlarge that bit they just pasted.
In The GIMP, this is very straightforward. There's a rotate tool, and a scale tool. Almost couldn't be easier. The GIMP developers rejoice.
Yet, they don't, and are seeking a unified transformations tool. Why? Because people's experience with other graphics editors shows them that users realize the added value of a transformation tool that can do rotating and scaling (and sometimes more) at the same time via on-screen feedback; both in terms of workflow -and- in terms of the quality of the result.
But if you only let people who never touched another graphics editor test the existing tools, you'll have to wait for that one-in-N person who goes "wouldn't it be easier/better if..." to get to that "wow. that's so obvious when we look at it now, why didn't we think of that" point.
That's why you want a diverse set of testers, and that includes testers intimately familiar with competing products. It's your task as a developer (or usability expert) to find out whether their bias is justified (i.e. the expectation isn't odd, it's simply logical) or not (expectation -is- odd).
( fwiw - though gui.gimp.org is not responding - http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Transformation_tool_specification , http://www.mmiworks.net/eng/publications/2009_03_01_archive.html , http://gimp-brainstorm.blogspot.com/search/label/transformation%20tool )
lighting and exposure is one thing... making it seem like it's a 1280x960 display through a high DPI print even though it's only 320x240, however...
I don't think I've seen any actual photos of mobile devices in professional ads in some time, though - they're mostly CG. A local cheap phone shop not keen on waiting for marketing materials (if they even get them) may take his own shots in a lightbox off of e-bay, though.. but they usually don't bother with even displaying anything on the screens (devices turned off).
hear, hear
*ducks*
P.S. just because the summary on /. uses the term "slander" doesn't mean they engaged in slander. It may be a smear campaign, or probably more appropriately: FUD, but slander has a very specific legal meaning and nothing in the back-and-forth 'interview' appears to be slanderous.
I've been in a discussion about this before and last time it was "iTunes exports an XML that your app can then parse for syncing", and no talk of this iTunes plugin API thing.
So I'm wondering.. what is the difference - if any - in, say, workflow and capabilities between how the iPod/iPhone(/Pre, for now) sync, and when syncing through such a plugin API?
What if we could see the originals? Now -that- would truly be interesting. Not just a disclaimer saying a picture's been altered.. that could be anything. What if we could see -exactly- what has been altered?
I know there's websites out there that show some of these as examples - though usually from enthusiasts taking a celeb's pic and fancying that up, and not from actual published material.
I'd find it fascinating to see what was altered between two pictures of a person, or pictures of a mobile device (they already have disclaimers here stating that the image on the device's screen has been simulated; i.e. it's never quite that crisp/bright) and, indeed, as mentioned way at the top of the comments thread... food shots - although those usually aren't altered, just rigged from the get-go.
Good point - and it's encouraged! So here's my very quick stab at it:
http://www.filedropper.com/linuxcooked
*runs from fanboys from both sides*
Yeah, but then you're talking about counterparts...
As much as I personally dislike Photoshop (for a multitude of reasons but mostly because that thing is backwards), there is a big difference between The GIMP being a counterpart of Photoshop, and The GIMP being a replacement for Photoshop.
That said, 99.9% may be reasonably accurate even there. 999 out of 1000 people using Photoshop probably -would- be fine with The GIMP. The 1 guy/gal that needs it because he has to roll into the professional graphics world where knowing how to be backwards along with Photoshop, or -is- a graphics professional and absolutely needs some of Photoshop's features that The GIMP does not (yet) have... well, Linux may not be for him/her.
( not counting WINE, btw, which would extend the list further )
Somehow the flow between the 2nd and 3rd sentence is... odd, but there ya go.
No, what I am saying is you can't have both without making some manner of compromise at the moment.
There's currently no real incentive for Intel to make more energy-efficient Core 2 Duos because the market -is- very segmented between those who are perfectly fine with the Core 2 Duos as they are (fairly powerful and reasonable battery life, though not fo true mobility), and those who really need longer battery life and are on the go a lot, who are fine with a netbook using a Core 2 Solo or Atom (or any of the AMD equivalents) processor.
Of course it -is- possible to get something in between, but you have to accept (unless you have millions to pursuade Intel otherwise ahead of any schedule they might have to introduce a more efficient platforms after all) that it is a fairly niche market.
Companies do cater to that niche market, however; Lenovo, for example. The Lenovo T400 runs a nice Core 2 Duo. Its battery life is a bit above that of the average notebook - but you -can- even extend that by upgrading from a 4-cell (~4 hours) to a 6-cell or even a 9-cell battery (~10 hours) and go beyond that if you add the external bay battery.
Take the figures with a pinch of the usual 'battery life claims' salt and you should still be very comfortable with the 9-cell w/o bay battery.
No, adding batteries doesn't make the platform more efficient, but it -is- the next best thing available right now, especially if the desire is for 'longer battery life' and not necessarily a more efficient platform.
If you want battery life - consider a netbook. If you want a beefy portable desktop replacement, consider this thing. If you want both, get an aftermarket battery extension kit.. it'll bulk out of the bottom of your notebook, however.
Forget the RIAA... ASCAP will be charging car owners the performance fee.
Didn't some ASCAP-alike company try that with ringtones some time ago? Oh wait.. that -was- ASCAP.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/22/225207/ASCAP-Wants-To-Be-Paid-When-Your-Phone-Rings
But if upper end players are failing the bot tests (determined to be a bot, by some process), then maybe that'd be okay - just move them over to a server with other upper-end players and, yes, those bots. They've clearly gotten too good for mere mortals anyway, might as well let them brag about how they pwned the latest aimbot? :)
I wonder if this (legal action from some party) is why publications usually state something along the lines of "However, X has not been shown to have any Y benefits in independent studies", rather than saying "X doesn't do Y".
I can understand why scientific publications don't; they're scientific, after all.. maybe the studies done had flaws, or were inconclusive, etc. But popular media does the same thing.
as with the countless other companies that introduced digital/internet-enabled services to cut their own costs and don't pass that on to their customers but instead bill the customers who don't switch... ...they'll just have some accountant-ish spokesguy come out in an obscure interview (if even interviewed about it) in some trade magazine (that the popular media then get to cite; though no mere mortal could run into a supermarket and pick the magazine up to read the whole story, lol) that costs of doing business are rising, especially in these troubled times, so instead of charging everybody $1.50 extra and those who want paper bills $3.00 extra, they're already passing on their cost savings by only changing the pricing by $0.00 and +$1.50 respectively.
Good luck wading through their financial records to prove that they're lying through their grinning teeth.
Isn't that human nature? Well, some humans' nature, anyway?
Such as...
>> Gates foundation to donate $2.5B to cancer researh
> BOO! HISS! HE'S JUST USING IT AS A TAX WRITE-OFF AND AS INDIRECT GOOD-WILL FORMING PR FOR M$!!!!!
*shrug*
If, in the end, it makes OS X an even better operating system, then I say to the tech blog and journalism industry: complain on.
https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/3966821025
In summary (summarizing a twitter post, really? ;)).. they're pixel-for-pixel the same. He's not claiming copyright on 'a generic woodgrain pattern'. He's claiming copyright on -that exact- woodgrain image.
http://iphone.netwalk.be/sites/default/files/04-quickfind.jpg
( note: the developer of this application has already stated that he will change the graphics - citing that he was unaware the image was that of the delicious app - so that picture may change )
vs
http://delicious-monster.com/images/librarypage/screenshots/Delicious-Library.png
They're at different scales so a pixel-for-pixel comparison won't work for those two, but it should give you a reasonable indication of the exact pattern and whether or not you believe they indeed match.
Which should lead to the rather obvious question that most people who state that it's "just a stupid background image" seem not to naturally stumble into...
If it's so easy, why didn't the accused do so, instead of copy/pasting from this guy?