It's baffling to me that Apple has convinced so many people that they have to keep an iron grip in order to provide usability, when half of their product line is a counterexample.
Where has Apple ever claimed "they have to keep an iron grip in order to provide usability"?
Dude, that's of the ENTIRE cell phone market, globally. That's a shitload of phones.
You're right, it is.
Where's the Droid at on that list?
Irrelevant. Stop trying to change the subject; lets focus on what you originally said.
You claimed that the "majority" have chosen an iPhone. I gave you a link that shows Apple is sixth overall for worldwide cell-phone sales. Sixth place and 3% of total sales hardly constitutes a "majority".
Or are you going to convince me that 3% is a majority?
Funny thing, the vast majority of the phones on the list don't allow you to install any app you want, they don't multitask, they have a lower resolution than the iPhone, they have a worse network, they don't support Flash - in other words, the vast majority doesn't have what you say a phone needs. Instead the vast majority of phones fart in your general direction.
Yeah, China's suicide rate is really high period. 13.9/100000 according to wiki. With a population of 400k, this particular company will need more than 4x more suicides this year before this becomes a real issue.
Heck, the US has a suicide rate of 11.1/100k, I guess that's also Apple's fault.
IANAL, but, wouldn't that make a good case for estoppel? Saying that there were well known, visible implementations of this technology in the field for years, and the rights holder waited until commercial viability and adoption to give economic incentive to litigate. Seems like the definition of estoppel to me (in my NAL understanding).
ESTOPPEL
(estopped) A bar which precludes someone from denying the truth of a fact which has been determined in an official proceeding or by an authoritative body. An estopple arises when someone has done some act which the policy of the law will not permit her to deny.
IOW, Estoppel would require someone to first say there are no patents, then to claim them, or have somebody keep still in an official enquiry if there was a patent and (again) claim later - AFAIK there is no such enquiry process regarding patents.
This country produces thousands of college graduates every year who go on to be bankers or Wall Street traders when they should be engineers and scientists. We produce people who not only don't contribute anything themselves but actually make it harder for other people to be productive.
That's a rather shortsighted view you have.
As opposed to fuming about Cap'n'Trade because "Goldman Sachs will get rich from it"?
Has it occurred to you that the banker and stock investor provide the capital needed by the engineer and scientist before they can produce items of value?
Did you miss the part where they made trillions of the needed capital vanish into thin air when the house of cards (make that ticker tape) of trading stuff that doesn't exist fell apart?
But it won't, that's the bloody point! All this will do is fuck the poor while the rich like Goldman make out like fucking robber barons. want it to be fair?
Fine, so do it without carbon credits - instead of the poor being paid so the rich can output more CO2 than them, while at the same time producing less together, the rich simply are forced to reduce their output dramatically. See, that was easy. Goldman Sachs will still find a way to make money however. And you will find something to complain about.
All carbon credits are designed to do is to lower emissions through impoverishment of the "masses". This will dramatically increase the divide between the rich who can afford to invest in carbon credits, government workers (who will largely live exempt due to special "needs"), the special interests (unions who back political organizations, academics who live in government funded universities, and contractors who perform special services for government workers), and the rest of us.
What ever gave you the idea that carbon credits are traded between people?
My home state of Victoria, Australia is one of the worst offenders world wide in coal burning for power generation. But I wonder why we can't use the gas from the power stations directly.
Build multiple chains of greenhouses adjacent to the power station. Feed CO2 rich gas directly into the greenhouses. Use some warm cooling water from the power station for irrigation. From that you get CO2 depleted air and food. Sell the food.
You mean CO2 doesn't get distributed through he atmosphere already, reaching all kinds of plants, helping them grow better? You need special greenhouses near the CO2 sources for that to work?
Well, if I understood that wrong - why do CO2 levels still go up despite all this extra growth? It looks like the extra CO2 doesn't generate enough extra biomass to neutralize it being extra.
97% of annual CO2 emissions are natural. Only 3% are anthropogenic. It mostly comes from decaying biomass. Look it up. What, don't they highlight this fact on the greenist web sites? My country (Canada) is responsible for 0.06% of total CO2 emissions. Hardly seems worth gutting my standard of living over.
Sure. What Watts doesn't tell you is that before humans those 100% went straight into building new biomass (and some other CO2 drains). It's called a "balance". Now not only do humans suddenly add 3% on top, they also prevent creation of new plant matter at an increasing rate, mostly by cutting down rain-forests and replacing them with (at best) mono-culture trees.
Let's try an analogy: a river flows through a valley, rain causes flooding - but no, you say, it's not the 3% of water from the rain that causes the flooding, it's the 97% normal discharge.
So will you step down from whatever position you have if they decide against the thief and Gizmodo?
And how do you read this?
(9) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula,
pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process,
that:
(A) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from
not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can
obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
(B) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the
circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
You are not only arguing that the efforts weren't reasonable enough, but also that Gizmodo didn't pay several times the will-be selling price of the next-gen iPhone - which clearly proofs that (A) still fully holds.
I disagree, the large companies tend to back whomever is favored to win when they don't have a "preferred" (someone they have a relationship with) candidate. That should tell you something about the similarities of the politics between both major parties, as perceived by companies who can/do spend tens of millions analyzing politicians.
It would be interesting seeing the spending over time during a campaign.
I guess I'm a little late getting back on this, but a bt keyboard means now you've got to carry around a keyboard AND an iPad. I use a netbook as a VNC client and while it makes an abysmal ebook reader, it is just awesome at VNC and everything else you need a keyboard for.
If you don't want to use the on-screen keyboard, borrow any BT keyboard on site.
By millions you mean $71,051. Frankly, the 3.5 million dollars over 20 years BP has spend is peanuts, and only make it to 106 on the Heavy Hitters List. But it is unusual that he appears on the top of the list of recipients of BP as well as #2 of the Exxon list, when both companies favour Republicans. But then, even combined they wouldn't be among Obama's Top Contributors
Interestingly, Gizmodo did nothing wrong here. They got a tip about a possible newly leaked product, they did what every news agency does, they went after it. They got it. Then they gave it back to the rightful owner, as soon as that owner was confirmed. EVERYONE involved knew it didn't belong to any of the parties involved. However, that doesn't make it "stolen" and it doesn't make it illegal. If apple wanted to protect their secrets, they wouldn't have let the phone out of the building. PERIOD.
The lot of you crucifying Gizmodo for doing exactly what you want them to do, are a bunch of hypocrites.
Yeah, you are right. When a news agency suspects a new Ferrari coming out, they will buy the prototype from some guy who said he found it for several times what the car will sell for when it comes out. Then they will disassemble it to verify that it is really a Ferrari, breaking it in the process, and then send it back to Ferrari. Exactly like that. And of course "finding" a Ferrari doesn't make it stolen.
Slashdot Mirror
It's baffling to me that Apple has convinced so many people that they have to keep an iron grip in order to provide usability, when half of their product line is a counterexample.
Where has Apple ever claimed "they have to keep an iron grip in order to provide usability"?
Dude, that's of the ENTIRE cell phone market, globally. That's a shitload of phones.
You're right, it is.
Where's the Droid at on that list?
Irrelevant. Stop trying to change the subject; lets focus on what you originally said.
You claimed that the "majority" have chosen an iPhone. I gave you a link that shows Apple is sixth overall for worldwide cell-phone sales. Sixth place and 3% of total sales hardly constitutes a "majority".
Or are you going to convince me that 3% is a majority?
Funny thing, the vast majority of the phones on the list don't allow you to install any app you want, they don't multitask, they have a lower resolution than the iPhone, they have a worse network, they don't support Flash - in other words, the vast majority doesn't have what you say a phone needs. Instead the vast majority of phones fart in your general direction.
Yeah, China's suicide rate is really high period. 13.9/100000 according to wiki. With a population of 400k, this particular company will need more than 4x more suicides this year before this becomes a real issue.
Heck, the US has a suicide rate of 11.1/100k, I guess that's also Apple's fault.
Oh yeah, let' s not forget they are one of the biggest manufacturers for cable connectors for use inside no-name computers.
IANAL, but, wouldn't that make a good case for estoppel? Saying that there were well known, visible implementations of this technology in the field for years, and the rights holder waited until commercial viability and adoption to give economic incentive to litigate. Seems like the definition of estoppel to me (in my NAL understanding).
Well, no, that isn't even remotely the definition of estoppel (IANALE) : http://lectlaw.com/def/e040.htm
ESTOPPEL (estopped) A bar which precludes someone from denying the truth of a fact which has been determined in an official proceeding or by an authoritative body. An estopple arises when someone has done some act which the policy of the law will not permit her to deny.
IOW, Estoppel would require someone to first say there are no patents, then to claim them, or have somebody keep still in an official enquiry if there was a patent and (again) claim later - AFAIK there is no such enquiry process regarding patents.
The MPEG-LA license did absolutely nothing to protect against patent claims from parties outside the pool.
Oh? What does MPEG-LA have to do with MP3 again?
because carbon can't be weighed on a scale
Yes, it can, it weighs 1.975 ounces per cubic feet. Next.
This country produces thousands of college graduates every year who go on to be bankers or Wall Street traders when they should be engineers and scientists. We produce people who not only don't contribute anything themselves but actually make it harder for other people to be productive.
That's a rather shortsighted view you have.
As opposed to fuming about Cap'n'Trade because "Goldman Sachs will get rich from it"?
Has it occurred to you that the banker and stock investor provide the capital needed by the engineer and scientist before they can produce items of value?
Did you miss the part where they made trillions of the needed capital vanish into thin air when the house of cards (make that ticker tape) of trading stuff that doesn't exist fell apart?
Glenn Beck is that you?
He didn't try to scare is us into buying gold - so no.
But it won't, that's the bloody point! All this will do is fuck the poor while the rich like Goldman make out like fucking robber barons. want it to be fair?
Fine, so do it without carbon credits - instead of the poor being paid so the rich can output more CO2 than them, while at the same time producing less together, the rich simply are forced to reduce their output dramatically. See, that was easy. Goldman Sachs will still find a way to make money however. And you will find something to complain about.
The price goes up and consumption falls. Econ101.
3. Jobs are lost. Econ101.
4. Even more jobs are created. Econ101, 5 minutes after you fell asleep.
All carbon credits are designed to do is to lower emissions through impoverishment of the "masses". This will dramatically increase the divide between the rich who can afford to invest in carbon credits, government workers (who will largely live exempt due to special "needs"), the special interests (unions who back political organizations, academics who live in government funded universities, and contractors who perform special services for government workers), and the rest of us.
What ever gave you the idea that carbon credits are traded between people?
My home state of Victoria, Australia is one of the worst offenders world wide in coal burning for power generation. But I wonder why we can't use the gas from the power stations directly.
Build multiple chains of greenhouses adjacent to the power station. Feed CO2 rich gas directly into the greenhouses. Use some warm cooling water from the power station for irrigation. From that you get CO2 depleted air and food. Sell the food.
You mean CO2 doesn't get distributed through he atmosphere already, reaching all kinds of plants, helping them grow better? You need special greenhouses near the CO2 sources for that to work?
Well, if I understood that wrong - why do CO2 levels still go up despite all this extra growth? It looks like the extra CO2 doesn't generate enough extra biomass to neutralize it being extra.
97% of annual CO2 emissions are natural. Only 3% are anthropogenic. It mostly comes from decaying biomass. Look it up. What, don't they highlight this fact on the greenist web sites? My country (Canada) is responsible for 0.06% of total CO2 emissions. Hardly seems worth gutting my standard of living over.
Sure. What Watts doesn't tell you is that before humans those 100% went straight into building new biomass (and some other CO2 drains). It's called a "balance". Now not only do humans suddenly add 3% on top, they also prevent creation of new plant matter at an increasing rate, mostly by cutting down rain-forests and replacing them with (at best) mono-culture trees.
Let's try an analogy: a river flows through a valley, rain causes flooding - but no, you say, it's not the 3% of water from the rain that causes the flooding, it's the 97% normal discharge.
[citation needed]
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
BTW, the jailbreak doesn't "expose" anything. It's the sshd package that does that.
Keep telling yourself that long enough and it still won't become the truth.
“If you care about security, don’t use a jailbroken iPhone,” said Charlie Miller at the SyScan security conference in Singapore.
.. while swearing: "With all due respect: Fuck you, Sir."
And how do you read this?
(9) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:
(A) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
(B) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
You are not only arguing that the efforts weren't reasonable enough, but also that Gizmodo didn't pay several times the will-be selling price of the next-gen iPhone - which clearly proofs that (A) still fully holds.
I disagree, the large companies tend to back whomever is favored to win when they don't have a "preferred" (someone they have a relationship with) candidate. That should tell you something about the similarities of the politics between both major parties, as perceived by companies who can/do spend tens of millions analyzing politicians.
It would be interesting seeing the spending over time during a campaign.
I guess I'm a little late getting back on this, but a bt keyboard means now you've got to carry around a keyboard AND an iPad. I use a netbook as a VNC client and while it makes an abysmal ebook reader, it is just awesome at VNC and everything else you need a keyboard for.
If you don't want to use the on-screen keyboard, borrow any BT keyboard on site.
He also was the prime recipient of millions of dollars from BP. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html The pattern is more than a bit disturbing.
By millions you mean $71,051. Frankly, the 3.5 million dollars over 20 years BP has spend is peanuts, and only make it to 106 on the Heavy Hitters List. But it is unusual that he appears on the top of the list of recipients of BP as well as #2 of the Exxon list, when both companies favour Republicans. But then, even combined they wouldn't be among Obama's Top Contributors
Well, now you can find it with a Google search.
Pah. Now, car keys - that would be useful. If they improve accuracy first. "They are in the north-west pixel, errm, corner of the house".
where your Chevy is.
One small problem - the concealment bit went out to lunch within 24 hours - to the finder - LONG before any pics were made.
Sure. Exactly like it had been if he had stolen it from within Apple. I have a hint for you: YANAL, DPOOS.
Interestingly, Gizmodo did nothing wrong here. They got a tip about a possible newly leaked product, they did what every news agency does, they went after it. They got it. Then they gave it back to the rightful owner, as soon as that owner was confirmed. EVERYONE involved knew it didn't belong to any of the parties involved. However, that doesn't make it "stolen" and it doesn't make it illegal. If apple wanted to protect their secrets, they wouldn't have let the phone out of the building. PERIOD. The lot of you crucifying Gizmodo for doing exactly what you want them to do, are a bunch of hypocrites.
Yeah, you are right. When a news agency suspects a new Ferrari coming out, they will buy the prototype from some guy who said he found it for several times what the car will sell for when it comes out. Then they will disassemble it to verify that it is really a Ferrari, breaking it in the process, and then send it back to Ferrari. Exactly like that. And of course "finding" a Ferrari doesn't make it stolen.