According to my reading at Groklaw - it's going to likely be more like $20-$30 million. There is a good chance that the third report(and extraordinary even having a third chance at the apple in and of itself) didn't rectify the problems the court directed Oracle to fix. They may loose ALL testimony on damages. They have managed to shoot themselves in the foot quite satisfactorily.
Let's highlight this last "LightSquared were Idiots!" because they were trying to do something that any amateur radio operator that has been on a Field Day with more than one station would understand - wasn't going to work without even TRYING the experiment.
No - of course they don't define what is "adequate" research, likely anything that agrees with their own narrative. The facts are that the research IS ambiguous. There are likely just as many studies that say it is bad as there are saying it's benign.
This is a pretty unique story - most companies that I've worked for over the last 30 years had an established policy for funding continuing education. In other words it's normally encouraged in my experience.
As for on-line classes - the one place I know people accept readily is the University of Phoenix MBA program.
Mueller is generally a very one-sided reporter. He is VERY one-sided when it comes to coverage of Android, i.e. hates it, and ALWAYs in favor of anything Apple.
IANAL - and have no real idea what the real net effect is on the lawsuit. I'll wait till there is some coverage on Groklaw to look for a real explanation of what the implications are. Granted - Groklaw is heavily pro anything FOSS, consequently it serves as a decent counter-point to Mueller.
The engineering design failed in the opinion of the professor. Yet, there was documentation saying HOW to install something that wasn't followed?
Further - somewhere someone had figured out there was a problem in this area and had written corrective procedures to avoid the problem. That of and by itself can be considered an appropriate engineering response to a problem! Don't forget - engineering is the application of science to real world problems while optimizing the cost of the solution.
There are plenty of engineering disasters to look where design WAS the reason for failure. The classic is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Yet even THIS should REALLY be ascribed to a poor understanding of aerodynamics as applied to the bridge structure that was prevalent at the time.
Lastly - aircraft design is really one of the places within the practice of engineering where past errors are studied extensively with lessons learned applied to new efforts. Perhaps better than any OTHER engineering pursuit. The current safety rate of commercial aircraft proves this point.
I don't expect this to catch on...either that or it will move to some other social media vehicle like Twitter. Most companies LIKE the fact that they can get their employees free efforts after hours!
It may very well be practical to put electronics next to the eyeball to do a display or whatever, but you do NOT want to put any kind of RF source/sink there. There would only be two ways to power such a unit - solar and RF energy beamed in ala RFID. The pictures I've seen suggest the latter. Having a resonant antenna at such frequencies would scare the heck out of me. Local heating or perhaps re-radiation at microwave frequencies next to something that is essentially H2O? You do KNOW that is why microwave ovens work.
I've lived and worked in Silicon Valley for 29 years. I've worked at several start-ups. The VAST MAJORITY of start-aren't run by WASPs! Mostly Indians, Persians, or Asians! Why are there few Black entrepreneurs in High Tech...D'uh! There are very few Black engineers in High Tech. I've worked with maybe three! There was exactly one black gentleman in my graduating class of over 100 in Electrical Engineering from the biggest Cal State Engineering School.
So - whatever the reason - this is a self-selected situation. Blacks don't enter the field. The problem starts WAY BACK at the STEM education entry point - maybe in high school.
I think you have this wrong. "The reason they weren't elected, and why there are two for every state, is that they were intended to be the body that looked out for the interests of the country as a whole and not the specific interests of the state they came from or the voters therein. "
This is inherently wrong when you consider that the constitution created to sets of co-equal sovereignty. The intention as I read the constitution was to create an upper house where the concerns of the States would be taken into consideration, while the house was the "People's house." Each state had equal representation, thus no state had a larger voice than any other. The Senate was designed to give the state governments a say in the Federal governments operation.
Though we come to the same conclusion - popular elections of Senators is a huge mistake.
Nope - You present no evidence to the contrary - you just insult and make unsupported statements. I mentioned a segment that uses TCL as it's fundamental scripting language. The following EDA tools use it to mention a few.
Mentor Modelsim Verilog/VHDL simulation environment Synopsys Design Compiler, and Primetime Timing Engine Magma Designs Chip Design environment for all phases of the tools Cadence Encounter Chip design environment
These are the MAIN players in the industry - and they tend to use TCL in all of their other tools that require a scripting capability. The only exception that I'm aware of iis the use of SKILL by Cadence in their Schematics capture tools.
If you design chips for a living - you need to be proficient in TCL to drive the tools.
That isn't to say that other scripting languages aren't useful - didn't claim that, merely that TCL had a very strong nitch that it fills which happens to be the reason Osterhout invented it while he was at Berkeley.
Maybe so - but facts on the ground in Silicon Valley prove his point.
There are thousands of out-of-work engineers looking for work here in all disciplines. Granted that the valley is not the entire US - but it is certainly one of the premier US technical hubs. Mind you - California prices and anti-business policies don't help any.
This is so much BS - what killed off Solyndra was competition from off-shore competitors. Even with 0.5B infusion from the DOE - they couldn't build a factory that was cost competitive. Oh - I live in the town where the factory was built - they wasted huge amounts of money building a second fab when they had one two blocks down the street of similar size and capacity. There is nothing magical here - it is simple economic forces that killed them off. Get over your Evil Big Oil conspiracy theories.
It also proves that the government does a lousy job of picking economic winners and losers. That is a game the government should stay out of.
TCL IS VERY MUCH ALIVE and being put to use daily in it's original intended Market! It is in use through-out the EDA industry. If you look at it's history - this is what it was intended for! All of the major Electronic Design Aid Tools in the Chip design business use TCL as their under-lying scripting language.
You are COMPLETELY correct about this guy. You can't trust ANYTHING he says - here is an example of what he said concerning PJ and Groklaw being paid by IBM back in the middle of the SCO lawsuits. He his completely unreliable as a reporter. He has an agenda that is transparent.
Maybe there IS a lawsuit between Apple and Mot in Germany. As others have mentioned, Mot is a BIG company and can take care of themselves. They do have fundamental technology in Cell phones, and many in radio technology. Apple just doesn't like competition, so they resort to lawsuits to clear the field for their milch-cow products. They're STILL whining about loss of the "look and feel" lawsuits over Windows 1 with Microsoft!;-) They are just as anti-competitive as Microsoft.
You have to understand that TSMC has a different business model than Samsung. TSMC is the largest Chip Fab in the world - bar none. It is ONLY a chip fab. The article is actually in error when it implies that the relationship between ARM and TSMC is a big deal. The relationship between Samsung and ARM is likely exactly the same! They BOTH have a license to ARMs IP. The BIG difference between the two is that TSMC doesn't have System Architecture experience. They take designs from others - and create masks, then fab them for you. Most of the "fabless" semiconductor companies in the world use either TSMC or UMC (the number 2 player..)
Samsung is different in that they do both Architecture/Implementation of the design along with fabrication. TSMC doesn't really have that ability.
What Apple would have to do is take on the Architecture/Implementation roll by themselves and send the design to TSMC for fabrication. That would put Apple more in the "fabless" semiconductor business. What they do now is they buy most of the design from Samsung, i.e. they use Samsung's IP on their chip, then Samsung implements the device, and fabs it. They ship the completed device to Apple.
Hope this straightens out some of the differences between the two approaches.
The folks replying to you gave thorough explanations - you retort with vulgarities. Guess who lost the argument. Oh - and my login id is older than yours too! PLLLLLGGGHH!
Your argument is right-on and has a parallel in the hardware world. The author just doesn't understand the hardware business at ALL.
Consider one major aspect of designing hardware for a hand-held application, i.e. power usage. Any technology that helps you lower your power consumption is going to work across an entire product line, i.e. if it helps lower power at the low end of the your product line - it might be an advantage in the high-end. Lowering power is a HUGE driving force in semiconductor design right now in almost EVERY program being pursued by NOT just Intel, but everyone.
Consequently, Intel HAS to pursue low-power technology just to stay competitive in the Desktop & server market.
Example: Server farms are taking too much power. So a technology that lets you have your Mips as well as saves Watts is going to be a double win. You HAVE to pursue this goal if your Intel.
The conclusions of the article don't fit with the semiconductor business's reality.
This feature is really part of the upgrade to the bluetooth stack me thinks. Up until now, there was no way to do voice dialing with Android phones. There was a problem in the bluetooth stack (as explained by a little birdie who lives at google to me some months ago.) Android 2.2 can now perform this action even though my old Samsung phone has had the feature for 2 years Plus..
And this is the typical "liberal" tactic of throwing a red-herring into the argument by saying "racist" instead of having a REAL discussion using facts and figures.
I live in the Bay area - one of the hightest concentrations of liberal folks in the country - I suspect the original author's points are correct.
1) We're subsidizing this technology with everyone's funds so a few people can buy them and feel good about themselves. 2) They are STILL not economically viable compared to conventional technology.
The facts are that the electric car has been around as long as the combustion engine. They haven't been competitive from an engineering perspective for that entire length of time. Their inherent weekness - charge time, and cost (both to purchase and own - wait till you get to replace that $6K battery stack.) make them uncompetitive in the market.
You guys have the story slightly wrong - they didn't just take notes. They revealed technology that they got everyone else to agree to put into the standards THEN announced patents on same.
It's a slight difference - but makes them even nastier.
How do you know he didn't - Cause if you knew my call - you wouldn't make that same assumption about me.
Happens that I had to pay to take the test(s) at the FCC in person (including code at 20wpm). So I DID likely take the same tests as you. Get over yourself.
Further - I've held certain positions within the amateur community that causes me to have practical experience with getting FCC to do something about violations of 97.113 (and have had those people sited.) He is WELL within the basis and purpose as currently stated.
Let the guy enjoy his hobby - as I would suggest you do too. (and try to not be such a license bigot) After all - the thing that binds all of us together within the hobby is the love of the radio art.
Slashdot Mirror
According to my reading at Groklaw - it's going to likely be more like $20-$30 million. There is a good chance that the third report(and extraordinary even having a third chance at the apple in and of itself) didn't rectify the problems the court directed Oracle to fix. They may loose ALL testimony on damages. They have managed to shoot themselves in the foot quite satisfactorily.
Let's highlight this last "LightSquared were Idiots!" because they were trying to do something that any amateur radio operator that has been on a Field Day with more than one station would understand - wasn't going to work without even TRYING the experiment.
No - of course they don't define what is "adequate" research, likely anything that agrees with their own narrative. The facts are that the research IS ambiguous. There are likely just as many studies that say it is bad as there are saying it's benign.
This is a pretty unique story - most companies that I've worked for over the last 30 years had an established policy for funding continuing education. In other words it's normally encouraged in my experience.
As for on-line classes - the one place I know people accept readily is the University of Phoenix MBA program.
Obamacare - Government run health care because the Government knows better than you or your Doctor.
Bailouts of GM. et al, i.e. government ownership.
Support of Unions over the best interests of the country - Specifically SEIU.
There's three.
Well -gee, didn't know Florian Mueller posted here on slashdot!
Mueller is generally a very one-sided reporter. He is VERY one-sided when it comes to coverage of Android, i.e. hates it, and ALWAYs in favor of anything Apple.
IANAL - and have no real idea what the real net effect is on the lawsuit. I'll wait till there is some coverage on Groklaw to look for a real explanation of what the implications are. Granted - Groklaw is heavily pro anything FOSS, consequently it serves as a decent counter-point to Mueller.
Me thinks your professor was an idiot.
The engineering design failed in the opinion of the professor. Yet, there was documentation saying HOW to install something that wasn't followed?
Further - somewhere someone had figured out there was a problem in this area and had written corrective procedures to avoid the problem. That of and by itself can be considered an appropriate engineering response to a problem! Don't forget - engineering is the application of science to real world problems while optimizing the cost of the solution.
There are plenty of engineering disasters to look where design WAS the reason for failure. The classic is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Yet even THIS should REALLY be ascribed to a poor understanding of aerodynamics as applied to the bridge structure that was prevalent at the time.
Lastly - aircraft design is really one of the places within the practice of engineering where past errors are studied extensively with lessons learned applied to new efforts. Perhaps better than any OTHER engineering pursuit. The current safety rate of commercial aircraft proves this point.
I don't expect this to catch on...either that or it will move to some other social media vehicle like Twitter. Most companies LIKE the fact that they can get their employees free efforts after hours!
It may very well be practical to put electronics next to the eyeball to do a display or whatever, but you do NOT want to put any kind of RF source/sink there. There would only be two ways to power such a unit - solar and RF energy beamed in ala RFID. The pictures I've seen suggest the latter. Having a resonant antenna at such frequencies would scare the heck out of me. Local heating or perhaps re-radiation at microwave frequencies next to something that is essentially H2O? You do KNOW that is why microwave ovens work.
I think I'll stick with LCD monitors.
I've lived and worked in Silicon Valley for 29 years. I've worked at several start-ups. The VAST MAJORITY of start-aren't run by WASPs! Mostly Indians, Persians, or Asians! Why are there few Black entrepreneurs in High Tech...D'uh! There are very few Black engineers in High Tech. I've worked with maybe three! There was exactly one black gentleman in my graduating class of over 100 in Electrical Engineering from the biggest Cal State Engineering School.
So - whatever the reason - this is a self-selected situation. Blacks don't enter the field. The problem starts WAY BACK at the STEM education entry point - maybe in high school.
I think you have this wrong. "The reason they weren't elected, and why there are two for every state, is that they were intended to be the body that looked out for the interests of the country as a whole and not the specific interests of the state they came from or the voters therein. "
This is inherently wrong when you consider that the constitution created to sets of co-equal sovereignty. The intention as I read the constitution was to create an upper house where the concerns of the States would be taken into consideration, while the house was the "People's house." Each state had equal representation, thus no state had a larger voice than any other. The Senate was designed to give the state governments a say in the Federal governments operation.
Though we come to the same conclusion - popular elections of Senators is a huge mistake.
Because with a little research - you'll find that the professor proclaims himself a complete pacifist in an email he exchanged with the Cop.
Nope - You present no evidence to the contrary - you just insult and make unsupported statements. I mentioned a segment that uses TCL as it's fundamental scripting language. The following EDA tools use it to mention a few.
Mentor Modelsim Verilog/VHDL simulation environment
Synopsys Design Compiler, and Primetime Timing Engine
Magma Designs Chip Design environment for all phases of the tools
Cadence Encounter Chip design environment
These are the MAIN players in the industry - and they tend to use TCL in all of their other tools that require a scripting capability. The only exception that I'm aware of iis the use of SKILL by Cadence in their Schematics capture tools.
If you design chips for a living - you need to be proficient in TCL to drive the tools.
That isn't to say that other scripting languages aren't useful - didn't claim that, merely that TCL had a very strong nitch that it fills which happens to be the reason Osterhout invented it while he was at Berkeley.
Maybe so - but facts on the ground in Silicon Valley prove his point.
There are thousands of out-of-work engineers looking for work here in all disciplines. Granted that the valley is not the entire US - but it is certainly one of the premier US technical hubs. Mind you - California prices and anti-business policies don't help any.
This is so much BS - what killed off Solyndra was competition from off-shore competitors. Even with 0.5B infusion from the DOE - they couldn't build a factory that was cost competitive. Oh - I live in the town where the factory was built - they wasted huge amounts of money building a second fab when they had one two blocks down the street of similar size and capacity. There is nothing magical here - it is simple economic forces that killed them off. Get over your Evil Big Oil conspiracy theories.
It also proves that the government does a lousy job of picking economic winners and losers. That is a game the government should stay out of.
I have bad news for you all -
TCL IS VERY MUCH ALIVE and being put to use daily in it's original intended Market! It is in use through-out the EDA industry. If you look at it's history - this is what it was intended for! All of the major Electronic Design Aid Tools in the Chip design business use TCL as their under-lying scripting language.
GNU = BS
You are COMPLETELY correct about this guy. You can't trust ANYTHING he says - here is an example of what he said concerning PJ and Groklaw being paid by IBM back in the middle of the SCO lawsuits. He his completely unreliable as a reporter. He has an agenda that is transparent.
http://techrights.org/2010/08/06/record-straight-on-groklaw-ibm/
Maybe there IS a lawsuit between Apple and Mot in Germany. As others have mentioned, Mot is a BIG company and can take care of themselves. They do have fundamental technology in Cell phones, and many in radio technology. Apple just doesn't like competition, so they resort to lawsuits to clear the field for their milch-cow products. They're STILL whining about loss of the "look and feel" lawsuits over Windows 1 with Microsoft! ;-) They are just as anti-competitive as Microsoft.
You have to understand that TSMC has a different business model than Samsung. TSMC is the largest Chip Fab in the world - bar none. It is ONLY a chip fab. The article is actually in error when it implies that the relationship between ARM and TSMC is a big deal. The relationship between Samsung and ARM is likely exactly the same! They BOTH have a license to ARMs IP. The BIG difference between the two is that TSMC doesn't have System Architecture experience. They take designs from others - and create masks, then fab them for you. Most of the "fabless" semiconductor companies in the world use either TSMC or UMC (the number 2 player..)
Samsung is different in that they do both Architecture/Implementation of the design along with fabrication. TSMC doesn't really have that ability.
What Apple would have to do is take on the Architecture/Implementation roll by themselves and send the design to TSMC for fabrication. That would put Apple more in the "fabless" semiconductor business. What they do now is they buy most of the design from Samsung, i.e. they use Samsung's IP on their chip, then Samsung implements the device, and fabs it. They ship the completed device to Apple.
Hope this straightens out some of the differences between the two approaches.
The folks replying to you gave thorough explanations - you retort with vulgarities. Guess who lost the argument. Oh - and my login id is older than yours too! PLLLLLGGGHH!
Your argument is right-on and has a parallel in the hardware world. The author just doesn't understand the hardware business at ALL.
Consider one major aspect of designing hardware for a hand-held application, i.e. power usage. Any technology that helps you lower your power consumption is going to work across an entire product line, i.e. if it helps lower power at the low end of the your product line - it might be an advantage in the high-end. Lowering power is a HUGE driving force in semiconductor design right now in almost EVERY program being pursued by NOT just Intel, but everyone.
Consequently, Intel HAS to pursue low-power technology just to stay competitive in the Desktop & server market.
Example: Server farms are taking too much power. So a technology that lets you have your Mips as well as saves Watts is going to be a double win. You HAVE to pursue this goal if your Intel.
The conclusions of the article don't fit with the semiconductor business's reality.
This feature is really part of the upgrade to the bluetooth stack me thinks. Up until now, there was no way to do voice dialing with Android phones. There was a problem in the bluetooth stack (as explained by a little birdie who lives at google to me some months ago.) Android 2.2 can now perform this action even though my old Samsung phone has had the feature for 2 years Plus..
And this is the typical "liberal" tactic of throwing a red-herring into the argument by saying "racist" instead of having a REAL discussion using facts and figures.
I live in the Bay area - one of the hightest concentrations of liberal folks in the country - I suspect the original author's points are correct.
1) We're subsidizing this technology with everyone's funds so a few people can buy them and feel good about themselves.
2) They are STILL not economically viable compared to conventional technology.
The facts are that the electric car has been around as long as the combustion engine. They haven't been competitive from an engineering perspective for that entire length of time. Their inherent weekness - charge time, and cost (both to purchase and own - wait till you get to replace that $6K battery stack.) make them uncompetitive in the market.
Leave the race baiting out it.
You guys have the story slightly wrong - they didn't just take notes. They revealed technology that they got everyone else to agree to put into the standards THEN announced patents on same.
It's a slight difference - but makes them even nastier.
How do you know he didn't - Cause if you knew my call - you wouldn't make that same assumption about me.
Happens that I had to pay to take the test(s) at the FCC in person (including code at 20wpm). So I DID likely take the same tests as you. Get over yourself.
Further - I've held certain positions within the amateur community that causes me to have practical experience with getting FCC to do something about violations of 97.113 (and have had those people sited.) He is WELL within the basis and purpose as currently stated.
Let the guy enjoy his hobby - as I would suggest you do too. (and try to not be such a license bigot) After all - the thing that binds all of us together within the hobby is the love of the radio art.