Not really. Apple has only been in the cell phone business for a few years... Nokia is a granddaddy. If you look at the patents Apple is saying that Nokia is infringing, they're comparatively minor. Let's look at the patents...
No. 5,555,369: Method of creating packages for a pointer-based computer system No. 6,239,795 B1: Pattern and color abstraction in a graphical user interface No. 5,315,703: Object-oriented notification framework system No. 6,189,034 B1: Method and apparatus for dynamic launching of a teleconferencing application upon receipt of a call No. 7,469,381, B2: List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display No. RE 39, 486 E: Extensible, replaceable network component system No. 5,455,854: Object-oriented telephony system No. 5, 379,431: Boot framework architecture for dynamic staged initial program load No. 5,634,074 : Serial I/O device identifies itself to a computer through a serial interface during power on reset then it is being configured by the computer No. 5,915,131 : Method and apparatus for handling I/O requests utilizing separate programming interfaces to access separate I/O services No. 7,383,453 B2: Conserving power by reducing voltage supplied to an instruction-processing portion of a processor No. 5,848,105: GMSK signal processors for improved communications capacity and quality No. 6,343,263 B1 : Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data
Mostly we're talking fluffy software patents. The last few are potentially meaty, but given how little time Apple has been in this business, and how recent these were filed and granted, they're probably pretty specific (although I don't have the time to pick through the actual claims). Worst case scenario for Nokia is probably, they pull their smartphones from the US market for 6 months while they work around them. And the US smartphone market is a minor part of Nokia's business.
But Nokia... Nokia has patents on just about every wireless technology known to man. Worst case scenario for Apple is they can cancel the iPhone and put an ethernet jack in the next MacBook Air.
What you're describing is Alcubierre drive, requires exotic materials. In all likelihood, the exotic matter required for an alcubierre drive is impossible to create. Ultimately though, the Alcubierre drive is based on general relativity- forward motion by distortion of space-time.
This paper describes something very, very different. First, it's based on quantum mechanics. Second, it seems possible to actually build.
Actually, if you've been paying any attention you'd note that this tool was developed by a 3rd party, on contract for Microsoft. So no, this wasn't their code.
Real science provides criteria by which it can be verified.
You can't blame people for being skeptical when they're told that we're having more and more violent hurricanes because of global warming... then in following years the hurricane activity drops substantially. No, as the more knowledgeable of us know, that's not exactly a scientific prediction, but people still have the basic feel for science. And when you make a prediction and it doesn't come true, that's usually a sign that you're wrong. People have surprisingly long memories, and when you try to convince the general public to believe you using scare stories... they are going to be a lot more skeptical when those scare stories don't pan out!
The climatology community has not taken the high road in its public information campaigns, and that's coming back to haunt them. Now instead of owning their mistakes in the PR sphere, and rebuilding the trust, they'd rather accuse the very people they're trying to convince that they're just idiots and being 'ignorant savages.' Maybe it'll work... but if it doesn't, that credibility is never coming back.
No, you have it very wrong, and the GP was absolutely correct. We have theories of nature that predict the existence of oxygen, and how it should behave. If someone doubts these theories, we can invent thousands of predictions and experiments to show how the real world conforms to our understanding. These are direct tests, even if oxygen itself is not directly observable.
Give me a direct test for the existence of anthropogenic global warming.
Relying on the repository model for security, is relying on independent package maintainers (assuming the maintainers ARE independent) to do code reviews to find malicious code that the author didn't want to be found.
Now in reality, when package maintainers are INTRODUCING massive security flaws into critical software (*cough*OpenSSH*cough*), I really don't think that repositories are a panacea.
My mom almost got infected last week. She went to one of the news websites (major TV network), who had a malicious ad banner. The banner redirected to a scam website which did the whole 'pretending to be an antivirus' shtick, and tricked her into downloading a trojan. The only thing that prevented her from actually infecting her own machine was the antivirus software. I don't blame her, those scam sites can be pretty scary for the casual computer user, who has been fed a lot of fear about computer viruses over the past 5 years.
So yeah, just because a user 'never visits any sketchy sites,' doesn't mean they aren't going to get directed onto a scam site and infect themselves.
Also, your logic, 'I can't think of any other explanation than X, so it must be X,' sucks. Proof by lack of imagination is terrible.
Bit of a straw man. Nobody's claiming that Linux is no more secure than Windows 95. But if you compare Linux to Windows 7, there's not much difference. They both share the same flawed user-id security model, which is what modern malware exploits.
Of course. Publishers aren't stupid, they're already under Amazon's thumb, and they've seen what's happened to the music industry with Apple. It's no wonder they want to run their own digital distribution.
Yeah, I'm sure climbers and bungee jumpers never thought of that.
A safety rope DOESN'T stop you instantly. A good safety rope is designed to stretch and absorb much of the energy of your fall, and stop your fall over a comparatively long period of time.
This was a launch at dawn. The upper part of the plume was illuminated first, since it was the first part to leave earth's shadow. The blue portion of the plume wasn't illuminated until later, and is blue because of compton scattering. There's a better photo out there which shows the low altitude white puffy plume turning into the ghostly blue plume as it gets higher.
This was most likely a test of Russia's new ICBM, designed to sneak past the US missile defense net. A failed test, that is. And they're not exactly going to admit that to the public.
They have a document describing search warrant compliance, and here you have/. misrepresenting it as 'we sell your private information to the lowest bidder!'
If you actually read the documents (I know, that's too hard), you'll see that this is a list of information Yahoo! can provide in compliance of subpoenas, search warrants and court orders.
Oooh, if the cops get a search warrant, they can look at your Yahoo! friends list. It's the end of liberty as we know it!
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. Apple has only been in the cell phone business for a few years... Nokia is a granddaddy. If you look at the patents Apple is saying that Nokia is infringing, they're comparatively minor. Let's look at the patents...
No. 5,555,369: Method of creating packages for a pointer-based computer system
No. 6,239,795 B1: Pattern and color abstraction in a graphical user interface
No. 5,315,703: Object-oriented notification framework system
No. 6,189,034 B1: Method and apparatus for dynamic launching of a teleconferencing application upon receipt of a call
No. 7,469,381, B2: List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display
No. RE 39, 486 E: Extensible, replaceable network component system
No. 5,455,854: Object-oriented telephony system
No. 5, 379,431: Boot framework architecture for dynamic staged initial program load
No. 5,634,074 : Serial I/O device identifies itself to a computer through a serial interface during power on reset then it is being configured by the computer
No. 5,915,131 : Method and apparatus for handling I/O requests utilizing separate programming interfaces to access separate I/O services
No. 7,383,453 B2: Conserving power by reducing voltage supplied to an instruction-processing portion of a processor
No. 5,848,105: GMSK signal processors for improved communications capacity and quality
No. 6,343,263 B1 : Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data
Mostly we're talking fluffy software patents. The last few are potentially meaty, but given how little time Apple has been in this business, and how recent these were filed and granted, they're probably pretty specific (although I don't have the time to pick through the actual claims). Worst case scenario for Nokia is probably, they pull their smartphones from the US market for 6 months while they work around them. And the US smartphone market is a minor part of Nokia's business.
But Nokia... Nokia has patents on just about every wireless technology known to man. Worst case scenario for Apple is they can cancel the iPhone and put an ethernet jack in the next MacBook Air.
What you're describing is Alcubierre drive, requires exotic materials. In all likelihood, the exotic matter required for an alcubierre drive is impossible to create. Ultimately though, the Alcubierre drive is based on general relativity- forward motion by distortion of space-time.
This paper describes something very, very different. First, it's based on quantum mechanics. Second, it seems possible to actually build.
Virtual particles are well established both theoretically and experimentally.
Actually, if you've been paying any attention you'd note that this tool was developed by a 3rd party, on contract for Microsoft. So no, this wasn't their code.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, for one.
There are trillions of trillions of stars. We have only one climate.
All I can think of is Stac vs. Microsoft was over 15 years ago.
Real science provides criteria by which it can be verified.
You can't blame people for being skeptical when they're told that we're having more and more violent hurricanes because of global warming... then in following years the hurricane activity drops substantially. No, as the more knowledgeable of us know, that's not exactly a scientific prediction, but people still have the basic feel for science. And when you make a prediction and it doesn't come true, that's usually a sign that you're wrong. People have surprisingly long memories, and when you try to convince the general public to believe you using scare stories... they are going to be a lot more skeptical when those scare stories don't pan out!
The climatology community has not taken the high road in its public information campaigns, and that's coming back to haunt them. Now instead of owning their mistakes in the PR sphere, and rebuilding the trust, they'd rather accuse the very people they're trying to convince that they're just idiots and being 'ignorant savages.' Maybe it'll work... but if it doesn't, that credibility is never coming back.
No, you have it very wrong, and the GP was absolutely correct. We have theories of nature that predict the existence of oxygen, and how it should behave. If someone doubts these theories, we can invent thousands of predictions and experiments to show how the real world conforms to our understanding. These are direct tests, even if oxygen itself is not directly observable.
Give me a direct test for the existence of anthropogenic global warming.
Relying on the repository model for security, is relying on independent package maintainers (assuming the maintainers ARE independent) to do code reviews to find malicious code that the author didn't want to be found.
Now in reality, when package maintainers are INTRODUCING massive security flaws into critical software (*cough*OpenSSH*cough*), I really don't think that repositories are a panacea.
If you really believe people wouldn't blame it on Windows, you must be new here.
My mom almost got infected last week. She went to one of the news websites (major TV network), who had a malicious ad banner. The banner redirected to a scam website which did the whole 'pretending to be an antivirus' shtick, and tricked her into downloading a trojan. The only thing that prevented her from actually infecting her own machine was the antivirus software. I don't blame her, those scam sites can be pretty scary for the casual computer user, who has been fed a lot of fear about computer viruses over the past 5 years.
So yeah, just because a user 'never visits any sketchy sites,' doesn't mean they aren't going to get directed onto a scam site and infect themselves.
Also, your logic, 'I can't think of any other explanation than X, so it must be X,' sucks. Proof by lack of imagination is terrible.
Bit of a straw man. Nobody's claiming that Linux is no more secure than Windows 95. But if you compare Linux to Windows 7, there's not much difference. They both share the same flawed user-id security model, which is what modern malware exploits.
Hi! Welcome to slashdot. Always nice to see a new commenter.
Of course. Publishers aren't stupid, they're already under Amazon's thumb, and they've seen what's happened to the music industry with Apple. It's no wonder they want to run their own digital distribution.
ICBMs can be tested. It's just generally polite and wise to inform those who might otherwise decide to shoot back.
Yeah, I'm sure climbers and bungee jumpers never thought of that.
A safety rope DOESN'T stop you instantly. A good safety rope is designed to stretch and absorb much of the energy of your fall, and stop your fall over a comparatively long period of time.
This was a launch at dawn. The upper part of the plume was illuminated first, since it was the first part to leave earth's shadow. The blue portion of the plume wasn't illuminated until later, and is blue because of compton scattering. There's a better photo out there which shows the low altitude white puffy plume turning into the ghostly blue plume as it gets higher.
This was most likely a test of Russia's new ICBM, designed to sneak past the US missile defense net. A failed test, that is. And they're not exactly going to admit that to the public.
Proof by contradiction only works when you can conclusively prove no other possible causes or explanations.
If only the IPCC members had such depth of insight.
If you don't like judicial powers, take it up with your representative and senators.
They have a document describing search warrant compliance, and here you have /. misrepresenting it as 'we sell your private information to the lowest bidder!'
Seems like a rational fear to me.
If you actually read the documents (I know, that's too hard), you'll see that this is a list of information Yahoo! can provide in compliance of subpoenas, search warrants and court orders.
Oooh, if the cops get a search warrant, they can look at your Yahoo! friends list. It's the end of liberty as we know it!
You mean, no true Scotsman can beat the perfect cloak.