Trademark and patents are different things. Its not enough to show a single reference to prior art. Its a question of whether the term is in general use. In this case it has become so in the time since the trademark was applied for. At the time the term multi-touch wasn't in widespread use. Touchscreen was everywhere, but not multi-touch. It was a stretch for Apple to attempt to get the term trademarked, but not entirely unreasonable.
Of course it will work the Mersenne twister will eventually cover the entire 9 letter space and then he can search though for the parts that match (yes he is doing it concurrently but that’s just an inefficient way of doing it). If he had the RAM and time he could eventually recreate every book possible.
The Wikipedia page explains it better that infinite random sting is bound to contain something that is perceived as useful. Of course the literal take on on the expression is the most funny.
Yes its missing the point. Its a neat trick and should pad his resume but its missing the point of the infinite number of monkeys. The worst thing about it is that its potentially harmful. You can hear the class discussion on infinity now, where when discussing the problem someone who's seen the story on the news/read it on the net pipes up that some guy has proven it using the internet, thus sidetracking the discussion away from the concept of infinity.
If you put the question to both of these kind of people about what kind of car to drive, you are going to get very different answers because one understands how cars are built, the other understands what the car means to other people who see it. There is a qualitiative difference there people don't always appreciate between different types of afficinados.
You get two different answers because one is well-informed and correct, the other is ignorant and wrong. One cares about things that matter, the other cares about things that don't.
No. You get two different answered because their selection criteria are different.
My mother loves her iPad 2. It does everything that she wants from a computer. It's no good for me because I want to do things that it can't do. Does this make one of us right and the other wrong? Its not a zero-sum game. We can both be right.
How many non-technical home users install a new OS on their hardware? How many of them even bother with an upgrade to a later version of Windows? The percentage has to be so small as to be non-existant. I'm not trolling here, I think its a legitimate question.
To expand on it. Computers have become commodity devices. People buy one, use it up, buy a new one in the same way they do TVs etc. As long as it lets them do the things they want they don't really care if its got the latest software on. They certainly don't care enough to install a new operating system. Most of them wouldn't even know that this was an option. This is the general population, not the tech elite that read slashdot. So, does this stop people who want to install a different OS from installing it? Yes and no. They might find that its not worth buying systems made by X, but they could always build their own, or buy from a different OEM that provides the access they need.
TL;DR its not a problem that will affect the vast majority of users. Those that it will affect will have an understandable way around it.
The problem is that private space flight isn't profitable, beyond some space tourism to LEO. If you're looking for private enterprises to venture beyond low orbit (without NASA contracting them to), you can forget it. There is no gold in them hills and no money to be made by going to them.
I'm pretty sure that there is gold, or at least rare metals, in them there hills but that the current cost of getting them back to Earth is prohibative for private space flight. It would probably be better done by automated systems anyway.
The Republicans just spent 30 years gutting the fuck out of NASA as well as every other government program not designed to throw bullets and guns at brown people.
Hmm... Perhaps after there are some brown people living on the Moon or Mars...
I have to agree that the current state of the US economy pretty much rules out meaningful human space exploration at the moment. Economic cycles being what they are things could be very different in 10 years. The problem is that a new manned spaceflight program is long term. There is nothing to stop NASA from planning for manned spaceflight now, to show some ambition and state what they intend to do. That way when an upswing comes they would be in a better position to move forward.
Time after time NASA seems to shift its focus based on the available funds. It should be looking at long term programs and advance them as funds are available. If there aren't funds for manned spaceflight don't ditch the program completely, scale it back. Planning and design work should still be possible.
I reckon that if you did the figures that Google would have enough of the search traffic to constitute being classed as a monopoly. If you only looked at smart phones I think that that percentage would be higher. Given that more people are moving to smart phones and tablets as their device for internet access I don't think that classifying Google as a monopoly would be wrong.
All you need to do to stop using Google is change the preferences of the search panel in the top right corner of your browser (and since Bing is default on IE with search built in, you actually have to choose Google deliberately).
Lastly, since there's no monopoly power to exercise, the abuse of monopoly power is impossible to exercise. After all, the only barrier to entry is how much it costs for the servers and bandwidth. And if you're going to complain about that, you'll have to complain about Microsoft, Intel, GM, Walmart,...
Why is it so important to ignore these huge differences?
Now I understand why you didn't understand the point being made in the post you replied to. You're a technologist. You visit, and post, on Slashdot. You understand how the technology works and the options open to you. The majority of society doesn't. They switch it on and type into Google. They don't even understand what an address bar is, believe me I've seen it and given up trying to educate family members, they get the link they want from Google so don't care about the extra work that they have to do.
The point is that most people don't know or care that other search engines exist. Given the trned of people moving away from general purpose computers to access the internet and instead towards integrated devices such as phones or tablets they will use whatever is available by default on the device. On the iOS devices and Android this is Google. Given their market share on such devices I'd err towards a monopoly position in search for Google.
Its important that Google is held to account, just as important that anyone in a monopoly position is held to account. If there's a possible monopoly then its important that that be investigated. If, as they say, Google is squeaky clean over this matter then the investigation with prove that. Everyone can go about their business using Google with the knowledge that the results aren't 'cooked'.
If they are found to have bias in the results, isn't that a good thing? Isn't it better to be informed than not? Remember the WiFi data that Google collected quite innocently from their street view cars? Just because the motto of Google is 'do know evil' doesn't mean that they won't cross the line. Evil is subjective.
I assume you're talking about the mythical mainstream Linux desktop market penetration. Wake up, it's just not going to happen. Linux has made great strides in the data centre. It may make strides into the business desktop arena. For home computing its going to stay limited to a small percentage of technically minded, or non-technical people supported by technically minded friends and family.
Its pretty irrelevant anyway as the general purpose computer is on its way out. Devices similar to the iPhone and iPad, combined with Internet connected TVs etc and cloud based storage, will eliminate most people's need for a general purpose computer in the next 5-10 years. Again this is apart from a small percentage of people that want what is provided by the general purpose computer. It will be an ever shrinking percentage though as the power and capability of the other devices increases.
Afterall I didn't think Apple were suing over patents, instead it was over the fact that Samsung had ripped off the iPhone interface for the Galaxy S etc. If Samsung went back to a more standard Android application launcher they could probably get this whole sorry mess sorted. Instead they are defending their right to use the the interface that Apple developed.
I thought that the patent infringement cases were with HTC.
I agree with you. Something like a big Kindle would be best, although maybe with an OLED rather than e-ink screen (color's kinda important). Most of the stuff the iPad has is not needed for this. It's like buying an Accord to get around inside a big warehouse when a bicycle or golf cart would do the job better.
As the other tablet manufacturers have shown, its not possible to put in the sort of features that you mention and beat the iPad on price. I did think of the Kindle as a better alternative to start with but after looking at the requirements it's pretty clear that there's nothing else on the market that will reliably do the job. Oh, don't ask for the government to build its own tablet, that's just a recipe for disaster, large cost overruns, and them buying an iPad in the end anyway.
This isn't stupid. Its not the government throwing their weight about. Its the police dealing with a serial offender that had been previously warned about his actions. Of course studying the facts of the case doesn't matter in Internet trolling. Its better to just read the headline, form an opinion based on what must have happened, write on trolldot.
Exactly. I'm not a UK law expert, but if he said offensive things to the person's face, what would the punishment be? I'm tired of punishments being much worse due to the fact that a computer was involved.
If they done the same sort of thing offline then the punishment would be similar. I.e. if they sent the same comments via the post, or sent a copy of the video on physical media. The press are more interested in this because its on the internet, but its the reporting that's making this a big thing, not the medium that it took place on.
1. Find a project that interests you. 2. Gain an incomplete idea of how it works. 3. Re-write it from scratch and say how much better your solution will be when it is finished. 4. Profit
Image editing Video editing Music creation Game playing (Flash games don't count) The ability to do real stuff when outside coverage
If this was such a good idea then there would be no need for WINE etc
Seriously, haven't people got past the "It's made by Google so it must be brilliant" stage? I mean I like to use my Apple stuff, but that doesn't mean that some of the things they do are meh.
These days, I'm trying to acquire a taste for Scotch. Don't look up the game, I mean the drink. I've mixed in with amaretto -- something that I simply cannot live without (nor spell consistently) -- and Scotch is still tough to drink. But I want to like it, and I'm on my way. Last you it was french onion soup. This year, it's-a-gonna-be-Scotch.
Please god no!
How can you gain an appreciation for Scotch by putting Amaretto in it? That's like trying to get an appreciation for the Mona Lisa by looking at it through dark glasses. If its a nice malt just a little water. Its meant to be diluted. That will allow you to appreciate the flavours and the differences between them.
Hmmm... I must be the exception that proves the rule.
I still buy new music, and by new music I mean new music by new bands, not just new music by bands that existed when I grew up. My musical tastes are wide and varied, covering many different genres, from indie bands, to trance, to R&B, to drum and bass, to pop, to rock etc.
I still try new foods. I still play new games, video and other types.
As a counter perhaps I still enjoy playing games because I have a richer imagination. That my desires are less shallow, incapable of being fulfilled by the latest version of CoD, or Madden.
I still play games because I enjoy them. I enjoy them in the same way that enjoy a good book, a good movie, etc. I'm not limited to video games either, I play new boardgames and table top games. I do so with my children.
To answer the OP as you get older your life becomes more complex. You have more demands on your time. You might not get the same joy out of playing because you believe you should be doing something else, or that there are other things you'd rather do. If its the former then that's a shame, if its the later embrace the other things.
Getting rid of it makes sense. Replacing it with something else doesn't. The true threat level can't be communicated to the general public as it would cause awkward questions. The current situation raises one awkward question that seems unpatriotic to ask. "Why is there always a threat of terrorism?"
There are still people starving in this world. There are people fighting for their lives and their beliefs. There are human rights violations. And there is so much else.
And these people are fighting for the right to overcharge and micromanage your entertainment.
What a load of codswallop. I suppose people are pirating because they can't afford it because they are doing charitable works to help the starving millions or have given all of their non-subsistence income to do the same.
Wake up and see the real world, because you obviously don't live in it.
Places that restrict rentals in such a way are worried about a group of immature people coming in and destroying the place without any means to pay for it.
This can be solved, in part, by paying for additional insurance to ensure that the cost of the damage is borne by an insurance company rather than the renter. Of course the insurance company will hike up the cost if the renter is under 25.
Interestingly its fine for insurance companies to discriminate based on age. They make no bones about using age to form part of their assessment as to what premium to charge. Are they exempt from anti-age discrimination law?
Slashdot Mirror
You mean you didn't get those washable books? One dip and the pages go blank allowing you to pen your own masterpiece (pen not included).
The relevant factor is whether or not it was called 'multi-touch' by anyone before Apple.
Here's a paper from 1984: http://www.billbuxton.com/leebuxtonsmith.pdf
Satisfied?
Trademark and patents are different things. Its not enough to show a single reference to prior art. Its a question of whether the term is in general use. In this case it has become so in the time since the trademark was applied for. At the time the term multi-touch wasn't in widespread use. Touchscreen was everywhere, but not multi-touch. It was a stretch for Apple to attempt to get the term trademarked, but not entirely unreasonable.
and that he missed the point of the expression?
Of course it will work the Mersenne twister will eventually cover the entire 9 letter space and then he can search though for the parts that match (yes he is doing it concurrently but that’s just an inefficient way of doing it). If he had the RAM and time he could eventually recreate every book possible.
The Wikipedia page explains it better that infinite random sting is bound to contain something that is perceived as useful. Of course the literal take on on the expression is the most funny.
Yes its missing the point. Its a neat trick and should pad his resume but its missing the point of the infinite number of monkeys. The worst thing about it is that its potentially harmful. You can hear the class discussion on infinity now, where when discussing the problem someone who's seen the story on the news/read it on the net pipes up that some guy has proven it using the internet, thus sidetracking the discussion away from the concept of infinity.
If you put the question to both of these kind of people about what kind of car to drive, you are going to get very different answers because one understands how cars are built, the other understands what the car means to other people who see it. There is a qualitiative difference there people don't always appreciate between different types of afficinados.
You get two different answers because one is well-informed and correct, the other is ignorant and wrong. One cares about things that matter, the other cares about things that don't.
No. You get two different answered because their selection criteria are different.
My mother loves her iPad 2. It does everything that she wants from a computer. It's no good for me because I want to do things that it can't do. Does this make one of us right and the other wrong? Its not a zero-sum game. We can both be right.
How many non-technical home users install a new OS on their hardware? How many of them even bother with an upgrade to a later version of Windows? The percentage has to be so small as to be non-existant. I'm not trolling here, I think its a legitimate question.
To expand on it. Computers have become commodity devices. People buy one, use it up, buy a new one in the same way they do TVs etc. As long as it lets them do the things they want they don't really care if its got the latest software on. They certainly don't care enough to install a new operating system. Most of them wouldn't even know that this was an option. This is the general population, not the tech elite that read slashdot. So, does this stop people who want to install a different OS from installing it? Yes and no. They might find that its not worth buying systems made by X, but they could always build their own, or buy from a different OEM that provides the access they need.
TL;DR its not a problem that will affect the vast majority of users. Those that it will affect will have an understandable way around it.
The problem is that private space flight isn't profitable, beyond some space tourism to LEO. If you're looking for private enterprises to venture beyond low orbit (without NASA contracting them to), you can forget it. There is no gold in them hills and no money to be made by going to them.
I'm pretty sure that there is gold, or at least rare metals, in them there hills but that the current cost of getting them back to Earth is prohibative for private space flight. It would probably be better done by automated systems anyway.
Hmm... Perhaps after there are some brown people living on the Moon or Mars...
Everyone knows that Martians are green ... sheesh
I have to agree that the current state of the US economy pretty much rules out meaningful human space exploration at the moment. Economic cycles being what they are things could be very different in 10 years. The problem is that a new manned spaceflight program is long term. There is nothing to stop NASA from planning for manned spaceflight now, to show some ambition and state what they intend to do. That way when an upswing comes they would be in a better position to move forward.
Time after time NASA seems to shift its focus based on the available funds. It should be looking at long term programs and advance them as funds are available. If there aren't funds for manned spaceflight don't ditch the program completely, scale it back. Planning and design work should still be possible.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
I reckon that if you did the figures that Google would have enough of the search traffic to constitute being classed as a monopoly. If you only looked at smart phones I think that that percentage would be higher. Given that more people are moving to smart phones and tablets as their device for internet access I don't think that classifying Google as a monopoly would be wrong.
All you need to do to stop using Google is change the preferences of the search panel in the top right corner of your browser (and since Bing is default on IE with search built in, you actually have to choose Google deliberately).
Lastly, since there's no monopoly power to exercise, the abuse of monopoly power is impossible to exercise. After all, the only barrier to entry is how much it costs for the servers and bandwidth. And if you're going to complain about that, you'll have to complain about Microsoft, Intel, GM, Walmart, ...
Why is it so important to ignore these huge differences?
Now I understand why you didn't understand the point being made in the post you replied to. You're a technologist. You visit, and post, on Slashdot. You understand how the technology works and the options open to you. The majority of society doesn't. They switch it on and type into Google. They don't even understand what an address bar is, believe me I've seen it and given up trying to educate family members, they get the link they want from Google so don't care about the extra work that they have to do.
The point is that most people don't know or care that other search engines exist. Given the trned of people moving away from general purpose computers to access the internet and instead towards integrated devices such as phones or tablets they will use whatever is available by default on the device. On the iOS devices and Android this is Google. Given their market share on such devices I'd err towards a monopoly position in search for Google.
Its important that Google is held to account, just as important that anyone in a monopoly position is held to account. If there's a possible monopoly then its important that that be investigated. If, as they say, Google is squeaky clean over this matter then the investigation with prove that. Everyone can go about their business using Google with the knowledge that the results aren't 'cooked'.
If they are found to have bias in the results, isn't that a good thing? Isn't it better to be informed than not? Remember the WiFi data that Google collected quite innocently from their street view cars? Just because the motto of Google is 'do know evil' doesn't mean that they won't cross the line. Evil is subjective.
I assume you're talking about the mythical mainstream Linux desktop market penetration. Wake up, it's just not going to happen. Linux has made great strides in the data centre. It may make strides into the business desktop arena. For home computing its going to stay limited to a small percentage of technically minded, or non-technical people supported by technically minded friends and family.
Its pretty irrelevant anyway as the general purpose computer is on its way out. Devices similar to the iPhone and iPad, combined with Internet connected TVs etc and cloud based storage, will eliminate most people's need for a general purpose computer in the next 5-10 years. Again this is apart from a small percentage of people that want what is provided by the general purpose computer. It will be an ever shrinking percentage though as the power and capability of the other devices increases.
Afterall I didn't think Apple were suing over patents, instead it was over the fact that Samsung had ripped off the iPhone interface for the Galaxy S etc. If Samsung went back to a more standard Android application launcher they could probably get this whole sorry mess sorted. Instead they are defending their right to use the the interface that Apple developed.
I thought that the patent infringement cases were with HTC.
I agree with you. Something like a big Kindle would be best, although maybe with an OLED rather than e-ink screen (color's kinda important). Most of the stuff the iPad has is not needed for this. It's like buying an Accord to get around inside a big warehouse when a bicycle or golf cart would do the job better.
As the other tablet manufacturers have shown, its not possible to put in the sort of features that you mention and beat the iPad on price. I did think of the Kindle as a better alternative to start with but after looking at the requirements it's pretty clear that there's nothing else on the market that will reliably do the job. Oh, don't ask for the government to build its own tablet, that's just a recipe for disaster, large cost overruns, and them buying an iPad in the end anyway.
This isn't stupid. Its not the government throwing their weight about. Its the police dealing with a serial offender that had been previously warned about his actions. Of course studying the facts of the case doesn't matter in Internet trolling. Its better to just read the headline, form an opinion based on what must have happened, write on trolldot.
Exactly. I'm not a UK law expert, but if he said offensive things to the person's face, what would the punishment be? I'm tired of punishments being much worse due to the fact that a computer was involved.
If they done the same sort of thing offline then the punishment would be similar. I.e. if they sent the same comments via the post, or sent a copy of the video on physical media. The press are more interested in this because its on the internet, but its the reporting that's making this a big thing, not the medium that it took place on.
Do what all enthusiastic new comers to FOSS do:
1. Find a project that interests you.
2. Gain an incomplete idea of how it works.
3. Re-write it from scratch and say how much better your solution will be when it is finished.
4. Profit
I'm thinking:
Image editing
Video editing
Music creation
Game playing (Flash games don't count)
The ability to do real stuff when outside coverage
If this was such a good idea then there would be no need for WINE etc
Seriously, haven't people got past the "It's made by Google so it must be brilliant" stage? I mean I like to use my Apple stuff, but that doesn't mean that some of the things they do are meh.
These days, I'm trying to acquire a taste for Scotch. Don't look up the game, I mean the drink. I've mixed in with amaretto -- something that I simply cannot live without (nor spell consistently) -- and Scotch is still tough to drink. But I want to like it, and I'm on my way. Last you it was french onion soup. This year, it's-a-gonna-be-Scotch.
Please god no!
How can you gain an appreciation for Scotch by putting Amaretto in it? That's like trying to get an appreciation for the Mona Lisa by looking at it through dark glasses. If its a nice malt just a little water. Its meant to be diluted. That will allow you to appreciate the flavours and the differences between them.
Hmmm ... I must be the exception that proves the rule.
I still buy new music, and by new music I mean new music by new bands, not just new music by bands that existed when I grew up. My musical tastes are wide and varied, covering many different genres, from indie bands, to trance, to R&B, to drum and bass, to pop, to rock etc.
I still try new foods. I still play new games, video and other types.
I'm 46.
As a counter perhaps I still enjoy playing games because I have a richer imagination. That my desires are less shallow, incapable of being fulfilled by the latest version of CoD, or Madden.
I still play games because I enjoy them. I enjoy them in the same way that enjoy a good book, a good movie, etc. I'm not limited to video games either, I play new boardgames and table top games. I do so with my children.
To answer the OP as you get older your life becomes more complex. You have more demands on your time. You might not get the same joy out of playing because you believe you should be doing something else, or that there are other things you'd rather do. If its the former then that's a shame, if its the later embrace the other things.
Getting rid of it makes sense. Replacing it with something else doesn't. The true threat level can't be communicated to the general public as it would cause awkward questions. The current situation raises one awkward question that seems unpatriotic to ask. "Why is there always a threat of terrorism?"
Hmmm indeed.
British Telecom is a private company. It used to be a state owned telco but HMG sold it off to the people that already owned it back in the 1980s.
There are still people starving in this world. There are people fighting for their lives and their beliefs. There are human rights violations. And there is so much else.
And these people are fighting for the right to overcharge and micromanage your entertainment.
What a load of codswallop. I suppose people are pirating because they can't afford it because they are doing charitable works to help the starving millions or have given all of their non-subsistence income to do the same.
Wake up and see the real world, because you obviously don't live in it.
Places that restrict rentals in such a way are worried about a group of immature people coming in and destroying the place without any means to pay for it.
This can be solved, in part, by paying for additional insurance to ensure that the cost of the damage is borne by an insurance company rather than the renter. Of course the insurance company will hike up the cost if the renter is under 25.
Interestingly its fine for insurance companies to discriminate based on age. They make no bones about using age to form part of their assessment as to what premium to charge. Are they exempt from anti-age discrimination law?
Way to go with the pedantry and completely miss the point. Its a good way to show the inner geek.