Calm down. I said nothing about Apple's business model, only that your citation of the article directly contradicted its headline. That's not being "a rules Nazi" - it's being literate. It's okay to admit a mistake.
"Erm," how about reading the headline of the article you're quoting? "Apple's 10 million iPhone sales target by end of 2008 would surpass most other smart phone sales"
Still don't believe me? Why not go straight to the horse's mouth: "1% market share in 2008, 10 million units and we'll go from there."
Why do you say that? It's a perfectly legitimate business model to develop a platform that draws revenue from third-party licenses. The video game industry is an obvious example.
If these tracks are enabled for cooperative multiplayer (I've seen no confirmation one way or the other), then each of these tracks probably required a nontrivial amount of reworking.
I for one would rather have cooperative multiplayer for these tracks than single player.
I agree with you and have made similar explanations for camera-shopping friends, but I've started being swayed by the cropping crowd.
Basically yes, nearly all hobbyist photographers will print 8x10 or smaller, and 3 or more megapixels will give you a great 8x10. But what if you want to blow up just a quadrant of your frame to that size? Then you want enough sensor resolution to give you at least 3 megapixels in that quadrant.
With consumer lenses, optical resolution will start to lag sensor resolution, but pro SLR glass will almost certainly beat sensor resolutions up to 20 or 30 megapixels. Being able to print sharp 8x10's of a sixth of your entire image is kind of appealing.
Of course if you're a former slide photographer and believe that what you frame and shoot is the photo, then cropping is distasteful to you. But the option is there.
Just thought I'd point out that there's no longer a concept of "lack of formal copyright protection." As of 1989 (year of the Berne Convention), once you create something, you have its copyright until its term expires or you formally relinquish it (even then, in Europe you retain certain "natural rights" to your work).
But practically speaking you're right; it's highly doubtful that the copyright owners of the "cute" videos care or have the resources to pursue violators. Most normal people appreciate the exposure.
Although you're correct about look-and-feel, Apple v. Microsoft was a purely contractual case. The issue at hand was whether Microsoft's license of Apple IP for Windows 1.0 carried over into Windows 2.0 without a new contract.
The precedent for "look-and-feel" is the landmark case Lotus v. Borland, where UI menu trees were found unprotected by copyright law.
I don't have my references at work, but In re Alappat is considered the precedent for why software is patentable at all.
It overturned a previous case Diamond v. Diehr where algorithms, as an application of math, were found to be "natural law" and unprotected by patent law.
I was rudely correcting another's rude incorrect correction of a correct usage.
Since you brought it up, explain to me where my French was incorrect: does entre not mean between, or does acte not mean act? My other statements concerned English.
Slashdot Mirror
Calm down. I said nothing about Apple's business model, only that your citation of the article directly contradicted its headline. That's not being "a rules Nazi" - it's being literate. It's okay to admit a mistake.
"Erm," how about reading the headline of the article you're quoting? "Apple's 10 million iPhone sales target by end of 2008 would surpass most other smart phone sales"
Still don't believe me? Why not go straight to the horse's mouth: "1% market share in 2008, 10 million units and we'll go from there."
Here's a pretty diagram for you even.
Why do you say that? It's a perfectly legitimate business model to develop a platform that draws revenue from third-party licenses. The video game industry is an obvious example.
If these tracks are enabled for cooperative multiplayer (I've seen no confirmation one way or the other), then each of these tracks probably required a nontrivial amount of reworking. I for one would rather have cooperative multiplayer for these tracks than single player.
May I suggest that you, in the future, choose between the phrases "beating them back" and "fending them off?"
I agree with you and have made similar explanations for camera-shopping friends, but I've started being swayed by the cropping crowd.
Basically yes, nearly all hobbyist photographers will print 8x10 or smaller, and 3 or more megapixels will give you a great 8x10. But what if you want to blow up just a quadrant of your frame to that size? Then you want enough sensor resolution to give you at least 3 megapixels in that quadrant.
With consumer lenses, optical resolution will start to lag sensor resolution, but pro SLR glass will almost certainly beat sensor resolutions up to 20 or 30 megapixels. Being able to print sharp 8x10's of a sixth of your entire image is kind of appealing.
Of course if you're a former slide photographer and believe that what you frame and shoot is the photo, then cropping is distasteful to you. But the option is there.
To be fair, Canon (for once) took a technological idea from Nikon. The D2H had wireless FTP support back in July 2003.
Also there have been 35mm sensors before, including Canon's own 1Ds.
Your logic is flawed. If not true, it's unclear whether it's interesting.
Your conclusion would be true if your premise were "interesting if and only if true."
Except that the patent in question was filed in 2000 and cites a 1994 paper titled "Automatic Patch Retrieval & Installation."
Just thought I'd point out that there's no longer a concept of "lack of formal copyright protection."
As of 1989 (year of the Berne Convention), once you create something, you have its copyright until its term expires or you formally relinquish it (even then, in Europe you retain certain "natural rights" to your work).
But practically speaking you're right; it's highly doubtful that the copyright owners of the "cute" videos care or have the resources to pursue violators. Most normal people appreciate the exposure.
That, sir, is wicked. You sound like a Sartre fan.
- "Your Mac's been upgraded AGAIN" is an informal contraction of "Mac has."
- "Mac's" can also be the possessive form of "Mac."
Sorry to be pedantic, but you started it.For example, "My Mac's rather dirty; it likes to be spanked."
Yeah, I'd read that, too. But Snopes claims it's not true.
Note that Sculley was at Apple's helm for both disasters.
Jobs wasn't kidding when he said Sculley would "change the world."
The precedent for "look-and-feel" is the landmark case Lotus v. Borland, where UI menu trees were found unprotected by copyright law.
It overturned a previous case Diamond v. Diehr where algorithms, as an application of math, were found to be "natural law" and unprotected by patent law.
If you're going to promise to correct others' grammar, use it correctly yourself. We Canucks are still here.
Now with Expose, it's nice to have instant click'n'drag access to any drive with F11.
Yes, the Swedes and French and Germans and Canadians are railing against their inhumane condition.
I don't disagree with anything else you said, but a blanket statement against Socialism is unfair.
If by Socialism you meant Stalin's vision, then you're correct, but that's no longer the common definition of Socialism.
Without pesky people to share surface area, they can deploy much larger solar panels (and collect much more energy) than would be feasible down here.
Since you brought it up, explain to me where my French was incorrect: does entre not mean between, or does acte not mean act?
My other statements concerned English.
Aside from that, though, nice.
Kind of funny, since French is typically more resistant to change, whereas English will happily hypenate then combine words (e.g., to[day|morrow].
2. If your considered its etymology from French, you'd realise this.
You're correct that your parent poster used it incorrectly. He meant overture.
Imagine having rights to read all the email to *@hotmail.co.uk.