You're an idiot. The things that slow down population growth are education and women's rights. Leaving disease intact just means you have a large, poor, diseased population that has even more trouble educating itself.
That's not context. That's a CEO back-pedalling because he just said something stupid.
Apparently Michael Dell put his famous "sell off Apple and give the money back to the shareholders" quote "in context" recently as well. He says he's the CEO of Dell and that's all so when someone asked him about Apple he said what he did because he's not a CEO for hire and only wants to focus on Dell and...
What I'm getting at is that you need to actually write more than obscure references. If you must refer to others instead of contributing something original then you have to at least summarize the relevant part of the book.
Individually most of the claims are ridiculous. All together it's unlikely Samsung would infringe on all of them without blatant and willful imitation. You know those cheap knockoffs that every brand name manufacturer in the world fights? Samsung has apparently decided they want to be one of those knockoff manufacturers.
No, I did not say that. I said that if you want to freely exploit your invention however you see fit, you should not lobby for it to be included in a standard. If you DO push it into a standard then you have to accept some restrictions on what you can do with the patent. Why should a cross-license be required? Samsung gets paid a fair and reasonable (that's the first two letters!) amount for their patent. Why should they be allowed to leverage it to force other manufacturers into cross licensing their own patents? Besides which, most of Apple's lawsuit isn't about patents anyway - it's a trade redress suit.
The accelerating expansion of the universe doesn't show a strong preference for any particular direction. If your conjecture were true, expansion would be accelerating along the equator of the universe and decelerating towards the poles.
It wouldn't be "spinning" per se, it would have angular momentum. Like an electron has spin, i.e. angular momentum, but is not spinning in a classical sense.
Not sure about the others, but Canada doesn't have a state religion.
The wikipedia article you linked to notes that certain religious schools, most notably Roman Catholic, receive public funding, but so do various other specialty schools, including some Islamic ones.
Your point is well taken though - there's a difference between a technical state religion that hangs around for historical reasons and what the GP meant by "state religion" implying more of a theocracy.
a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded; the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders; as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width; as to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in width; a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface; a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and a bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed. Packaging trade dress claims
a rectangular box with minimal metallic silver lettering and a large front-viewpicture of the product prominently on the top surface of the box; a two-piece box wherein the bottom piece is completely nested in the top piece; and use of a tray that cradles products to make them immediately visible upon opening the box.
Yes, a rounded rectangle is in there as one item. Apple is not complaining that Samsung is making rounded rectangles (which several other companies who are not being sued are also doing). They're complaining that Samsung is making devices that so closely mimic Apple's that the two are difficult to tell apart (something even Samsung's lawyers have trouble doing, apparently), for all the reasons listed.
The devices are very similar, the boxes are identical except for the names and pictures of the products, the chargers and sycing/charging cables are identical except for the colour... Samsung even ripped off some Apple icons for their marketing display.
As for FRAND, well, when you ram your patents into a standard you have to expect you're going to wind up with a little restriction on what you can do with those patents. If you don't want that then don't jam patented techniques into standards.
Hogan also predicted planet sized (and bigger) computers in his Giant's series. Except they came in two types: the aliens built lots of little computers spread out over their whole interstellar civilization and connected them together. The humans built one great big computer the size of a planet which was big enough that it spontaneously became host to a small universe inside it's circuits, including sentient beings.
In 1991 voice recognition was a totally impractical parlour trick. Machine translation was a dream. Computer vision was becoming a hot topic, but so far the only thing it had managed to achieve (badly, and mostly impractically) was optical character recognition.
Now cell phones do useful voice recognition, including dictation, can translate hundreds of languages and can take pictures and tell me where they were taken, what's in them, how much those items cost, etc.
Computers reconfigure themselves on the software level. FPGAs reconfigure themselves by rearranging logic gates. This thing can reconfigure itself BELOW that level, changing the behaviour of its basic electrical elements. It is indeed new, and something more fundamental than "yet another ia32 386 compatible CPU."
Slashdot keeps parroting this rounded rectangle thing. Samsung copied a little more than that, right down to putting some of Apple's app icons on some of their marketing. Note also that there are quite a few OTHER rounded rectangles that are NOT being sued by Apple.
Maybe Apple's design patents aren't fair, but repeating this rounded rectangle hyperbole isn't adding anything useful to the debate.
DSM IV diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder includes: - failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; - irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; - reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
If you're just irritable and don't conform but nobody gets hurt you're not a psychopath. You have to do things like repeatedly get in fights - i.e. have a negative impact on those around you.
Another example of a disorder that is difficult to define concretely is depression. The diagnostic criteria for a major depressive episode require that "The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."
The obsessive-compulsive disorder criteria includes: "The obsessions or compulsions cause marked distress, are time consuming (take more than 1 hour a day), or significantly interfere with the person’s normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or usual social activities or relationships."
So no, I didn't make it up. If "this guy you know" is just a run of the mill dick then he probably doesn't have a mental disorder. But if he's constantly getting in fights or assaulting people and shows a callous disregard for the rights and wellbeing of others or himself, then he very well might.
A general criteria for a mental disease is that it has a strong negative effect on your life or someone else's. Psychopathy, at least the kind these guys studied, results in people getting killed.
The field of mental health has made some mistakes but I don't think calling psychopathy a disease is one of them.
That's an interesting trinity you've got there. Although if christianity can worship a trinity and still be monotheistic, I guess a trinity with four members isn't do big a stretch.
Slashdot Mirror
You're an idiot. The things that slow down population growth are education and women's rights. Leaving disease intact just means you have a large, poor, diseased population that has even more trouble educating itself.
The value we assign gold is far higher than it's actual useful value. Just like, but to less extent and for different reasons, diamonds.
From the video face unlock is enough of a pain that most people will probably turn it off after showing it to all their friends anyway.
A marketing company lying? Say it isn't so!
That's not context. That's a CEO back-pedalling because he just said something stupid.
Apparently Michael Dell put his famous "sell off Apple and give the money back to the shareholders" quote "in context" recently as well. He says he's the CEO of Dell and that's all so when someone asked him about Apple he said what he did because he's not a CEO for hire and only wants to focus on Dell and...
Yeah right.
The lack of a parachute would make any organism that tried to do that naturally a very definite evolutionary dead end.
"primarily BIS/BES services"
Yeah, how's that working out for them?
Oh, I see. Well then, "Encyclopedia Britannica!"
What I'm getting at is that you need to actually write more than obscure references. If you must refer to others instead of contributing something original then you have to at least summarize the relevant part of the book.
Individually most of the claims are ridiculous. All together it's unlikely Samsung would infringe on all of them without blatant and willful imitation. You know those cheap knockoffs that every brand name manufacturer in the world fights? Samsung has apparently decided they want to be one of those knockoff manufacturers.
No, I did not say that. I said that if you want to freely exploit your invention however you see fit, you should not lobby for it to be included in a standard. If you DO push it into a standard then you have to accept some restrictions on what you can do with the patent. Why should a cross-license be required? Samsung gets paid a fair and reasonable (that's the first two letters!) amount for their patent. Why should they be allowed to leverage it to force other manufacturers into cross licensing their own patents? Besides which, most of Apple's lawsuit isn't about patents anyway - it's a trade redress suit.
Perfect. Thank you!
That's one in a million universes, not one in a million galaxies.
The accelerating expansion of the universe doesn't show a strong preference for any particular direction. If your conjecture were true, expansion would be accelerating along the equator of the universe and decelerating towards the poles.
It wouldn't be "spinning" per se, it would have angular momentum. Like an electron has spin, i.e. angular momentum, but is not spinning in a classical sense.
Not sure about the others, but Canada doesn't have a state religion.
The wikipedia article you linked to notes that certain religious schools, most notably Roman Catholic, receive public funding, but so do various other specialty schools, including some Islamic ones.
Your point is well taken though - there's a difference between a technical state religion that hangs around for historical reasons and what the GP meant by "state religion" implying more of a theocracy.
Read the book "The Caves of Steel", by Isaac Asimov.
What is this, argument from fiction? Can someone translate that into snobby latin?
"Then maybe Apple shouldn't have filed a lawsuit arguing in significant part"
Ah, weasel words. Aren't they great?
Here's a breakdown of Apple's complaint: http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/
Note the first list:
Yes, a rounded rectangle is in there as one item. Apple is not complaining that Samsung is making rounded rectangles (which several other companies who are not being sued are also doing). They're complaining that Samsung is making devices that so closely mimic Apple's that the two are difficult to tell apart (something even Samsung's lawyers have trouble doing, apparently), for all the reasons listed.
Here are some pictures: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/09/28/no-comment-proof-that-samsung-shamelessly-copies-apple/
The devices are very similar, the boxes are identical except for the names and pictures of the products, the chargers and sycing/charging cables are identical except for the colour... Samsung even ripped off some Apple icons for their marketing display.
As for FRAND, well, when you ram your patents into a standard you have to expect you're going to wind up with a little restriction on what you can do with those patents. If you don't want that then don't jam patented techniques into standards.
Hogan also predicted planet sized (and bigger) computers in his Giant's series. Except they came in two types: the aliens built lots of little computers spread out over their whole interstellar civilization and connected them together. The humans built one great big computer the size of a planet which was big enough that it spontaneously became host to a small universe inside it's circuits, including sentient beings.
Sawyer gives reasons for his prediction. You just make a contrary prediction with no justification at all.
In 1991 voice recognition was a totally impractical parlour trick. Machine translation was a dream. Computer vision was becoming a hot topic, but so far the only thing it had managed to achieve (badly, and mostly impractically) was optical character recognition.
Now cell phones do useful voice recognition, including dictation, can translate hundreds of languages and can take pictures and tell me where they were taken, what's in them, how much those items cost, etc.
Those are diagnostic criteria from the DSM IV, which is the standard diagnostic manual for psychiatrists in North America.
You just can't admit you're wrong hey?
Computers reconfigure themselves on the software level. FPGAs reconfigure themselves by rearranging logic gates. This thing can reconfigure itself BELOW that level, changing the behaviour of its basic electrical elements. It is indeed new, and something more fundamental than "yet another ia32 386 compatible CPU."
Slashdot keeps parroting this rounded rectangle thing. Samsung copied a little more than that, right down to putting some of Apple's app icons on some of their marketing. Note also that there are quite a few OTHER rounded rectangles that are NOT being sued by Apple.
Maybe Apple's design patents aren't fair, but repeating this rounded rectangle hyperbole isn't adding anything useful to the debate.
DSM IV diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder includes:
- failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
- irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
- reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
If you're just irritable and don't conform but nobody gets hurt you're not a psychopath. You have to do things like repeatedly get in fights - i.e. have a negative impact on those around you.
Another example of a disorder that is difficult to define concretely is depression. The diagnostic criteria for a major depressive episode require that "The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."
The obsessive-compulsive disorder criteria includes: "The obsessions or compulsions cause marked distress, are time consuming (take more than 1 hour a day), or significantly interfere with the person’s normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or usual social activities or relationships."
So no, I didn't make it up. If "this guy you know" is just a run of the mill dick then he probably doesn't have a mental disorder. But if he's constantly getting in fights or assaulting people and shows a callous disregard for the rights and wellbeing of others or himself, then he very well might.
A general criteria for a mental disease is that it has a strong negative effect on your life or someone else's. Psychopathy, at least the kind these guys studied, results in people getting killed.
The field of mental health has made some mistakes but I don't think calling psychopathy a disease is one of them.
That's an interesting trinity you've got there. Although if christianity can worship a trinity and still be monotheistic, I guess a trinity with four members isn't do big a stretch.