Furthermore, I believe that AT&T is deliberately throttling speeds to 3G iPhones, because I get much higher speeds using the Samsung Blackjack in the same location, both using AT&Ts service. As a matter of fact, most of the time, the Blackjack is 2X faster (400-1000kbps vs. 200-600kbps).
I'd mod this FASCINATING +2 if I only had that modding ability.
Too bad that TomTom will likely simply settle for a cross-licensing agreement rather than taking Microsoft to the cleaners over this. The result is that the next company along the way will have to fight the very same battle.
Anyone notice how the 64-bit OS versions of IE8 downloads are anywhere from 50% to 100% larger than their 32-bit equivalents? Anyone have a good explanation for this? (And I don't mean that 64-bits are twice as big as 32-bits. If every 64-bit app doubles its code size then you lose a great deal simply by the fact that the program has to load twice as much code to execute in limited cache space.)
This patent fails the obviousness test. Prior art is every notebook computer and tablet existing up to 1999, while cryptographic key exchange mechanisms predate that. If Discovery Channel could hold up their eBook reader actually built in 1999 next to a Kindle 2 and show the obvious similarities then they might have a case.
If they'd actually even sold even a single unit of what they patented (if they ever did it was such a miserable market failure that the rest of us have never seen or heard about it) then they might have a case.
If they could show contracts for content delivery to their device with commercial providers of telecommunications services then they might have a case.
If Discovery Channel could show where they went to Amazon with their patent application - or anyone else, for that matter - and said: "See what we have invented in our minds. Would you like to build it and we both get rich?" then they might have a case.
As I see it Discovery Channel is not, and never has been, in the eBook reader business. They never tried to license their design, nor build it themselves. They couldn't build at the time what they patented and it's a mystery why they even patented it at all since this is not, and never was, their business. Now they're just a big bunch of patent trolls, aided and abetted by an incompetent Patent Office. I hope Amazon challenges and overturns this patent. And I hope that Prior Art project gets involved.
If the Patent Office actually made you deliver a working model of what you were patenting then a lot of this garbage would go away immediately. Imagine a working model of a perpetual motion machine?:^) These days too many people try to patent a perpetual money machine that they could have never actually built or sold themselves. The Patent Office should not be protecting that to the determent of the rest of us!
This is fraud because they bonded multiple pairs. Yeah I can run a hundred pairs of wire in parallel and get amazing transfer rates, but I can do that with current technology and transmission rates and it means nothing except that I can spell "parallel data transfer". Speeds should be measured by the single wire-pair circuit only! This used more wire pairs than most customers have coming into their houses.
Scientific studies at Cambridge showed that the oak panel on which the Cobbe portrait was mounted came from trees felled in the last 20 years of the 16th century, pointing to a date for the painting in the early 1600s.
Why do you have to mix two different measurement systems to the confusion of the readers? Why give dates as both 16th century (meaning the 1500s) and 1600s (meaning the 17th century) in the same d@mn sentence? Pick one method and stick with it!
Hey, this has got to be job security for those of us with years of experience under our belts in the industry, realistic expectations of what jobs actually entail, legacy skills in addition to bleeding-edge stuff, and a proven track record of projects brought in to completion (including the documentation).
I'd be pissed (and I don't mean drunk) to spend so much money for a Kindle and not be able to read everything available for reading on it. Even iPod plays MP3 tunes from any source.
This is probably why the previous generation preferred tube amps to transistor ones - and gave you all kinds of arguments just why one was "better" than the other one, most of which were meaningless.
The real question is, is this Apple's own KeyGen? Are they generating codes that belong on valid gift cards and rendering those cards useless as apparent duplicates?
After reading all of these letters, I don't think that anybody would really take this guy seriously.
You've nailed the point. Most people don't see all the letters. They only see the one they received and few know the actual history of any art they might be using.
And that's not a 419 (Nigerian) scam. It's the classic mob extortion line: "You've got a nice little web-site here. Be a shame if anything happened to it - along with personally bankrupting you for copyright infringement. Remember those huge statuary damages the RIAA is always suing for...?"
some say that songs recorded against a click track sound sterile, that the missing tempo deviations added life to a song.
That's elitist crap once again. The same sort of thing you get from the people bemoaning the death of vinyl and tube amps. As long as there's a person (i.e. drummer) in the loop you'll have deviations from "perfect". I, for one, wish these complainers who want to point out how they "hear" things that none of the rest of us will never notice - and then need to point them out to all of us - would just go away to their own ultra expensive listening rooms and stay there!
Think of most of the popular music that is promoted by the RIAA, how little of it has any lasting or enduring value
That's why I still listen to the music of the 60's compared to the pap of today.
And that's why the RIAA and its foreign-owned record companies are trying to retroactively extend copyright into perpetuity with the cry, "But think about the artists!"
If there's any legal insufficiency in any of this it's in the RIAA initial suit. Making Available != Actual Distribution, except in the pinhead minds of the RIAA themselves.
I hope that every author who actually does allow disabling of TTS gets a nasty letter from every Kindle owner who bought his book.
I also hope that Amazon clearly marks in VERY LARGE RED LETTERS each Kindle book that has this feature disabled, along with the author's contact information.
Most of all I hope for a quick crack to this NO_TTS flag. Or can you avoid it by not updating your Kindle firmware?
Confidential settlements should be illegal - entirely! The courts are a public institution and once you drag people into them it affects the public. The public deserves to know who won and who lost here - and in all such cases!
If you want the one correct solution it is to charge more for the Kindle version which runs on a Kindle and features TTS than for a regular eBook version. This way you collect money for the "dual use" feature of the book on Kindle.
And Amazon then responds with a !TTS flag which flags works (at a cheaper price) for books where the TTS feature is disabled.
But it's up to the author's to say that their work is more valuable when played on a Kindle and charge accordingly for it - not Amazon!
Slashdot Mirror
If it's in Canada, how could that possibly be true? :^)
I'd mod this FASCINATING +2 if I only had that modding ability.
Couldn't happen to a more deserving pair for the way they've handled this whole iPhone rollout.
Too bad that TomTom will likely simply settle for a cross-licensing agreement rather than taking Microsoft to the cleaners over this. The result is that the next company along the way will have to fight the very same battle.
Anyone notice how the 64-bit OS versions of IE8 downloads are anywhere from 50% to 100% larger than their 32-bit equivalents? Anyone have a good explanation for this? (And I don't mean that 64-bits are twice as big as 32-bits. If every 64-bit app doubles its code size then you lose a great deal simply by the fact that the program has to load twice as much code to execute in limited cache space.)
The RIAA lies. That's all you need to know.
Solution: https//facebook.com
This patent fails the obviousness test. Prior art is every notebook computer and tablet existing up to 1999, while cryptographic key exchange mechanisms predate that. If Discovery Channel could hold up their eBook reader actually built in 1999 next to a Kindle 2 and show the obvious similarities then they might have a case.
:^) These days too many people try to patent a perpetual money machine that they could have never actually built or sold themselves. The Patent Office should not be protecting that to the determent of the rest of us!
If they'd actually even sold even a single unit of what they patented (if they ever did it was such a miserable market failure that the rest of us have never seen or heard about it) then they might have a case.
If they could show contracts for content delivery to their device with commercial providers of telecommunications services then they might have a case.
If Discovery Channel could show where they went to Amazon with their patent application - or anyone else, for that matter - and said: "See what we have invented in our minds. Would you like to build it and we both get rich?" then they might have a case.
As I see it Discovery Channel is not, and never has been, in the eBook reader business. They never tried to license their design, nor build it themselves. They couldn't build at the time what they patented and it's a mystery why they even patented it at all since this is not, and never was, their business. Now they're just a big bunch of patent trolls, aided and abetted by an incompetent Patent Office. I hope Amazon challenges and overturns this patent. And I hope that Prior Art project gets involved.
If the Patent Office actually made you deliver a working model of what you were patenting then a lot of this garbage would go away immediately. Imagine a working model of a perpetual motion machine?
This is fraud because they bonded multiple pairs. Yeah I can run a hundred pairs of wire in parallel and get amazing transfer rates, but I can do that with current technology and transmission rates and it means nothing except that I can spell "parallel data transfer". Speeds should be measured by the single wire-pair circuit only! This used more wire pairs than most customers have coming into their houses.
Attack Blimps anyone?
What one blimp can do, another one can duplicate.
Why do you have to mix two different measurement systems to the confusion of the readers? Why give dates as both 16th century (meaning the 1500s) and 1600s (meaning the 17th century) in the same d@mn sentence? Pick one method and stick with it!
Hey, this has got to be job security for those of us with years of experience under our belts in the industry, realistic expectations of what jobs actually entail, legacy skills in addition to bleeding-edge stuff, and a proven track record of projects brought in to completion (including the documentation).
So why am I looking for work right now too?
I'd be pissed (and I don't mean drunk) to spend so much money for a Kindle and not be able to read everything available for reading on it. Even iPod plays MP3 tunes from any source.
This is probably why the previous generation preferred tube amps to transistor ones - and gave you all kinds of arguments just why one was "better" than the other one, most of which were meaningless.
The real question is, is this Apple's own KeyGen? Are they generating codes that belong on valid gift cards and rendering those cards useless as apparent duplicates?
Yeah I can make Windows faster than its previous version - but it will take a huge memory footprint hit in the process.
You've nailed the point. Most people don't see all the letters. They only see the one they received and few know the actual history of any art they might be using.
And that's not a 419 (Nigerian) scam. It's the classic mob extortion line: "You've got a nice little web-site here. Be a shame if anything happened to it - along with personally bankrupting you for copyright infringement. Remember those huge statuary damages the RIAA is always suing for...?"
That's elitist crap once again. The same sort of thing you get from the people bemoaning the death of vinyl and tube amps. As long as there's a person (i.e. drummer) in the loop you'll have deviations from "perfect". I, for one, wish these complainers who want to point out how they "hear" things that none of the rest of us will never notice - and then need to point them out to all of us - would just go away to their own ultra expensive listening rooms and stay there!
That's why I still listen to the music of the 60's compared to the pap of today.
And that's why the RIAA and its foreign-owned record companies are trying to retroactively extend copyright into perpetuity with the cry, "But think about the artists!"
If there's any legal insufficiency in any of this it's in the RIAA initial suit. Making Available != Actual Distribution, except in the pinhead minds of the RIAA themselves.
Or not, if the consumers say enough-is-enough and I refuse to be ripped-off any worse than I already am.
Just who are these people who voted for Obama, and did they really know what they were voting for when they did?
Or are they like the Democrats in Congress who voted for a Stimulus Bill that none of they could have read before they voted?
I hope that every author who actually does allow disabling of TTS gets a nasty letter from every Kindle owner who bought his book.
I also hope that Amazon clearly marks in VERY LARGE RED LETTERS each Kindle book that has this feature disabled, along with the author's contact information.
Most of all I hope for a quick crack to this NO_TTS flag. Or can you avoid it by not updating your Kindle firmware?
When I have mod points and one of his posts is within my moderation window I tend to mod his posts +1 Informative - because they are!
Confidential settlements should be illegal - entirely! The courts are a public institution and once you drag people into them it affects the public. The public deserves to know who won and who lost here - and in all such cases!
If you want the one correct solution it is to charge more for the Kindle version which runs on a Kindle and features TTS than for a regular eBook version. This way you collect money for the "dual use" feature of the book on Kindle.
And Amazon then responds with a !TTS flag which flags works (at a cheaper price) for books where the TTS feature is disabled.
But it's up to the author's to say that their work is more valuable when played on a Kindle and charge accordingly for it - not Amazon!