And I don't care what you do, so long as you don't screw up the world economy chasing something that is still up for debate.
There is no longer any scientific debate about whether AGW is happening. It is. Your problem is that you believe economics are more important than climate. Your are wrong.
You fail to understand the difference between climate and weather. Weather is what happens in a particular time and place. Weather is the average of weather over a large area and long time. Typically climate is weather averaged over 30 years.
El Nino is weather. So no, you wouldn't expect it to show up in a climate model.
Why are you claiming personal inability to say what a design patent covers when in your original post you claimed:
"The patent covers everything shown in the diagram that isn't excluded by means of being drawn in a dotted line. If you check the diagram, the only thing not dotted are the rounded corners and the curve on the back (which just means the "rounded corners" are 3D). So, no. This design patent is solely about rounded corners."
Your earlier absolute expertise seems to have evaporated.
Why don't you come clean and accept that "Apple patented rounded corners" is just a thing that Android fanboys say. And that you made a regrettable error in lowering yourself to repeat it.
Basilbrush is trying to claim that the aspect ratio, clearly part of the solid lines, is part of the patent. Just as clearly, however, Apple did not think so.
How the hell is that clear? You claimed elsewhere that Apple falsified a picture to make it look like the Samsung was the same aspect ratio. Why would they do so if they didn't consider the aspect ratio part of the design patent?
A stolen phone is an opportunity to sell a replacement - and maybe persuade someone to upgrade and go onto a new contract.
In what way will remotely destroying the phone remove this revenue stream?
At one time it was said that carriers were just as happy to sell services to the person with the stolen phone, however, as you say they are mostly sold abroad these days, which in the vast majority of cases will be a different carrier anyway.
Since you won't answer, I will. The answer is that by the same justification that the rounded corners are covered by the design, so is the aspect ratio. Hence the claim that the patent only covers rounded corners is false. Idiotically so.
You've changed the topic from what the design patent covers, to some disputed detail of a resulting court case. I ask again, in what way do the design patent drawings not cover a specific aspect ratio?
No they don't. They indicate that Apple is working on a health tracking device and a wearable device. The closest current product that fits both those categories is the chest-strap heart monitor that people wear whilst doing CV exercises. Not the watch.
Not that I'm expecting they are working on a chest strap. I just mention it as an indication that wearable computing doesn't mean watch.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if they are working on a wrist-band with no display. Something that captured data such as pulse, and possibly has a use for accelerometer info, and had limited outputs such as vibration and sound. Something that worked as a peripheral to an iPhone.
After all, with current technology an always on LCD display on a wrist watch isn't possible. And without always on, it's at a disadvantage to real watches for telling the time. And any touch UI on a watch small enough to look good would be terrible.
Google Glass only records from a first person point of view, and is less sensitive than normal human eyes or ears. So, pretty much by definition, if it can be recorded by Google Glass, it isn't private: the person doing the recording needs to be visibly present to record the information.
"Private" doesn't mean "alone". And until there is the technology to directly transfer remembered images from one brain to another, "recording" is different than "seeing".
It's framed as invasion of privacy. So a police officer or the police force would have to prove you invaded an officer's privacy. Which you might do if you filmed him at home, or whilst going to the toilet for example. Or even during a lunch break.
But it would be hard to make a case that filming a police officer whilst exercising his police powers would be an invasion of privacy.
(They might try that of course, but any reasonable justice system shouldn't accept it.)
It doesn't seem clear that they are proposing much of a ban on anything, really. This looks like more of a compensation scheme if someone does infringe on your privacy in this kind of way and you then suffer some significant, financially quantifiable harm from it.
Well, of course the state aren't going to underwrite the compensation. So paying the compensation is the punishment. Much like libel.
An application is a package of functionality. You can't easily if at all directly use the feature of somebody's else program.
I seem to remember some project from the 80s, or possibly early 90s along this line. That programmers created features, not applications, and you create your own app simply be pulling together the features that you want.
It was something other than the zigzag link you give.
I guess since this is a thought from long ago, and nothing came of it, that it was every bit as ludicrous as it sounded.
Every 6 year old learns to paint. That doesn't make everybody artists in any meaningful sense of the term.
There's a difference between daubing some powder paint on paper and mommy taping it up on the fridge, and painting something that a non-relation would want to buy and put up on the wall.
Kids learning how to draw shapes with Logo and a turtle is good education. It doesn't mean they should be confused with professional programmers who are creating complete systems or apps.
The naivety of manufacturing that 3D printing fans display is staggering. Many posters have already pointed out the reasons why even something as simple and plasticy as lego blocks won't be home printed. Bit to go to the title of TFS - shoes? People want shoes made from leather, They don't want some home made version of Crocs.
I've been told many times here that Android doesn't need separate versions for phones and tablets, because of autosizing features. Of course I never believed it, and it looks like you don't either.
So, that explains why there's so much fuss being made of the iPad version, and none about the Android version. I guess the Android one is little more than a phone viewer.
And the article you link to explains handily why Microsoft would choose to develop for iPad before Android tablets. Thanks.
I didn't know there was any lack of competition in the video serving market. Other video websites seem to find it hard to compete with YouTube. What makes Yahoo different? After all Yahoo hasn't been a force in anything much since the days when web-links were magenta and underlined, and most web page backgrounds were Windows grey.
but the reality is Office is used because large influential organizations use it and Microsoft introduces the features that they want.
That's not really true. Taking Word as an example, MS Word for DOS was a minority product, with Word Perfect being the market leader. Through a combination of WP not believing in Windows, and Microsoft having an advantage development wise - they had unique access to APIs and access to Winows source code - Word for Windows became the first fully featured word processor for Windows, and got most of the market share at that time. But they held that position by using document format lock-in. Businesses bought Word for Windows because that was the format they received documents in. And because of opaque and undocumented file formats and idiosyncratic formatting, no other products could import them flawlessly.
That's the reason for Word for Windows success. Format lock-in, not the features.
Everyone doesn't "need" a different 10%, they learn to use or choose to use a different 10%, its an empirical fact.
It's not an empirical fact, it's a claim. And one needs to differentiate between actual features, and simply different UI ways of activating the feature. For sure, some people will access a feature with a hot key, others with the menu, others with the ribbon, others with a right click, and a whole host of other alternative means for achieving the same action. But that's not "needing a different 10%". That's the same 10% via different means.
I accept that Excel has it's place through merit. But not Word. And Powerpoint, though no one seems to have made much effort to compete with it on Windows, it's outclassed by Keynote on the Mac.
Nevertheless as an Office package, the reason virtually every business uses it it the network effect, enabled by the impossibility of replicating every formatting quirk in competing software.
Office style apps, particularly word processing is just a messy UI. Unless you want less features. Period.
What on earth gives you the idea that a messy UI is intrinsic to the problem of word processing?
Word and the other MS Office apps have messy UIs because they have 25 years of legacy to cope with. Various competitors, such as LibreOffice also have legacy, plus the additional burden that they started by copying MS Office.
Slashdot Mirror
And I don't care what you do, so long as you don't screw up the world economy chasing something that is still up for debate.
There is no longer any scientific debate about whether AGW is happening. It is. Your problem is that you believe economics are more important than climate. Your are wrong.
You fail to understand the difference between climate and weather. Weather is what happens in a particular time and place. Weather is the average of weather over a large area and long time. Typically climate is weather averaged over 30 years.
El Nino is weather. So no, you wouldn't expect it to show up in a climate model.
Why are you claiming personal inability to say what a design patent covers when in your original post you claimed:
"The patent covers everything shown in the diagram that isn't excluded by means of being drawn in a dotted line. If you check the diagram, the only thing not dotted are the rounded corners and the curve on the back (which just means the "rounded corners" are 3D).
So, no. This design patent is solely about rounded corners."
Your earlier absolute expertise seems to have evaporated.
Why don't you come clean and accept that "Apple patented rounded corners" is just a thing that Android fanboys say. And that you made a regrettable error in lowering yourself to repeat it.
Which model?
Basilbrush is trying to claim that the aspect ratio, clearly part of the solid lines, is part of the patent. Just as clearly, however, Apple did not think so.
How the hell is that clear? You claimed elsewhere that Apple falsified a picture to make it look like the Samsung was the same aspect ratio. Why would they do so if they didn't consider the aspect ratio part of the design patent?
A stolen phone is an opportunity to sell a replacement - and maybe persuade someone to upgrade and go onto a new contract.
In what way will remotely destroying the phone remove this revenue stream?
At one time it was said that carriers were just as happy to sell services to the person with the stolen phone, however, as you say they are mostly sold abroad these days, which in the vast majority of cases will be a different carrier anyway.
Since you won't answer, I will. The answer is that by the same justification that the rounded corners are covered by the design, so is the aspect ratio. Hence the claim that the patent only covers rounded corners is false. Idiotically so.
You've changed the topic from what the design patent covers, to some disputed detail of a resulting court case. I ask again, in what way do the design patent drawings not cover a specific aspect ratio?
No they don't. They indicate that Apple is working on a health tracking device and a wearable device. The closest current product that fits both those categories is the chest-strap heart monitor that people wear whilst doing CV exercises. Not the watch.
Not that I'm expecting they are working on a chest strap. I just mention it as an indication that wearable computing doesn't mean watch.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if they are working on a wrist-band with no display. Something that captured data such as pulse, and possibly has a use for accelerometer info, and had limited outputs such as vibration and sound. Something that worked as a peripheral to an iPhone.
After all, with current technology an always on LCD display on a wrist watch isn't possible. And without always on, it's at a disadvantage to real watches for telling the time. And any touch UI on a watch small enough to look good would be terrible.
In what way do the design patent drawings not cover the aspect ratio?
It's exactly the same as the Apple case. The only difference is what companies you, Limecat, like and dislike.
See "Black Mirror" S01E03 "The Entire History of You".
What needs to happen is that a VERY bright red light needs to be activated when Google Glass is recording.
How about making it in the form of a laser, pointing directly into the wearer's retina.
Google Glass only records from a first person point of view, and is less sensitive than normal human eyes or ears. So, pretty much by definition, if it can be recorded by Google Glass, it isn't private: the person doing the recording needs to be visibly present to record the information.
"Private" doesn't mean "alone". And until there is the technology to directly transfer remembered images from one brain to another, "recording" is different than "seeing".
It's framed as invasion of privacy. So a police officer or the police force would have to prove you invaded an officer's privacy. Which you might do if you filmed him at home, or whilst going to the toilet for example. Or even during a lunch break.
But it would be hard to make a case that filming a police officer whilst exercising his police powers would be an invasion of privacy.
(They might try that of course, but any reasonable justice system shouldn't accept it.)
It doesn't seem clear that they are proposing much of a ban on anything, really. This looks like more of a compensation scheme if someone does infringe on your privacy in this kind of way and you then suffer some significant, financially quantifiable harm from it.
Well, of course the state aren't going to underwrite the compensation. So paying the compensation is the punishment. Much like libel.
An application is a package of functionality. You can't easily if at all directly use the feature of somebody's else program.
I seem to remember some project from the 80s, or possibly early 90s along this line. That programmers created features, not applications, and you create your own app simply be pulling together the features that you want.
It was something other than the zigzag link you give.
I guess since this is a thought from long ago, and nothing came of it, that it was every bit as ludicrous as it sounded.
Every 6 year old learns to paint. That doesn't make everybody artists in any meaningful sense of the term.
There's a difference between daubing some powder paint on paper and mommy taping it up on the fridge, and painting something that a non-relation would want to buy and put up on the wall.
Kids learning how to draw shapes with Logo and a turtle is good education. It doesn't mean they should be confused with professional programmers who are creating complete systems or apps.
The naivety of manufacturing that 3D printing fans display is staggering. Many posters have already pointed out the reasons why even something as simple and plasticy as lego blocks won't be home printed. Bit to go to the title of TFS - shoes? People want shoes made from leather, They don't want some home made version of Crocs.
I've been told many times here that Android doesn't need separate versions for phones and tablets, because of autosizing features. Of course I never believed it, and it looks like you don't either.
So, that explains why there's so much fuss being made of the iPad version, and none about the Android version. I guess the Android one is little more than a phone viewer.
And the article you link to explains handily why Microsoft would choose to develop for iPad before Android tablets. Thanks.
I didn't know there was any lack of competition in the video serving market. Other video websites seem to find it hard to compete with YouTube. What makes Yahoo different? After all Yahoo hasn't been a force in anything much since the days when web-links were magenta and underlined, and most web page backgrounds were Windows grey.
Running your own business doesn't give you that much insight into how corporates work. SOHO is a different fish altogether.
but the reality is Office is used because large influential organizations use it and Microsoft introduces the features that they want.
That's not really true. Taking Word as an example, MS Word for DOS was a minority product, with Word Perfect being the market leader. Through a combination of WP not believing in Windows, and Microsoft having an advantage development wise - they had unique access to APIs and access to Winows source code - Word for Windows became the first fully featured word processor for Windows, and got most of the market share at that time. But they held that position by using document format lock-in. Businesses bought Word for Windows because that was the format they received documents in. And because of opaque and undocumented file formats and idiosyncratic formatting, no other products could import them flawlessly.
That's the reason for Word for Windows success. Format lock-in, not the features.
Everyone doesn't "need" a different 10%, they learn to use or choose to use a different 10%, its an empirical fact.
It's not an empirical fact, it's a claim. And one needs to differentiate between actual features, and simply different UI ways of activating the feature. For sure, some people will access a feature with a hot key, others with the menu, others with the ribbon, others with a right click, and a whole host of other alternative means for achieving the same action. But that's not "needing a different 10%". That's the same 10% via different means.
I accept that Excel has it's place through merit. But not Word. And Powerpoint, though no one seems to have made much effort to compete with it on Windows, it's outclassed by Keynote on the Mac.
Nevertheless as an Office package, the reason virtually every business uses it it the network effect, enabled by the impossibility of replicating every formatting quirk in competing software.
Office style apps, particularly word processing is just a messy UI. Unless you want less features. Period.
What on earth gives you the idea that a messy UI is intrinsic to the problem of word processing?
Word and the other MS Office apps have messy UIs because they have 25 years of legacy to cope with. Various competitors, such as LibreOffice also have legacy, plus the additional burden that they started by copying MS Office.
It'd be pretty surprising if the document data models and engines weren't in separate modules from the UI.