When you buy a hard drive, you are generally buying the actual hard drive.
What if he bought a complete PC, with Windows 7 Starter and a non-upgrade copy of Ultimate (let's stay away from the "scary" hacker OS for this example),
Are you seriously suggesting that it was mere coincidence that Apple was first to market with the iPhone.
If you had bothered to actually understand my post you wouldn't have to ask. I'm arguing that it's no coincidence that three very similar phones came out at the same time following design and technological trends in the industry.
Incidentally, the fact that Apple was working on a touch phone was widely rumored prior to introduction, so it is hardly surprising that some phone manufacturers began working on similar designs in expectation of jumping upon Apple's coattails just in case Apple's approach was successful.
Conspiracy theories is all you have? The LG Prada was the most radical design of the batch, Apple didn't get around to the double-symmetry design until the iPhone 4. The N810 is a clear evolution of the N800. Apple happened to be the most popular of the soap bar phone generation, but the trends leading up to it are quite clear if one bothers to look.
It is quite clear that it is possible to produce a touch phone that is not grossly imitative of the iPhone.
Sure, you could make it a taco. One shouldn't have to be different just because your pet company doesn't like competition. Simplicity is not a unique feature in itself, if Apple wants a protected design, it should make it distinct, not try to force others to add superfluous elements.
The sort of courage that the patent system is designed to reward and foster.
The patent system is designed to foster open innovation by rewarding disclosure, you are as familiar with that as your are with pre-iPhone device design or the technological issues needed to be solved for it to exist in the first place.
Which brings me back to my original point: if the courts ultimately conclude that the patent system does not protect what Apple achieved with the iPhone and iPad, then patent protection is too weak, not too strong.
The patent system is too weak if it doesn't reward market success with a monopoly? Because that is what Apple achieved and that is the only rewards a company needs to continue.
The features were coming together independently of Apple, some of it design evolution (rounded corners, outer bands), some technical advancement (stylus-less touchscreens, efficient electronics, small batteries, gorilla glass). The fact that three very similar devices were released in one year (LG Prada, Apple iPhone, Nokia N810) would be a very strong indicator that this was a general, not Apple centric, trend.
Nope, things were moving in that direction already. The LG Prada, iPhone and Nokia came out with very similar designs practically simultaneously, i.e. the trend became the new dominant design at the time of the iPhone, not necessarily just because of it.
Bing didn't copy, Google engineers force fed them. it's just another version of Google bombing, deliberate manipulation, no more. If you can point to several identical result pages for common search terms you might have a case of actual copying.
I've been supremely unimpressed with the recent movies that shun the use of CGI. Replicating the over-the-top look that is the signature of CGI abuse using non-CGI approaches is beyond stupid, worse if you kill people in the process. CGI, these says, could potentially match everything you enjoy about model shots. The problem isn't CGI, the problem is that they don't want that look and changing techniques will not fix that.
They want a convenient device to play games, listen to music, look at photos, read email and browse the web.
The reason they get a computer though, is that it's the device that made all of the above possible. Otherwise you'd have a game console to play games, a music player for music, a camera that could print pictures at the store and maybe a digital photo frame to view them on. Some crappy terminal that can deal with 1 message at a time and store 100 and a WebTV. That is if half of those would have been developed at all without general purpose computers spearheading the applications and letting them mature to the point where they can be baked into appliances.
Regardless of what people "want" (never design for what people actually request) is a streamlined and secured computer that can be optionally expanded by the end user. They want this because it will give them more streamlined and secured applications, at a faster pace, over the long run and because it will give them more and cheaper content. The choice between a computing appliance and a general purpose computer is a false choice, it can be one machine in different user-selectable configurations. It just happens to be in the interests of the Apples and Amazons of this world to not permit this.
The normal people you are talking about won't wonder out of the official app store. Well, they might with your design that allows the to click on a link in the email. What you need to do is put safely away under a software warranty disclaimer (your locked down software solution does come with a warranty to back those claims of security and ease of use, right?) where they enter it manually.
This way you have semi-educated users, and those who have needs not covered by your restrictive policies wandering into the wild-west. If that happens to be most users, than they have spoken for freedom to install from third party sources (and your policies are too restrictive). And yes, "normal" people will think twice about losing tech support.
The license prevents you from slapping on additional restrictions, cry me a river. Your end result wouldn't be free software, so stop cut the "it's not really free" bullshit. It's free as long as it's free, it's not free for you to make not free.
And copyright isn't a monoply on "books" or "fiction" or "novels".
And "books" are not direct replacements for "books". There is competition for your entertainment dollars, but there isn't competition to bring a cheaper and more universal e-version of Twilight out.
Because the correct price for a good has nothing, zero, zip, nada, to do with the cost of producing it.
In cases of non-trivial production costs it certainly is a consideration (or will you make that up in volume?). And markets with real competition (copyright being a monopoly) definitely tend to run up against that barrier.
People don't get bent out of shape when a plumber refuses to put in a spigot at every desk or when an electrician doesn't run a line for your grill to it. But IT is stupid for not understanding why you need Incredimail to do your job.
I mean, Russia is recovering little by little, to such an extent that they're the only country in the world which can still reliably put shit into orbit, and they intend to land on Venus again in 2016, and this time spend a month on the surface, not a couple of hours like their previous missions.
You shouldn't point at Russia unless you are willing to follow their example. Shuttles were sexy, but expensive; they can put shit into orbit reliably because they are using dirt simple tech to do it (i.e. they couldn't afford the Buran). How will they go to Venus? Same way they almost beat the US to the moon, with robots. If the private industry wants to invent the space pen equivalent of fancy reusable manned launchers, you buy it after they do the R&D. But put your money into the simplest thing that will work.
Robots are pretty neat and do some good work; they'll definitely improve. But history shows that where explorers go, some will eventually want to follow - whether for adventure, profit, or to live.
Robots are the explorers, we are wimps in space, they are built for it. The only way any of us are ever following them to live is either as robots (or GEd roachmen) or after they have built enough infrastructure to actually let us survive. Humans suck at space exploration, that is not something you can will away.
I have the HS20EXR and would recommend it as an entry level in a heartbeat. The manual zoom alone is worth it. It is really odd around the edges if you look closely, so if any of the following are deal breakers for you, stay away.
The tripod mount thread is plastic, no idea why. Worse, it is right next to the battery cover, so you can't leave a quick release plate on all the time.
Manual zoom is not on a discreet range, so it can be a bit tricky at times.
You will be able to shoot in most low light situations (but you won't like the noise). However at some point it hits a threshold and just can't perceive any light at all. I've tried stars and a night horizon with 30 second exposure and it's pitch black.
Things can be somewhat "wavy" at 30x zoom. I'm not sure if this is due to motion compensation or not as I've only shot 30x freehand. OTOH you can easily shoot 30x freehand.
Raws are huge, yet only half resolution. Consequentially they take a while to write, so shot-to-shot time is slower than jpeg.
Bursts are fast (both jpeg and raw) considering the price, but they take a bit to write out. Worse with raws.
As mentioned raws are only half resolution, they also show the (significant) lens distortion. The camera does an excellent job of fixing the jpegs though, so it isn't noticeable otherwise. I'm in the process of creating correction data, but without that some focal lengths suck. At least the colors are true to the jpegs with the color matrix applied.
Auto white balance, while generally spot on, tends to be blue with the pop-up flash. Oddly enough a white pop-up flash diffuser fixes that while taking of the worst of the glare, highly recommended if you are going to use the flash.
I think that's most of what I've found. With that out of the way the camera performs admirably in most common shooting situations. I guess I should also list some of the better surprises.
Feels great in the hand, well balanced, doesn't tend to jitter much.
30x zoom, starting at a 24mm equivalent wide angle. In one small bag. With a manual zoom ring. Just about nothing else gives you that kind of flexibility. If you can only afford one camera the quality is a trade off well worth considering.
Auto white balance is very good in all outdoor lighting conditions and good otherwise.
The high-speed video modes are great fun.
Has cat/dog face recognition, while this may seem silly (and it is!) the auto release actually does capture really good pet portraits.
The electronic viewfinder has a proximity sensor, so you don't have to worry about switching between it and the display, put it up to your eye and the camera will take care of you. Don't know how common it is but it's nice no matter what.
Slashdot Mirror
What if he bought a complete PC, with Windows 7 Starter and a non-upgrade copy of Ultimate (let's stay away from the "scary" hacker OS for this example),
What about neutrino bombs?
Anyone who goes on about failsafe designs and thorium?
If you had bothered to actually understand my post you wouldn't have to ask. I'm arguing that it's no coincidence that three very similar phones came out at the same time following design and technological trends in the industry.
Conspiracy theories is all you have? The LG Prada was the most radical design of the batch, Apple didn't get around to the double-symmetry design until the iPhone 4. The N810 is a clear evolution of the N800. Apple happened to be the most popular of the soap bar phone generation, but the trends leading up to it are quite clear if one bothers to look.
Sure, you could make it a taco. One shouldn't have to be different just because your pet company doesn't like competition. Simplicity is not a unique feature in itself, if Apple wants a protected design, it should make it distinct, not try to force others to add superfluous elements.
The patent system is designed to foster open innovation by rewarding disclosure, you are as familiar with that as your are with pre-iPhone device design or the technological issues needed to be solved for it to exist in the first place.
The patent system is too weak if it doesn't reward market success with a monopoly? Because that is what Apple achieved and that is the only rewards a company needs to continue.
The tablet PC was unpopular reality, a series of niche products, not a dream.
The features were coming together independently of Apple, some of it design evolution (rounded corners, outer bands), some technical advancement (stylus-less touchscreens, efficient electronics, small batteries, gorilla glass). The fact that three very similar devices were released in one year (LG Prada, Apple iPhone, Nokia N810) would be a very strong indicator that this was a general, not Apple centric, trend.
The home button isn't a button any more?
Nope, things were moving in that direction already. The LG Prada, iPhone and Nokia came out with very similar designs practically simultaneously, i.e. the trend became the new dominant design at the time of the iPhone, not necessarily just because of it.
Are the author's guilds the copyright holders? You claim they are...
More useful than hiybbprqag.
Bing didn't copy, Google engineers force fed them. it's just another version of Google bombing, deliberate manipulation, no more. If you can point to several identical result pages for common search terms you might have a case of actual copying.
TNG used models, yet you still somehow are trying to blame it on CGI. It's the use, not the tool.
The tech can handle the lighting just fine, you are confusing art direction with technical capability.
I've been supremely unimpressed with the recent movies that shun the use of CGI. Replicating the over-the-top look that is the signature of CGI abuse using non-CGI approaches is beyond stupid, worse if you kill people in the process. CGI, these says, could potentially match everything you enjoy about model shots. The problem isn't CGI, the problem is that they don't want that look and changing techniques will not fix that.
The reason they get a computer though, is that it's the device that made all of the above possible. Otherwise you'd have a game console to play games, a music player for music, a camera that could print pictures at the store and maybe a digital photo frame to view them on. Some crappy terminal that can deal with 1 message at a time and store 100 and a WebTV. That is if half of those would have been developed at all without general purpose computers spearheading the applications and letting them mature to the point where they can be baked into appliances.
Regardless of what people "want" (never design for what people actually request) is a streamlined and secured computer that can be optionally expanded by the end user. They want this because it will give them more streamlined and secured applications, at a faster pace, over the long run and because it will give them more and cheaper content. The choice between a computing appliance and a general purpose computer is a false choice, it can be one machine in different user-selectable configurations. It just happens to be in the interests of the Apples and Amazons of this world to not permit this.
The normal people you are talking about won't wonder out of the official app store. Well, they might with your design that allows the to click on a link in the email. What you need to do is put safely away under a software warranty disclaimer (your locked down software solution does come with a warranty to back those claims of security and ease of use, right?) where they enter it manually.
This way you have semi-educated users, and those who have needs not covered by your restrictive policies wandering into the wild-west. If that happens to be most users, than they have spoken for freedom to install from third party sources (and your policies are too restrictive). And yes, "normal" people will think twice about losing tech support.
The license prevents you from slapping on additional restrictions, cry me a river. Your end result wouldn't be free software, so stop cut the "it's not really free" bullshit. It's free as long as it's free, it's not free for you to make not free.
And "books" are not direct replacements for "books". There is competition for your entertainment dollars, but there isn't competition to bring a cheaper and more universal e-version of Twilight out.
In cases of non-trivial production costs it certainly is a consideration (or will you make that up in volume?). And markets with real competition (copyright being a monopoly) definitely tend to run up against that barrier.
France does over 70% from failsafe reactors?
People don't get bent out of shape when a plumber refuses to put in a spigot at every desk or when an electrician doesn't run a line for your grill to it. But IT is stupid for not understanding why you need Incredimail to do your job.
You shouldn't point at Russia unless you are willing to follow their example. Shuttles were sexy, but expensive; they can put shit into orbit reliably because they are using dirt simple tech to do it (i.e. they couldn't afford the Buran). How will they go to Venus? Same way they almost beat the US to the moon, with robots. If the private industry wants to invent the space pen equivalent of fancy reusable manned launchers, you buy it after they do the R&D. But put your money into the simplest thing that will work.
Robots are the explorers, we are wimps in space, they are built for it. The only way any of us are ever following them to live is either as robots (or GEd roachmen) or after they have built enough infrastructure to actually let us survive. Humans suck at space exploration, that is not something you can will away.
And if 27% nor 30% of a nations electricity isn't meaningful, than what is? Does any country produce that much in failsafe nuclear reactors?
I have the HS20EXR and would recommend it as an entry level in a heartbeat. The manual zoom alone is worth it. It is really odd around the edges if you look closely, so if any of the following are deal breakers for you, stay away.
The tripod mount thread is plastic, no idea why. Worse, it is right next to the battery cover, so you can't leave a quick release plate on all the time.
Manual zoom is not on a discreet range, so it can be a bit tricky at times.
You will be able to shoot in most low light situations (but you won't like the noise). However at some point it hits a threshold and just can't perceive any light at all. I've tried stars and a night horizon with 30 second exposure and it's pitch black.
Things can be somewhat "wavy" at 30x zoom. I'm not sure if this is due to motion compensation or not as I've only shot 30x freehand. OTOH you can easily shoot 30x freehand.
Raws are huge, yet only half resolution. Consequentially they take a while to write, so shot-to-shot time is slower than jpeg.
Bursts are fast (both jpeg and raw) considering the price, but they take a bit to write out. Worse with raws.
As mentioned raws are only half resolution, they also show the (significant) lens distortion. The camera does an excellent job of fixing the jpegs though, so it isn't noticeable otherwise. I'm in the process of creating correction data, but without that some focal lengths suck. At least the colors are true to the jpegs with the color matrix applied.
Auto white balance, while generally spot on, tends to be blue with the pop-up flash. Oddly enough a white pop-up flash diffuser fixes that while taking of the worst of the glare, highly recommended if you are going to use the flash.
I think that's most of what I've found. With that out of the way the camera performs admirably in most common shooting situations. I guess I should also list some of the better surprises.
Feels great in the hand, well balanced, doesn't tend to jitter much.
30x zoom, starting at a 24mm equivalent wide angle. In one small bag. With a manual zoom ring. Just about nothing else gives you that kind of flexibility. If you can only afford one camera the quality is a trade off well worth considering.
Auto white balance is very good in all outdoor lighting conditions and good otherwise.
The high-speed video modes are great fun.
Has cat/dog face recognition, while this may seem silly (and it is!) the auto release actually does capture really good pet portraits.
The electronic viewfinder has a proximity sensor, so you don't have to worry about switching between it and the display, put it up to your eye and the camera will take care of you. Don't know how common it is but it's nice no matter what.