Your post is complete bullshit, the patent is very broad, they excluded such exact parts as the hinge, feet, ports and significant portions of the bottom/back of the body itself. You could make a laptop with a significantly thicker undercarriage, different hinging and a completely different support mechanism and still match the sketch that is actually covered by the patent. If you don't know what the dashes are there for you have no place criticizing the headline.
Figure 2 on page 4 clearly shows that the real thing has an obvious hinge. What they are doing is claiming any matching wedge, regardless of the specifics of the hinge (that being a functional component and apparently not distinctly decorative despite being a major element).
The only design covered appears to be the wedge shape itself, they disclaimed literally everything that would make it any different from any other wedge design with a flat screen portion. So yeah, panic, Apple has been given another monopoly over the shape by claiming that whatever distinctive design elements there might be aren't part of the design.
Pray tell what does it cover then? The only thing that is not dashed lines (i.e. not part of the patent) is the wedge. So if it isn't the only design element covered what is it?
You move in a grid-less full 3D environment, looking at it from first person perspective. One of your hands is a gun and you are encouraged (even if you don't have to) to use it frequently. I think that is enough to qualify as "with first person shooter elements", much like the original games had a platforming element to them. That said everything that (for me) makes the new interface better for shooting things also makes it easier to look around to see what I need to avoid and find things.
The inputs very much depend on the game (and the particular input method). High precision motion simply wasn't possible outside of simple scenarios (e.g. bowling) before motion+, it still could be wicked fun though (e.g. Boom Blox). Pointing on the other hand has never failed me once I figured out that it was the already closed-with-blinds window letting in sunspots. The tech behind pointing has nothing to do with the rather disappointing motion controls and is quite accurate and reasonably reliable, if it doesn't work you have a problem with your Wiimote or "sensor" bar or the alignment between them. More specifically if the pointing makes it hard to turn in MP3 you need to switch the scheme away from Basic, because despite its name it is finicky due to the narrow turn margin.
No, the real problem is that the Wii is too sensitive with double layer disks and has stopped reading my damn Trilogy disk and Nintendo appears to be sold out on lens cleaning kits...
Doesn't really matter if it's primary a shooter or not, there is an FPS element (however small or big) and it was immensely improved (for me at least) with the addition of a straightforward pointing/looking scheme. I'm sure that the GC plays fine once you get used to the controls, but I wasn't in a country with Nintendo presence in the GameCube era. I picked it up used but hadn't played much when I rented MP3 and was blown away by how much more enjoyable it was just due to the controls. Promptly picked up one of the last copies of the Trilogy in town and that was that for playing it with a GC controller.
Just pick advanced controls (or whatever the name is), it should take care of everything you need. In fact, it might be one of the things it asks you before you start a game.
I've played both the GameCube version of Metroid Prime 1 and the Metroid Prime Trilogy with enough time in between to restart the Wii. The Trilogy has silky smooth pointing, the GC version had jerky pointing that just about required aim correction. Not sure if you were using the standard configuration that makes it a PITA to look around or if you have glare issues (I've had that happen before, the calibration was showing up dots all over the place), but the Wii Metroid controls should make anyone who has played any PC shooter since Quake feel right at home.
Okay, perform a reasonably indicative experiment on carbon dating in the classroom environment. Don't forget to verify all the layers it rests upon. This shouldn't take more than a few months, so that you can use the rest to learn about what we have learned by employing carbon dating.
Eventually, the evidence becomes overwhelming and the new theory is accepted (or the old guard dies off, and the new theory is accepted).
I'll just quote the part of GP's comment you apparently ignored and you tell me where the above disagrees with it, keeping in mind that science is the overall method, not the specific theories it produces.
What you are talking about is the moment when what you believe is shown to be wrong, which is a change in belief and not a change in science.
I'm aware of how the GPLv3 deals with the issue. Compare to the GPLv2 where there is no "however", you are toast by a single violation, yet companies deal with it just fine. Of course if some companies prefer to not participate (and many don't) that's perfectly fine, the goal is not to get the code into as many products as possible regardless of what rights they grant or take from the downstream users. E.g. "Microsoft would never have adopted the Linux TCP/IP stack, GPL(v2) is poison to corporate adoption!", "Did them adopting the BSD licensed stack increase the legal rights of Windows users?".
Actually I believe I managed to reply to the wrong post, it was intended for the one above yours where it makes a lot more sense... However it keeps baffling me that people expect the GPL to be supportive of businesses that are its very antithesis, or at least describe it's flaws in such light. It's meant to lock out people charging per copy.
Content delivery boxes can write their own or using something more suitable. The benefits are not worth the risk of every consumer device turning into a "content delivery box", a trend that has only become more clear since the GPLv3 was introduced. Anyway, it was just a clarification of existing intent, hell, locking the user out of their hardware violates freedom 0.
You are right that I forget the patent licensing, however it is quite clearly limited to contributors and only radioactive to parties that expect to pursue patent violations against GPLv3 users. In short, parties who are themselves are highly radioactive to anyone who would want to use (since patents can be enforced against people only taking advantage of freedom 0) the software. What possible reason is there to let people who reserve the right to sue you, even if you are otherwise compliant, to contribute to your software? Apache recognized this as well, even though their license is otherwise permissive.
You seem to misunderstand the automatic forgiveness added in GPLv3, there is nothing there to pause as compared to GPLv2 as it is strictly more permissive. GPLv2 automatically and permanently removes your license upon violation. Since the FSF views fixing violations as more important than suing the violators it made sense to let violators fix any violations on their own and regain the license automatically instead. The added clauses mean that if you screw up, notice it and fix it you have a license again 60 days later, unlike with the GPLv2 where you technically need to contact every copyright holder and have them explicitly restore it.
The people who advocate for the GPL claim they are advocating complete freedom with code.
There certainly are some, but what proof do you have that this is universal (in the face of the specifically defined four freedoms from the originators) or even particularly common?
The people who advocate for laws to punish murder don't pretend that they are in favor of people having the freedom to murder each other.
There's plenty of people who are never aware of any conflict, so I guess they don't exactly pretend... However there is still a significant subset who choose to advocate punishment of murders by defining it outside of freedom or similar doublethink.
In short, black and white thinking will get you nowhere is this argument. Either way, your other problem is that you want to force a language double standard, when you advocate for people to disclaim freedom with CONTROL of how people can interact every single time and call them hypocrites for doing it. Well, then you start approaching an argument.
Stopping distribution doesn't fix the copyright violation they already committed. Between that and retooling your software chain it's far easier to release whatever minor modifications they've made. Most, if not all, of them don't really have anything to protect, just have messed up practices geared towards keeping as much secret as possible.
BSD is source code file level copyleft. Apparently people berating GPL folks for wanting people who distribute derivative works to fork over their code don't approve of showing the source code of derived files without forking them over. That or they don't even understand their favorite, simple to understand license.
It's only hard to figure out the GPL if you are trying to skirt it. As long as you stay within the intent, i.e. all downstram users can can run, receive complete source code (including build scripts), modify, distribute modified versions and, in case of GPL3, run modified versions on the hardware you shipped them on, you are very unlikely to run into problems.
How many keys will I have to press to mark a position that I can recall or insert into a macro outside of Emacs? Or if that's too much, can I get something with a decent keyboard selection mechanism?
Does your drawer lock take more than 30 seconds for an experienced lock picker? It's not altogether bad, but would probably be even better if you only wrote down half of it and locked it up there, together with regular (every 6 months or so) password changes it probably is quite good if you are diligent.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post is complete bullshit, the patent is very broad, they excluded such exact parts as the hinge, feet, ports and significant portions of the bottom/back of the body itself. You could make a laptop with a significantly thicker undercarriage, different hinging and a completely different support mechanism and still match the sketch that is actually covered by the patent. If you don't know what the dashes are there for you have no place criticizing the headline.
Figure 2 on page 4 clearly shows that the real thing has an obvious hinge. What they are doing is claiming any matching wedge, regardless of the specifics of the hinge (that being a functional component and apparently not distinctly decorative despite being a major element).
The only design covered appears to be the wedge shape itself, they disclaimed literally everything that would make it any different from any other wedge design with a flat screen portion. So yeah, panic, Apple has been given another monopoly over the shape by claiming that whatever distinctive design elements there might be aren't part of the design.
Pray tell what does it cover then? The only thing that is not dashed lines (i.e. not part of the patent) is the wedge. So if it isn't the only design element covered what is it?
Yup, just checked the manual right shoulder button aims, left one locks. You can aim, but it's not exactly a great option in the middle of a fight.
You move in a grid-less full 3D environment, looking at it from first person perspective. One of your hands is a gun and you are encouraged (even if you don't have to) to use it frequently. I think that is enough to qualify as "with first person shooter elements", much like the original games had a platforming element to them. That said everything that (for me) makes the new interface better for shooting things also makes it easier to look around to see what I need to avoid and find things.
The inputs very much depend on the game (and the particular input method). High precision motion simply wasn't possible outside of simple scenarios (e.g. bowling) before motion+, it still could be wicked fun though (e.g. Boom Blox). Pointing on the other hand has never failed me once I figured out that it was the already closed-with-blinds window letting in sunspots. The tech behind pointing has nothing to do with the rather disappointing motion controls and is quite accurate and reasonably reliable, if it doesn't work you have a problem with your Wiimote or "sensor" bar or the alignment between them. More specifically if the pointing makes it hard to turn in MP3 you need to switch the scheme away from Basic, because despite its name it is finicky due to the narrow turn margin.
No, the real problem is that the Wii is too sensitive with double layer disks and has stopped reading my damn Trilogy disk and Nintendo appears to be sold out on lens cleaning kits...
Doesn't really matter if it's primary a shooter or not, there is an FPS element (however small or big) and it was immensely improved (for me at least) with the addition of a straightforward pointing/looking scheme. I'm sure that the GC plays fine once you get used to the controls, but I wasn't in a country with Nintendo presence in the GameCube era. I picked it up used but hadn't played much when I rented MP3 and was blown away by how much more enjoyable it was just due to the controls. Promptly picked up one of the last copies of the Trilogy in town and that was that for playing it with a GC controller.
Just pick advanced controls (or whatever the name is), it should take care of everything you need. In fact, it might be one of the things it asks you before you start a game.
Head over to Amazon and look at the reviews for any kind of mainstream media...
I've played both the GameCube version of Metroid Prime 1 and the Metroid Prime Trilogy with enough time in between to restart the Wii. The Trilogy has silky smooth pointing, the GC version had jerky pointing that just about required aim correction. Not sure if you were using the standard configuration that makes it a PITA to look around or if you have glare issues (I've had that happen before, the calibration was showing up dots all over the place), but the Wii Metroid controls should make anyone who has played any PC shooter since Quake feel right at home.
Okay, perform a reasonably indicative experiment on carbon dating in the classroom environment. Don't forget to verify all the layers it rests upon. This shouldn't take more than a few months, so that you can use the rest to learn about what we have learned by employing carbon dating.
Let me guess. You're an engineer?
Shifting the goalposts on the other hand is a fine activity any gentleman should be proud of engaging in.
I'll just quote the part of GP's comment you apparently ignored and you tell me where the above disagrees with it, keeping in mind that science is the overall method, not the specific theories it produces.
I'm aware of how the GPLv3 deals with the issue. Compare to the GPLv2 where there is no "however", you are toast by a single violation, yet companies deal with it just fine. Of course if some companies prefer to not participate (and many don't) that's perfectly fine, the goal is not to get the code into as many products as possible regardless of what rights they grant or take from the downstream users. E.g. "Microsoft would never have adopted the Linux TCP/IP stack, GPL(v2) is poison to corporate adoption!", "Did them adopting the BSD licensed stack increase the legal rights of Windows users?".
No he doesn't. Stop misrepresenting Noscript as some silver bullet. The right tool is RequestPolicy.
Apparently I'm mysterious, that's pretty cool!
Just like the standard is to feed forms straight into MySQL. That's the reason MySQL sucks after all.
Actually I believe I managed to reply to the wrong post, it was intended for the one above yours where it makes a lot more sense... However it keeps baffling me that people expect the GPL to be supportive of businesses that are its very antithesis, or at least describe it's flaws in such light. It's meant to lock out people charging per copy.
Content delivery boxes can write their own or using something more suitable. The benefits are not worth the risk of every consumer device turning into a "content delivery box", a trend that has only become more clear since the GPLv3 was introduced. Anyway, it was just a clarification of existing intent, hell, locking the user out of their hardware violates freedom 0.
You are right that I forget the patent licensing, however it is quite clearly limited to contributors and only radioactive to parties that expect to pursue patent violations against GPLv3 users. In short, parties who are themselves are highly radioactive to anyone who would want to use (since patents can be enforced against people only taking advantage of freedom 0) the software. What possible reason is there to let people who reserve the right to sue you, even if you are otherwise compliant, to contribute to your software? Apache recognized this as well, even though their license is otherwise permissive.
You seem to misunderstand the automatic forgiveness added in GPLv3, there is nothing there to pause as compared to GPLv2 as it is strictly more permissive. GPLv2 automatically and permanently removes your license upon violation. Since the FSF views fixing violations as more important than suing the violators it made sense to let violators fix any violations on their own and regain the license automatically instead. The added clauses mean that if you screw up, notice it and fix it you have a license again 60 days later, unlike with the GPLv2 where you technically need to contact every copyright holder and have them explicitly restore it.
There certainly are some, but what proof do you have that this is universal (in the face of the specifically defined four freedoms from the originators) or even particularly common?
There's plenty of people who are never aware of any conflict, so I guess they don't exactly pretend... However there is still a significant subset who choose to advocate punishment of murders by defining it outside of freedom or similar doublethink.
In short, black and white thinking will get you nowhere is this argument. Either way, your other problem is that you want to force a language double standard, when you advocate for people to disclaim freedom with CONTROL of how people can interact every single time and call them hypocrites for doing it. Well, then you start approaching an argument.
Stopping distribution doesn't fix the copyright violation they already committed. Between that and retooling your software chain it's far easier to release whatever minor modifications they've made. Most, if not all, of them don't really have anything to protect, just have messed up practices geared towards keeping as much secret as possible.
BSD is source code file level copyleft. Apparently people berating GPL folks for wanting people who distribute derivative works to fork over their code don't approve of showing the source code of derived files without forking them over. That or they don't even understand their favorite, simple to understand license.
It's only hard to figure out the GPL if you are trying to skirt it. As long as you stay within the intent, i.e. all downstram users can can run, receive complete source code (including build scripts), modify, distribute modified versions and, in case of GPL3, run modified versions on the hardware you shipped them on, you are very unlikely to run into problems.
You forgot Richard M. Strawman!
How many keys will I have to press to mark a position that I can recall or insert into a macro outside of Emacs? Or if that's too much, can I get something with a decent keyboard selection mechanism?
Does your drawer lock take more than 30 seconds for an experienced lock picker? It's not altogether bad, but would probably be even better if you only wrote down half of it and locked it up there, together with regular (every 6 months or so) password changes it probably is quite good if you are diligent.