A "standard 101-key keyboard" doesn't have lower-case and upper-case letters. 26 base letters, 26 uppercase, 10 numbers + 16 punctuation, 26 function keys, and 26 control keys can all be done on 5 chorded buttons (using 27-31 as prefixes).
You're catching a lot of flak for this, but I agree with you 100%. You are correct that this is an uncomfortable trend, and I think absurdity should be able to stand on its own. Good call.
Don't get me wrong, bonch, I'd slap a disclaimer on every one of your posts with a link to your history *grin* but to each their own, and for the moment we're in the same boat.
How, then, do you account for systems which behave differently under observation? As a simple and recently high-profile example, what about the Quantum Zeno effect? If observation does not motivate quantum coupling, then the results are inexplicable, and still so under the model of "sub-Plank discrete higher-dimensional fundamental particles". I suppose what I'm saying is the problems are orthogonal, except that the observation problems can be used as a starting point to further develop a theory of quantum interactions -- the one we have, coincidentally -- whereas making gross assumptions about the invalidity of current field and entropic models appears to add nothing to the discussion.
Also, in every single one of your responses to every one of the people attempting discussion of this point, you have responded with derision, insults, condescension, and disdain for the life's work of hundreds of PhD holders, each of which would love nothing more than to be the one to publish a paper formulating a model obviating the need for current quantum "weirdness." In light of that, I must confess to some curiosity regarding your own credentials, since you appear to hold everyone else's in such disdain.
You've stated over and over that "every observation can be easier explained" if you assume that "at small scales time can go in either or both directions."
I am asking you to elaborate. What energy is expended by this transition? If time is moving in "reverse" or in "both directions" how does that affect entropy? What particles have this property, what determines which ones may "travel through time," and what bounds the distance they may travel? How does that remove wavicles? Just as an extremely simple example, how does that explain the results of the double-slit experiment?
In your scenario, the guy who sells hardware without the "circuitry complex enough that you need a Scanning Electron Microscope" and the "kill switch" and the etc. etc. is gonig to be the successful one, because he'll save a ton of money not trying to play walls and ladders with hackers.
If Big Media kills capitalism enough through legislation that such hardware is made in not a single place in the US, then it will be made elsewhere. If they then dictate that the US will not do business elsewhere, then the US will cease to be relevant in the global economy and will be replaced by someone that doesn't waste money on putting increasingly-complicated locks on (only one of) their doors.
Like with all the previous technological advancements, the cat is out of the bag. The people who learn how to work with the new environment will, as always, outpace those who spend all their time chasing cats.
This is a gross misunderstanding of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, and something of a fallacious presentation of it.
I don't think there was ever any doubt that a cat locked in a box for a sufficient length of time would expire. That is neither in doubt nor interesting.
The formulation deals with the status of a cat in a box present with some measuring apparatus capable of detecting decay of some isotope, linked to a sealed capsule of some poison, in a sealed container with a cat. Supposing the isotope has a roughly 50% chance of decaying in the next five minutes, and iff it decays the poison is released (killing the cat), after five minutes is the cat alive or dead?
The "collapse the waveform pseudo-science b***s***" here is simply translating the simultaneous probabilistic states into a single actual one. The reason this is relevant is in quantum mechanics there are real, measurable effects that occur as a result of the probabilistic waveform that differ from the effects of the collapsed state -- once you know whether the cat is alive or dead, in other words, you have a fundamentally different system than before it was observed.
No, the statement from Apple with the list "suggestions" for not infringing their design patents was in California. The statement makes the argument, further, that elements such as thinness and rounded corners in a portable device are not "functional" and hence patentable.
Also, you did not provide "several" page references -- just the one for the measurements. Unless, of course, you are including your random and irrelevant inclusion of a single reference to p.23 of the report to point out an unmodified photo of the Tab (which has no bearing on the modified photo).
Your post in which you gave page numbers is here. You only give 23 and 29, neither of which contain Apple's supposed notice that they had modified the photo, etc.
I don't really have anything more to add, since you've admitted you were lying.
You already know that and are just lying to protect Apple's image from the truth, for some reason; this is just for anyone following along.
You said that Apple provided notice that they had modified the photo and an explanation of how they had done so. That is a lie.
You have not provided a page number for that claim. You have only provided page numbers for a) the measurements and b) an unrelated photo. If you believe you have provided that number, then link it. You will not, because you have not. Provide the page number. You can't, because you are knowingly lying through your teeth.
Also, I very clearly pointed out both page numbers in my last post. You either don't read when people reply to you, or (more likely) don't like being caught in your blatant falsehoods and so attempt to cover up for them with smoke and mirrors. Pity that doesn't actually work in practice with people who know what they're talking about.
Regarding threadjacking, that's exactly what you did to my original post by ignoring what I was talking about, so my sympathies are limited. I will likely continue to reference this false claim of yours in the future when I notice you spreading misinformation elsewhere.
See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You said that Apple provided notice that they had modified the photo and an explanation of how they had done so. That is a lie. If you have a page reference for that claim, give it, because you have not.
You additionally claimed that there were measurements, which was true. That does not have any bearing on your lie, and judging from your conduct here was done deliberately to give you something to misdirect responsibility for the falsehood.
Also, you did not provide "several" page references -- just the one for the measurements. Unless, of course, you are including your random and irrelevant inclusion of a single reference to p.23 of the report to point out an unmodified photo of the Tab (which has no bearing on the modified photo).
Yeah, I expected this -- refusal to address the topic at hand or even follow through on your own offers.
Ohh, you're that guy who claimed that when Apple faked that photo in the court document that they actually gave notice in the document (hahahaha), and then couldn't ever provide a page reference because you made it up. As I recall, you used similar misdirection there, too.
This means this really is just dishonesty -- you're trying to distract people from very real problems in blind defense of a company that I dearly hope is paying you for compromising your morals.
It was also about Germany -- so clearly I should discuss German politics here, right? Clearly context isn't an issue.
The points I listed were -- per Apple -- specifically about smartphones. If you'll actually read my post, I specifically stated I wasn't considering tablets, nor was Apple, in my counterpoints. Is response time factored into your compensation package?
I'd be perfectly happy to provide examples of phones.
I'd be interested to see a list of recent, successful phones that don't infringe on what Apple considers their design space.
Hey, buddy, did you miss the part where that was all about
alternative smartphone designs
and every single thing you gave as counterexample was a tablet? They aren't good examples, but it's not worth my time to go down the list because it has nothing to do with what I (or Apple) was talking about.
If anything, you're proving my point, which is to say that Apple seeks to reverse sound design principles on portable devices by making them less usable, less functional, or less portable.
Honestly, I can't figure out if you're trying to be dishonest or are really just that knee-jerk blind.
Every single one of those "options" are ridiculous, restrictive, and designed to destroy any potential competition -- not really about design patents at all.
I'll hit some highlights:
Display screens that are more square than rectangular, in the HD era? Apple's products are more square than Samsung's.
Display screens that are not centered and have "substantial" borders? In other words, poorly designed? This is not an innovative claim.
Speakers not centered above the display screen? That's the very definition of obvious. Oh, and the rounded corners here, as in the phone/tablet itself, are an engineering integrity issue, and have nothing to do with design.
Front surfaces that contain "substantial adornment" -- another transparent attempt to try to force competing products to look stupid. The trend has been for decades to minimize "adornment".
Bezels that are not thin -- again, an attempt to force obviously bad design. Uniform -- again. Inwardly sloping profile -- anyone who spent ten minutes thinking about it would agree this was obvious for actual usability on a touchscreen device.
The tablet stuff is similar. (Profiles that have a cluttered appearance!) Apple is trying to gain legal protection of "well designed products", not just a narrow design patent.
No, this is more like hiring a forger to duplicate the work of an artist you like, rather than buying from the artist.
I believe the level of duplication going on is the point of contention, here. The two photos are obviously not identical. They can both be succinctly described as "photos of a bus with big ben in the background, with the image manipulated to remove all color except the bus." This is a tremendously dangerous precedent, because it is now not clear what constitutes non-infringing work.
If I take a photograph of a basketball on an empty outdoor court and do the same trick (greyscale all but the ball), how much of that is my property? If someone takes a photo from the same angle at the same court, that would certainly seem in violation here. What about the same angle at a different court? A different angle at this court? What if the basketball is made a different color? What if it's the same angle but a soccer ball instead?
Rulings like this categorically decrease the creative space. The fewer words that are required to describe infringing works, the fewer total works that can exist without infringing. I do believe that the infringing party here did so willingly, and the original copyright holders should perhaps have a claim on a trademark violation for their "distinctive red bus." But for this to get settled under copyright protections is ridiculous; no copying was done.
Oh boy, I love quote games. Here's you circa not too long ago, before I joined this discussion:
but was marked as being modified and the accompanying text explained how it was modified.
So where was the image marked at? Where was the explanation?
Here, let me quote it again:
but was marked as being modified and the accompanying text explained how it was modified.
So where exactly was that? Hmm?
Oh, and blah blah...Obviously the translation is not fully accurate -- I've got better things to do than transcribe documents when I can copy-paste. The rest is just you trying to smokescreen. Apple forging images in a legal document is indefensible. You having your fingers in your ears won't change that. It must be frustrating to not be able to change reality just by not liking it.
Funny, I'm still not seeing any notification that the image was modified. Here's the text from page 29:
(vi) wenn das Produkt eingeschaltet ist, farbige Icons innerhalb des Displays.Darüber hinaus kopiert das Tab 10.1 das markante dünne Profil des iPad 2. Glaubhaftmachung: 1. Augenscheinnahme des iPad 2, bereits vorgelegt als 2. Augenscheinnahme eines Galaxy Tab 10.1 erworbenaußerhalb Europas (einschließlich Verpackung), bereitsvorgelegt als 3. Vergleich derProdukte, vorgelegt als Der Gesamteindruck der Vorderseite ist fast identisch; es gibt keine Unterschiede, die dasTab 10.1 als ein Produkt erkennen lassen, welches sich vom iPad 2 von vorneunterscheidet. Allerdings ist die Ähnlichkeit nicht auf die Vorderseite beschränkt, sondern erstreckt sich auchauf die Rückseite, die Unter- und Oberseite. Die Ansichten der Ober- und Unterseite zeigen,dass die Ecken in beiden Designs gerundet sind und dass die Breite sich von vorne nach hintensanft verengt. In der Seitenansicht ist das Produkt - wie das Design - eine hohe und dünnerechteckige Form mit abgerundeten Ecken oben und unten; das Rechteck verengt sich sanft vonder Vorderseite zu der relativ flachen Rückseite. Des weiteren haben die Antragsgegnerinnen,wie aus ersichtlich, eine weiße/metallische Rückseite für ihr Produkt gewähltwie sie die Antragstellerin für ihre iPad und iPad 2 – Produkte verwendet hat. Keines deranderen Produkte die mit der vorgelegt wurden, weist eine solche Farbe auf.Schließlich ist in diesem Zusammenhang darauf hinzuweisen, dass die Abmessungen der zweiProdukte sehr ähnlich sind (iPad 2 (Breite/Höhe/Tiefe): 241,2 x 185,7 x 8,8 mm; Galaxy Tab10.1 (Breite/Höhe/Tiefe): 257 x 175 x 8,6 mm). Es kommt hinzu, dass das Kopieren sich auchauf die Produktverpackung erstreckt – nicht nur im Hinblick auf die Farbe und den äußerlichenGesamteindruck, sondern auch im Hinblick auf die Präsentation der Innenverpackung. DerGesamteindruck der Produkte ist daher fast identisch und das Design des Galaxy Tablet 10.1erweckt deshalb keinen anderen Gesamteindruck.
I'll save myself some time and just do Google Translate:
(vi) if the product is turned on, colored copied icons within the Displays.Darüber addition, the Tab 10.1 the distinctive thin profile of the second iPad substantiation: First Visual inspection of the iPad 2, already presented as Second Visual inspection of a Galaxy Tab 10.1 acquired except within Europe (including packaging), as previously submitted Third DerProdukte comparison, presented as The overall impression of the front is almost identical, there are no differences which can be seen as a product dasTab 1.10, which differs from the front of iPad 2. However, the similarity is not limited to the front, but extends auchauf the back, bottom and top. The views of the top and bottom show that the corners are rounded in both design and that the width narrows from front to back gently. The side view is the product - like the design - a high and thin rectangular shape with rounded corners above and below; the rectangle narrows gently Vonder front to the back of relatively flat. Furthermore, the defendants invited, as from has used products - can be seen, a white / metallic back for their product, they gewähltwie the applicant for their iPad, and iPad second None of the products with the deranderen were presented, has such a color is auf.Schließlich in this context to note that the dimensions of the two products are very similar (iPad 2 (width / height / depth): 241.2 x 185.7 x 8.8 mm; Galaxy Tab10.1 (width / height / depth): 257 x 175 x 8.6 mm). It added that copying is auchauf extends the product packaging - not only in terms of color and the consolidated his impressive appearance, but also with regard to the presentation of the inner packaging. DerGesamteindruck the products is therefore almost identical and the d
And where are the explicit measurements and the notification that the image was modified? I have the document right here and will be happy to corroborate.
Of course, I've already read the whole thing, and near as I can tell you're lying through your teeth. There was neither. Also, the image had it's aspect ratio changed, Samsung's label obscured, the front-facing camera obscured, and the software display comprehensively modified from default. It was the only image to show the two devices directly from the front; all other images were at odd angles. It was, in a word, completely dishonest.
Keep fooling yourself, though. Support that company that sues based on decades-old design ideas. Demand that there be no competition to a company that allows only one combination of hardware and software. I almost wish it would succeed, just so you could see the dark ages it would create.
No. I said we could not leverage our taxes in the same way, which I believe is self-evident due to the completely different nature of the systems involved. Or, put another way, Finland's success or failure holds little to no data for the United States.
I said worst case books are less than 1k; I've personally never spent more than $500 in a year on books. And yes, that 5k does include all fees. That's also the most I've paid for tuition -- I did two years at a community college because it was cheaper (1.2k per year) and my other two undergrad years at an institution that was just under 4k a year (again, with all fees -- that's final cost to me).
The loan was not necessary -- I used it to allow me to jump right into the master's program without taking a year to find a job and so forth. I could have just as easily skipped it and just taken an extra year to get set up in the town I moved to. It certainly wasn't needed to "make things work."
During three of my undergrad years I commuted at least 40 minutes to work; that's an awfully large radius for people to find work in.
So add it up. Don't forget transportation costs (gas, insurance) that probably make 3k per year. You can eat comfortably on 100 a month, so call food + transportation 4,200 per year. 14,200 still leaves room to save (that leaves you about 200 per month scot-free) at minimum wage with no overtime -- throw overtime in a hat with random occurrences or recurring bill luxuries (data plan for cell, etc.) that might eat the overtime + savings and it's a wash.
It's not at all improbable. It's not even difficult. It's just that a lot of people for some reason forget that college is something they are purchasing, and so they fail to look at the bottom line when considering colleges. A lot of places simply aren't worth it. They then fail to consider the value of the degree they're getting -- there is nothing wrong with the study of [obscure thing], but it is a luxury that should be pursued only after looking out for supporting yourself.
This isn't theoretical. This is how it happened for me, and could happen for anyone -- I didn't get a special discount or some magically nice job (I'm well-employed now in research as part of my PhD program, but that's fairly common in grad-level programs, and we were primarily discussing undergrad).
You see no basis for the belief that taxes in the United States -- a coalition of 50 states whose residents must pay both local State taxes as well as nation-wide Federal ones covering 300 million people, spanning over 4 million square miles and a tremendous range of industries -- work differently than taxes in Finland, an independent nation of fewer than 6 million and less than two hundred thousand square miles?
Slashdot Mirror
A "standard 101-key keyboard" doesn't have lower-case and upper-case letters. 26 base letters, 26 uppercase, 10 numbers + 16 punctuation, 26 function keys, and 26 control keys can all be done on 5 chorded buttons (using 27-31 as prefixes).
I'm not really feeling the outrage, here. So you can tell I have kids and drink a lot? Shit, my wife could tell you that.
(Disclaimer: don't actually have kids or drink, and we're not married yet)
And, immediately, there will be a market for insurers that don't.
RAIDs are not substitutes for backups -- only modifications of uptime.
You're catching a lot of flak for this, but I agree with you 100%. You are correct that this is an uncomfortable trend, and I think absurdity should be able to stand on its own. Good call.
Don't get me wrong, bonch, I'd slap a disclaimer on every one of your posts with a link to your history *grin* but to each their own, and for the moment we're in the same boat.
Just wanted to toss a little rationality in here.
How, then, do you account for systems which behave differently under observation? As a simple and recently high-profile example, what about the Quantum Zeno effect? If observation does not motivate quantum coupling, then the results are inexplicable, and still so under the model of "sub-Plank discrete higher-dimensional fundamental particles". I suppose what I'm saying is the problems are orthogonal, except that the observation problems can be used as a starting point to further develop a theory of quantum interactions -- the one we have, coincidentally -- whereas making gross assumptions about the invalidity of current field and entropic models appears to add nothing to the discussion.
Also, in every single one of your responses to every one of the people attempting discussion of this point, you have responded with derision, insults, condescension, and disdain for the life's work of hundreds of PhD holders, each of which would love nothing more than to be the one to publish a paper formulating a model obviating the need for current quantum "weirdness." In light of that, I must confess to some curiosity regarding your own credentials, since you appear to hold everyone else's in such disdain.
You've stated over and over that "every observation can be easier explained" if you assume that "at small scales time can go in either or both directions."
I am asking you to elaborate. What energy is expended by this transition? If time is moving in "reverse" or in "both directions" how does that affect entropy? What particles have this property, what determines which ones may "travel through time," and what bounds the distance they may travel? How does that remove wavicles? Just as an extremely simple example, how does that explain the results of the double-slit experiment?
In your scenario, the guy who sells hardware without the "circuitry complex enough that you need a Scanning Electron Microscope" and the "kill switch" and the etc. etc. is gonig to be the successful one, because he'll save a ton of money not trying to play walls and ladders with hackers.
If Big Media kills capitalism enough through legislation that such hardware is made in not a single place in the US, then it will be made elsewhere. If they then dictate that the US will not do business elsewhere, then the US will cease to be relevant in the global economy and will be replaced by someone that doesn't waste money on putting increasingly-complicated locks on (only one of) their doors.
Like with all the previous technological advancements, the cat is out of the bag. The people who learn how to work with the new environment will, as always, outpace those who spend all their time chasing cats.
This is a gross misunderstanding of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, and something of a fallacious presentation of it.
I don't think there was ever any doubt that a cat locked in a box for a sufficient length of time would expire. That is neither in doubt nor interesting.
The formulation deals with the status of a cat in a box present with some measuring apparatus capable of detecting decay of some isotope, linked to a sealed capsule of some poison, in a sealed container with a cat. Supposing the isotope has a roughly 50% chance of decaying in the next five minutes, and iff it decays the poison is released (killing the cat), after five minutes is the cat alive or dead?
The "collapse the waveform pseudo-science b***s***" here is simply translating the simultaneous probabilistic states into a single actual one. The reason this is relevant is in quantum mechanics there are real, measurable effects that occur as a result of the probabilistic waveform that differ from the effects of the collapsed state -- once you know whether the cat is alive or dead, in other words, you have a fundamentally different system than before it was observed.
No, the statement from Apple with the list "suggestions" for not infringing their design patents was in California. The statement makes the argument, further, that elements such as thinness and rounded corners in a portable device are not "functional" and hence patentable.
Apple also tried to ban the 10.1N, so they clearly thought that was not enough.
Me pointing out both pages:
Also, you did not provide "several" page references -- just the one for the measurements. Unless, of course, you are including your random and irrelevant inclusion of a single reference to p.23 of the report to point out an unmodified photo of the Tab (which has no bearing on the modified photo).
Your post in which you gave page numbers is here. You only give 23 and 29, neither of which contain Apple's supposed notice that they had modified the photo, etc.
I don't really have anything more to add, since you've admitted you were lying.
You already know that and are just lying to protect Apple's image from the truth, for some reason; this is just for anyone following along.
Okay. One. More. Time.
You said that Apple provided notice that they had modified the photo and an explanation of how they had done so. That is a lie.
You have not provided a page number for that claim. You have only provided page numbers for a) the measurements and b) an unrelated photo. If you believe you have provided that number, then link it. You will not, because you have not. Provide the page number. You can't, because you are knowingly lying through your teeth.
Also, I very clearly pointed out both page numbers in my last post. You either don't read when people reply to you, or (more likely) don't like being caught in your blatant falsehoods and so attempt to cover up for them with smoke and mirrors. Pity that doesn't actually work in practice with people who know what they're talking about.
Regarding threadjacking, that's exactly what you did to my original post by ignoring what I was talking about, so my sympathies are limited. I will likely continue to reference this false claim of yours in the future when I notice you spreading misinformation elsewhere.
See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You said that Apple provided notice that they had modified the photo and an explanation of how they had done so. That is a lie. If you have a page reference for that claim, give it, because you have not.
You additionally claimed that there were measurements, which was true. That does not have any bearing on your lie, and judging from your conduct here was done deliberately to give you something to misdirect responsibility for the falsehood.
Also, you did not provide "several" page references -- just the one for the measurements. Unless, of course, you are including your random and irrelevant inclusion of a single reference to p.23 of the report to point out an unmodified photo of the Tab (which has no bearing on the modified photo).
Yeah, I expected this -- refusal to address the topic at hand or even follow through on your own offers.
Ohh, you're that guy who claimed that when Apple faked that photo in the court document that they actually gave notice in the document (hahahaha), and then couldn't ever provide a page reference because you made it up. As I recall, you used similar misdirection there, too.
This means this really is just dishonesty -- you're trying to distract people from very real problems in blind defense of a company that I dearly hope is paying you for compromising your morals.
I guess I'm just wasting my time. .
It was also about Germany -- so clearly I should discuss German politics here, right? Clearly context isn't an issue.
The points I listed were -- per Apple -- specifically about smartphones. If you'll actually read my post, I specifically stated I wasn't considering tablets, nor was Apple, in my counterpoints. Is response time factored into your compensation package?
I'd be perfectly happy to provide examples of phones.
I'd be interested to see a list of recent, successful phones that don't infringe on what Apple considers their design space.
Hey, buddy, did you miss the part where that was all about
alternative smartphone designs
and every single thing you gave as counterexample was a tablet? They aren't good examples, but it's not worth my time to go down the list because it has nothing to do with what I (or Apple) was talking about.
If anything, you're proving my point, which is to say that Apple seeks to reverse sound design principles on portable devices by making them less usable, less functional, or less portable.
Honestly, I can't figure out if you're trying to be dishonest or are really just that knee-jerk blind.
Every single one of those "options" are ridiculous, restrictive, and designed to destroy any potential competition -- not really about design patents at all.
I'll hit some highlights:
Display screens that are more square than rectangular, in the HD era? Apple's products are more square than Samsung's.
Display screens that are not centered and have "substantial" borders? In other words, poorly designed? This is not an innovative claim.
Speakers not centered above the display screen? That's the very definition of obvious. Oh, and the rounded corners here, as in the phone/tablet itself, are an engineering integrity issue, and have nothing to do with design.
Front surfaces that contain "substantial adornment" -- another transparent attempt to try to force competing products to look stupid. The trend has been for decades to minimize "adornment".
Bezels that are not thin -- again, an attempt to force obviously bad design. Uniform -- again. Inwardly sloping profile -- anyone who spent ten minutes thinking about it would agree this was obvious for actual usability on a touchscreen device.
The tablet stuff is similar. (Profiles that have a cluttered appearance!) Apple is trying to gain legal protection of "well designed products", not just a narrow design patent.
No, this is more like hiring a forger to duplicate the work of an artist you like, rather than buying from the artist.
I believe the level of duplication going on is the point of contention, here. The two photos are obviously not identical. They can both be succinctly described as "photos of a bus with big ben in the background, with the image manipulated to remove all color except the bus." This is a tremendously dangerous precedent, because it is now not clear what constitutes non-infringing work.
If I take a photograph of a basketball on an empty outdoor court and do the same trick (greyscale all but the ball), how much of that is my property? If someone takes a photo from the same angle at the same court, that would certainly seem in violation here. What about the same angle at a different court? A different angle at this court? What if the basketball is made a different color? What if it's the same angle but a soccer ball instead?
Rulings like this categorically decrease the creative space. The fewer words that are required to describe infringing works, the fewer total works that can exist without infringing. I do believe that the infringing party here did so willingly, and the original copyright holders should perhaps have a claim on a trademark violation for their "distinctive red bus." But for this to get settled under copyright protections is ridiculous; no copying was done.
Oh boy, I love quote games. Here's you circa not too long ago, before I joined this discussion:
but was marked as being modified and the accompanying text explained how it was modified.
So where was the image marked at? Where was the explanation?
Here, let me quote it again:
but was marked as being modified and the accompanying text explained how it was modified.
So where exactly was that? Hmm?
Oh, and blah blah...Obviously the translation is not fully accurate -- I've got better things to do than transcribe documents when I can copy-paste. The rest is just you trying to smokescreen. Apple forging images in a legal document is indefensible. You having your fingers in your ears won't change that. It must be frustrating to not be able to change reality just by not liking it.
Funny, I'm still not seeing any notification that the image was modified. Here's the text from page 29:
(vi) wenn das Produkt eingeschaltet ist, farbige Icons innerhalb des Displays.Darüber hinaus kopiert das Tab 10.1 das markante dünne Profil des iPad 2.
Glaubhaftmachung:
1. Augenscheinnahme des iPad 2, bereits vorgelegt als
2. Augenscheinnahme eines Galaxy Tab 10.1 erworbenaußerhalb Europas (einschließlich Verpackung), bereitsvorgelegt als
3. Vergleich derProdukte, vorgelegt als
Der Gesamteindruck der Vorderseite ist fast identisch; es gibt keine Unterschiede, die dasTab 10.1 als ein Produkt erkennen lassen, welches sich vom iPad 2 von vorneunterscheidet.
Allerdings ist die Ähnlichkeit nicht auf die Vorderseite beschränkt, sondern erstreckt sich auchauf die Rückseite, die Unter- und Oberseite. Die Ansichten der Ober- und Unterseite zeigen,dass die Ecken in beiden Designs gerundet sind und dass die Breite sich von vorne nach hintensanft verengt. In der Seitenansicht ist das Produkt - wie das Design - eine hohe und dünnerechteckige Form mit abgerundeten Ecken oben und unten; das Rechteck verengt sich sanft vonder Vorderseite zu der relativ flachen Rückseite. Des weiteren haben die Antragsgegnerinnen,wie aus
ersichtlich, eine weiße/metallische Rückseite für ihr Produkt gewähltwie sie die Antragstellerin für ihre iPad und iPad 2 – Produkte verwendet hat. Keines deranderen Produkte die mit der
vorgelegt wurden, weist eine solche Farbe auf.Schließlich ist in diesem Zusammenhang darauf hinzuweisen, dass die Abmessungen der zweiProdukte sehr ähnlich sind (iPad 2 (Breite/Höhe/Tiefe): 241,2 x 185,7 x 8,8 mm; Galaxy Tab10.1 (Breite/Höhe/Tiefe): 257 x 175 x 8,6 mm). Es kommt hinzu, dass das Kopieren sich auchauf die Produktverpackung erstreckt – nicht nur im Hinblick auf die Farbe und den äußerlichenGesamteindruck, sondern auch im Hinblick auf die Präsentation der Innenverpackung. DerGesamteindruck der Produkte ist daher fast identisch und das Design des Galaxy Tablet 10.1erweckt deshalb keinen anderen Gesamteindruck.
I'll save myself some time and just do Google Translate:
(vi) if the product is turned on, colored copied icons within the Displays.Darüber addition, the Tab 10.1 the distinctive thin profile of the second iPad
substantiation:
First Visual inspection of the iPad 2, already presented as
Second Visual inspection of a Galaxy Tab 10.1 acquired except within Europe (including packaging), as previously submitted
Third DerProdukte comparison, presented as
The overall impression of the front is almost identical, there are no differences which can be seen as a product dasTab 1.10, which differs from the front of iPad 2.
However, the similarity is not limited to the front, but extends auchauf the back, bottom and top. The views of the top and bottom show that the corners are rounded in both design and that the width narrows from front to back gently. The side view is the product - like the design - a high and thin rectangular shape with rounded corners above and below; the rectangle narrows gently Vonder front to the back of relatively flat. Furthermore, the defendants invited, as from
has used products - can be seen, a white / metallic back for their product, they gewähltwie the applicant for their iPad, and iPad second None of the products with the deranderen
were presented, has such a color is auf.Schließlich in this context to note that the dimensions of the two products are very similar (iPad 2 (width / height / depth): 241.2 x 185.7 x 8.8 mm; Galaxy Tab10.1 (width / height / depth): 257 x 175 x 8.6 mm). It added that copying is auchauf extends the product packaging - not only in terms of color and the consolidated his impressive appearance, but also with regard to the presentation of the inner packaging. DerGesamteindruck the products is therefore almost identical and the d
And where are the explicit measurements and the notification that the image was modified? I have the document right here and will be happy to corroborate.
Of course, I've already read the whole thing, and near as I can tell you're lying through your teeth. There was neither. Also, the image had it's aspect ratio changed, Samsung's label obscured, the front-facing camera obscured, and the software display comprehensively modified from default. It was the only image to show the two devices directly from the front; all other images were at odd angles. It was, in a word, completely dishonest.
Keep fooling yourself, though. Support that company that sues based on decades-old design ideas. Demand that there be no competition to a company that allows only one combination of hardware and software. I almost wish it would succeed, just so you could see the dark ages it would create.
What is its value? Why does it have that value, and why is society beholden to respect it?
No. I said we could not leverage our taxes in the same way, which I believe is self-evident due to the completely different nature of the systems involved. Or, put another way, Finland's success or failure holds little to no data for the United States.
I said worst case books are less than 1k; I've personally never spent more than $500 in a year on books. And yes, that 5k does include all fees. That's also the most I've paid for tuition -- I did two years at a community college because it was cheaper (1.2k per year) and my other two undergrad years at an institution that was just under 4k a year (again, with all fees -- that's final cost to me).
The loan was not necessary -- I used it to allow me to jump right into the master's program without taking a year to find a job and so forth. I could have just as easily skipped it and just taken an extra year to get set up in the town I moved to. It certainly wasn't needed to "make things work."
During three of my undergrad years I commuted at least 40 minutes to work; that's an awfully large radius for people to find work in.
So add it up. Don't forget transportation costs (gas, insurance) that probably make 3k per year. You can eat comfortably on 100 a month, so call food + transportation 4,200 per year. 14,200 still leaves room to save (that leaves you about 200 per month scot-free) at minimum wage with no overtime -- throw overtime in a hat with random occurrences or recurring bill luxuries (data plan for cell, etc.) that might eat the overtime + savings and it's a wash.
It's not at all improbable. It's not even difficult. It's just that a lot of people for some reason forget that college is something they are purchasing, and so they fail to look at the bottom line when considering colleges. A lot of places simply aren't worth it. They then fail to consider the value of the degree they're getting -- there is nothing wrong with the study of [obscure thing], but it is a luxury that should be pursued only after looking out for supporting yourself.
This isn't theoretical. This is how it happened for me, and could happen for anyone -- I didn't get a special discount or some magically nice job (I'm well-employed now in research as part of my PhD program, but that's fairly common in grad-level programs, and we were primarily discussing undergrad).
You see no basis for the belief that taxes in the United States -- a coalition of 50 states whose residents must pay both local State taxes as well as nation-wide Federal ones covering 300 million people, spanning over 4 million square miles and a tremendous range of industries -- work differently than taxes in Finland, an independent nation of fewer than 6 million and less than two hundred thousand square miles?