If that's the case, someone is probably already making a root-access-giving program that works through phone-to-phone NFC as we speak. Although... transmission through intimate contact? That sounds awfully like an STD...
I can't wait until that's heard in a patent infringement suit.
I posted this above but here's what I see (maybe I'm missing something so help me out).
So that assumption of danger here is what? Someone walks down the street bumping into random strangers repeatedly hoping that:
1) The bump into the side where the strangers phone was being held.
2) The two phones are perfectly at the same height (presumably in a pocket).
3) The strangers phone is vulnerable.
4) They have NFC enabled.
5) They could hold the phones in contact for the about of time necessary to transfer both an overloaded filed (presumably exceeded a buffer limit) and THEN also transfer the app compromised app that allows the actual hack to work (over a connection with a maximum bandwidth of a few hundred kbits/s).
6) Then after the hack succeeded they remained in contact long enough for the data from the strangers phone to be transferred back to the hackers phone.
All with anyone noticing? That's all assuming they fix whatever issue was causing it to need to be run 185 times before it finally worked? Assuming those 185 times were the incremental transfers of all the data needed? Again I'm still not scared. And this is fixed in Jelly bean (which my S3 is running...doom on you close talking random guy on the street thinking you finally found someone with an S3 to stand uncomfortably close to!).
All ya gotta do is knock the stranger out. This just helps hackers not physically steal phones. Because stealing phones is wrong.:>
... that the Core i7 processor containing 731,000,000 transistors weighs approximately 386 g. 731,000,000 Silicon atoms weighs roughly 34 fg (femtograms) - using Avogadro's Constant and assuming I did my calculation correctly. That's a pretty huge space savings, even if you were only using binary computation.
...and then it got hot and separated the atoms too far from each other to interact. D'oh!
I guess a round of applause is due to the 9/11 terrorists and their relative entities. Their actions have made the U.S. respond to stupid free speech statements in a way that is equivalent to a terrorist threat, AND treated as such!
Right in the middle of the article: "The online post on ESPN said that a shooting would be like the one in Aurora, Colo., where 12 people were killed and 58 were injured in July, authorities said."
That's not a comment on business practices - that's a threat.
That's what just makes me gasp in the stupidity of the "authorities" acting that way on this matter: "The online post on ESPN said that a shooting would be like the one in Aurora, Colo., where 12 people were killed and 58 were injured in July, authorities said."
Wait, wait, wait a second here. There's a big difference between someone saying "my shooting will be like the one.... etc etc" and "a shooting will be like the one... etc etc."
It looks to me like a predictive statement regarding the future actions of others. I make predictive statements all the time and not once has anyone suffered from receiving the statement. BECAUSE IT'S THIRD-PERSON FUTURE TENSE, not first or second party anything.
Now, if the quote above isn't direct and unedited, then I didn't say anything.:)
Seriously, if thoses are granted: America is a lost cause.
13/091,380 Accessing data in a data processing system 13/102,337 Accessing data in a content-addressable data processing system 13/109,208 Accessing data in a content-addressable data processing system 13/352,169 Data Distribution in A Data Processing System 13/351,433 Access Control in A Data Processing System Using Data Item Signatures
http://www.personalweb.com/Technology.html
They're trying to destroy file sharing in a new way!
But reality is not that simple! You can't just dumb things down at will, until it is simple enough for you to feel comfortable. Reality doesn't care if you feel comfortable. It just is how it is. You have no choice but to accept that.
Thing is, you can only engineer so much into the highway's design before you start encountering more problems on the human side. Reaction times do not improve, and unfortunately people rarely increase their following distance when driving faster (esp as the number of users increases), so yes, higher permitted speeds tend to result in more accidents.
Thing is, this isn't a politician, scientists, or institution saying this, it is the insurance companies. They tend to do a pretty good job of cutting through the BS since their profits are directly connected to actually things right.
And while it is true that such collisions are 'rare', they are still common enough to be a daily occurrence on most major highways
I still wait for the day when it can be handled like other things (especially in the early years of one's life):
Ok, we'll up the speed to 85, BUT: 1. The entire stretch, including endpoints, will be monitored with speed monitoring (type is of the State's choice), and video. 2. Anyone closer than 10 car lengths will receive a ticket for $300. 3. Anyone exceeding the speed limit by more than 2MPH for a period of over 10 seconds more than once on the entire drag will receive a ticket for $100, and excess under 2MPH over 5 times will be ticketed $200. Learn to use your damn cruise control, learn how to drive without it by using intelligent averages, or don't drive this road (well, or give us a bunch of money). 4. Speed must be maintained after 1 mile before and after endpoint at 85MPH. 5. Anyone braking without cause will be ticketed $500. 6. Anyone passing without cause will be ticketed $700. 7. Anyone choosing to rebel against these high-speed toll road rules by speeding on roads other than this toll road, and exceeding 85MPH, will be fined $1000 and lose their driving privileges for 1 month on first offense, 3 on second, and permanently on third.
That's a start, anyway. Hey, I'd vote it up and go pay for that toll road on days where I wanna "vroom vroom go fast" and be more aware of my driving on days where I feel like not using it.
It seems it would be a hard argument to make that anything was doing irreparable harm to Apple when they are currently the largest publicly traded company in the world.
In a press release today (that didn't make it to paper, net, or air), Apple stated that they wanted to clarify "irreparable harm" as meaning "irreparable harm to our company's complete control of the mind market."
I've a friend that's flip-flopped from telling me I needed an iPhone (when I got a Galaxy SII) to telling me how wonderful his wife's Galaxy SIII is. He's not even a tech-type guy and he's talked about the Apple vs. Samsung trial specifically because he wants to get a Galaxy SIII for himself soon.
Customers are fickle (outside of the the fanboy spectrum) and will jump on whatever is "hot" at the time. That's the whole purpose of the "walled garden" that Apple - and yes, Google "Play Store" also - encourages. It's an attempt to lock people into a specific set of devices (ones that you profit from) by discouraging change. Who wants to lose music, games, etc just because there's a new device out that is a little better? The better they can convince people to stay, the more money they can extract.
So yes, outside of the walling of the gardens, I suspect people want those choices. I would find it really interesting to see people genuinely upset that they're getting taken away from them.
Amen.
And it's sad that developing a new groundbreaking technology (or other product) today isn't stressful from only money and time in developing and marketing it...
Man, the fear of lawsuits is nearly enough to kill a developing company's heads. I'm not joking.
Can you imagine the state of the automobile industry today if there had been a patent on the 'look and feel' of the original automobile, and Ford had aggressively sued other automobile manufacturers?
Actually Ford would be the one being sued to hell and back by Daimler-Benz. His mass production on an assembly line was revolutionary but he did not in any way invent the automobile.
Absolute bullshit. Can you imagine the state of the automobile industry today if there had been a patent on the 'look and feel' of the original automobile, and Ford had aggressively sued other automobile manufacturers? Apple are probably the richest company in the world and they are using their excessive funds to cripple any competition with frivolous patent trolling. It will become less important to Apple to innovate if there is no competition, is that what you really want?
Well, he didn't patent the idea before it hit assembly lines. Back in those days you could actually focus on developing a product that consumers would want to buy and, well, that's it.
I wonder what would have happened had Ford patented that nifty new device called the automobile? Hmm... I wonder what the Ford corporation would be doing today. Just curious.
its pretty clear that Samsung would not have been selling anything even close to the Galaxy phones if they had not studied the iPhone
Never heard of enabling technology (such as high-quality low power displays)? Never heard of convergent evolution? Never noticed that many technical product categories come into existence almost overnight due to economy of scale effects?
Apple clearly benefited from work at Xerox. Without Xerox, we'd still be using text consoles. I'm not so sure Samsung benefited from work done at Apple. What Apple established was credibility of consumer demand for a new class of expensive toy.
Do they own that? Or is it just the nature of business that everyone piles on to a hot new product category?
Am I reading this wrong, or is it suggesting that I should ask large companies out there (side: in today's market with such secrecy and control), to see all of their ideas and products that didn't go anywhere for them?
Oh, then offer to buy one of those ideas for $500... Then develop a product that uses a component or two of that idea, patent it, and try to sell and make it the thing that is completely revolutionary?
Oh, while other companies are selling similar things, but mine eventually becomes so huge that my company has so much money for lawyers that there aren't enough on this continent to hire? Their purpose is to sue every other company out there that made a product that looked a little like mine because I SPENT 500 FUCKING DOLLARS ON THIS AND IT RUINED ME FOR THREE MONTHS, TEN YEARS AGO, DAMNIT!
...or is that completely different from what happened and not even on the same planet?
Apple is just the next company to play the "me, me, me" game until some completely new and unrelated technology destroys the value of tablets, phones, and standard GUI computers.
Slashdot Mirror
Screwing over people for profit the the American Way(tm)???
I cleaned that up for ya.
But, but, but...... But..
Can... Bottle.
...Isn't there any cool news for geeks that isn't related to a cell phone?
In what age group? :)
If that's the case, someone is probably already making a root-access-giving program that works through phone-to-phone NFC as we speak.
Although... transmission through intimate contact? That sounds awfully like an STD...
I can't wait until that's heard in a patent infringement suit.
I posted this above but here's what I see (maybe I'm missing something so help me out).
So that assumption of danger here is what? Someone walks down the street bumping into random strangers repeatedly hoping that:
1) The bump into the side where the strangers phone was being held.
2) The two phones are perfectly at the same height (presumably in a pocket).
3) The strangers phone is vulnerable.
4) They have NFC enabled.
5) They could hold the phones in contact for the about of time necessary to transfer both an overloaded filed (presumably exceeded a buffer limit) and THEN also transfer the app compromised app that allows the actual hack to work (over a connection with a maximum bandwidth of a few hundred kbits/s).
6) Then after the hack succeeded they remained in contact long enough for the data from the strangers phone to be transferred back to the hackers phone.
All with anyone noticing? That's all assuming they fix whatever issue was causing it to need to be run 185 times before it finally worked? Assuming those 185 times were the incremental transfers of all the data needed? Again I'm still not scared. And this is fixed in Jelly bean (which my S3 is running...doom on you close talking random guy on the street thinking you finally found someone with an S3 to stand uncomfortably close to!).
All ya gotta do is knock the stranger out. This just helps hackers not physically steal phones. Because stealing phones is wrong. :>
I had always wondered what "LOL" meant.
I thought it was the replacement of a period at the end of a sentence (or the beginning of a sentence, depending on the mood of the individual). :)
... that the Core i7 processor containing 731,000,000 transistors weighs approximately 386 g. 731,000,000 Silicon atoms weighs roughly 34 fg (femtograms) - using Avogadro's Constant and assuming I did my calculation correctly. That's a pretty huge space savings, even if you were only using binary computation.
...and then it got hot and separated the atoms too far from each other to interact. D'oh!
I guess a round of applause is due to the 9/11 terrorists and their relative entities. Their actions have made the U.S. respond to stupid free speech statements in a way that is equivalent to a terrorist threat, AND treated as such!
Congrats, congrats.
I would hope there had to be more to it than a simple, "I'd go all Aurora, CO on those kids for a pair of them kicks!"
Disclaimer: This post was made in jest and no actual threat was made explicitly or implicitly.
But YOU said it!
</snark>
http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/calif-man-arrested-espn-post-killing-kids-193325522.html
Right in the middle of the article: "The online post on ESPN said that a shooting would be like the one in Aurora, Colo., where 12 people were killed and 58 were injured in July, authorities said."
That's not a comment on business practices - that's a threat.
That's what just makes me gasp in the stupidity of the "authorities" acting that way on this matter: "The online post on ESPN said that a shooting would be like the one in Aurora, Colo., where 12 people were killed and 58 were injured in July, authorities said."
Wait, wait, wait a second here. There's a big difference between someone saying "my shooting will be like the one.... etc etc" and "a shooting will be like the one... etc etc."
It looks to me like a predictive statement regarding the future actions of others. I make predictive statements all the time and not once has anyone suffered from receiving the statement. BECAUSE IT'S THIRD-PERSON FUTURE TENSE, not first or second party anything.
Now, if the quote above isn't direct and unedited, then I didn't say anything. :)
Now I know what the "old folks" meant when they talk about times a'changing.
Back when I was a boy, when I was pissed at someone, I could talk with friends and say, "I wanna kill that bastard."
It got the steam out and anger went bye-bye.
Nowadays I'm afraid to say anything about killing anything to anyone.
Seriously, if thoses are granted: America is a lost cause.
13/091,380 Accessing data in a data processing system
13/102,337 Accessing data in a content-addressable data processing system
13/109,208 Accessing data in a content-addressable data processing system
13/352,169 Data Distribution in A Data Processing System
13/351,433 Access Control in A Data Processing System Using Data Item Signatures
http://www.personalweb.com/Technology.html
They're trying to destroy file sharing in a new way!
</humor>
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,978,791.PN.&OS=PN/5,978,791&RS=PN/5,978,791
They better go and sue Oracle. This describes the function of java.util.Hashtable.... hangon, that's been around since 1996 and the patent was filled in 1997.
Funny how the patent review officer never seems to catch these dag'gon things.
This is a good one.
Did I just break their policy by posting this link? Oh nos.
But reality is not that simple! You can't just dumb things down at will, until it is simple enough for you to feel comfortable. Reality doesn't care if you feel comfortable. It just is how it is. You have no choice but to accept that.
See: Religion
Thing is, you can only engineer so much into the highway's design before you start encountering more problems on the human side. Reaction times do not improve, and unfortunately people rarely increase their following distance when driving faster (esp as the number of users increases), so yes, higher permitted speeds tend to result in more accidents.
Thing is, this isn't a politician, scientists, or institution saying this, it is the insurance companies. They tend to do a pretty good job of cutting through the BS since their profits are directly connected to actually things right.
And while it is true that such collisions are 'rare', they are still common enough to be a daily occurrence on most major highways
I still wait for the day when it can be handled like other things (especially in the early years of one's life):
Ok, we'll up the speed to 85, BUT:
1. The entire stretch, including endpoints, will be monitored with speed monitoring (type is of the State's choice), and video.
2. Anyone closer than 10 car lengths will receive a ticket for $300.
3. Anyone exceeding the speed limit by more than 2MPH for a period of over 10 seconds more than once on the entire drag will receive a ticket for $100, and excess under 2MPH over 5 times will be ticketed $200. Learn to use your damn cruise control, learn how to drive without it by using intelligent averages, or don't drive this road (well, or give us a bunch of money).
4. Speed must be maintained after 1 mile before and after endpoint at 85MPH.
5. Anyone braking without cause will be ticketed $500.
6. Anyone passing without cause will be ticketed $700.
7. Anyone choosing to rebel against these high-speed toll road rules by speeding on roads other than this toll road, and exceeding 85MPH, will be fined $1000 and lose their driving privileges for 1 month on first offense, 3 on second, and permanently on third.
That's a start, anyway. Hey, I'd vote it up and go pay for that toll road on days where I wanna "vroom vroom go fast" and be more aware of my driving on days where I feel like not using it.
But I'm just an idiot, so what does it matter? :)
No, I use to play like you, then I learned to just walk away from stupid fights.
see, here I am walking...
Then why are you bothering posting on here at all?
It seems it would be a hard argument to make that anything was doing irreparable harm to Apple when they are currently the largest publicly traded company in the world.
In a press release today (that didn't make it to paper, net, or air), Apple stated that they wanted to clarify "irreparable harm" as meaning "irreparable harm to our company's complete control of the mind market."
;)
Uhm, no. There's nothing stopping Apple from installing Android on the iPhone 5.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when approached by Apple for the purchase of licenses, could Google not say, "Uhm, no."?
I've a friend that's flip-flopped from telling me I needed an iPhone (when I got a Galaxy SII) to telling me how wonderful his wife's Galaxy SIII is. He's not even a tech-type guy and he's talked about the Apple vs. Samsung trial specifically because he wants to get a Galaxy SIII for himself soon.
Customers are fickle (outside of the the fanboy spectrum) and will jump on whatever is "hot" at the time. That's the whole purpose of the "walled garden" that Apple - and yes, Google "Play Store" also - encourages. It's an attempt to lock people into a specific set of devices (ones that you profit from) by discouraging change. Who wants to lose music, games, etc just because there's a new device out that is a little better? The better they can convince people to stay, the more money they can extract.
So yes, outside of the walling of the gardens, I suspect people want those choices. I would find it really interesting to see people genuinely upset that they're getting taken away from them.
Amen.
And it's sad that developing a new groundbreaking technology (or other product) today isn't stressful from only money and time in developing and marketing it...
Man, the fear of lawsuits is nearly enough to kill a developing company's heads. I'm not joking.
Can you imagine the state of the automobile industry today if there had been a patent on the 'look and feel' of the original automobile, and Ford had aggressively sued other automobile manufacturers?
Actually Ford would be the one being sued to hell and back by Daimler-Benz. His mass production on an assembly line was revolutionary but he did not in any way invent the automobile.
Oooh, burn!
Absolute bullshit. Can you imagine the state of the automobile industry today if there had been a patent on the 'look and feel' of the original automobile, and Ford had aggressively sued other automobile manufacturers? Apple are probably the richest company in the world and they are using their excessive funds to cripple any competition with frivolous patent trolling. It will become less important to Apple to innovate if there is no competition, is that what you really want?
Well, he didn't patent the idea before it hit assembly lines. Back in those days you could actually focus on developing a product that consumers would want to buy and, well, that's it.
I wonder what would have happened had Ford patented that nifty new device called the automobile? Hmm... I wonder what the Ford corporation would be doing today. Just curious.
;)
Never heard of enabling technology (such as high-quality low power displays)? Never heard of convergent evolution? Never noticed that many technical product categories come into existence almost overnight due to economy of scale effects?
Apple clearly benefited from work at Xerox. Without Xerox, we'd still be using text consoles. I'm not so sure Samsung benefited from work done at Apple. What Apple established was credibility of consumer demand for a new class of expensive toy.
Do they own that? Or is it just the nature of business that everyone piles on to a hot new product category?
Am I reading this wrong, or is it suggesting that I should ask large companies out there (side: in today's market with such secrecy and control), to see all of their ideas and products that didn't go anywhere for them?
Oh, then offer to buy one of those ideas for $500... Then develop a product that uses a component or two of that idea, patent it, and try to sell and make it the thing that is completely revolutionary?
Oh, while other companies are selling similar things, but mine eventually becomes so huge that my company has so much money for lawyers that there aren't enough on this continent to hire? Their purpose is to sue every other company out there that made a product that looked a little like mine because I SPENT 500 FUCKING DOLLARS ON THIS AND IT RUINED ME FOR THREE MONTHS, TEN YEARS AGO, DAMNIT!
...or is that completely different from what happened and not even on the same planet?
Apple is just the next company to play the "me, me, me" game until some completely new and unrelated technology destroys the value of tablets, phones, and standard GUI computers.