I wish I had the option to rate this "pedantic unsubstantiated crap", but I have to settle for a comment.
You mix pseudo facts with outright fabrication and opinion, and present it without backing. If you would make a statement somewhere in there that was meant to be offensive, you would even be trolling. Get some facts in there. PGP was created because Phil wanted us (the people) to have something besides the equivalent of a post card to send on the nascent internet. No more, no less. You can continue from there.
Thanks for the thorough explanation on the burning software and gaps they imposed. Multi-session CDs never did well for me - and I only tried a few before ditching that approach. CD blanks costs dropped, so my mutl-session process was create a new image and burn that on a new disk, throw away old disk. This also significantly improved my burn success rates. There was also the issue that "open" CDs did not play in my CD players.
I don't buy the landing zone explanation. It doesn't matter to the CD player, it seeks the proper start point and then plays when it hits the proper time. Having several CDs that have continuous flow, when I select an index - it jumps right to the same spot to start playing as near as I can tell. It certainly doesn't vary by up to a second. That doesn't mean this isn't correct, I'm just not convinced.
The funny thing is most people no longer listen to an album in its entirety in one sitting, and never really did. You had to flip it over. If you desire a single experience, flow the songs together. Rush did this on 2112, NIN on Pretty Hate Machine, and there are others I just don't have them at my fingertips.
There's only a few albums that are worth listening to all at once, no matter what the artist thinks. Pink Floyd's The Wall was one such and had a great run, even with singles being sold. Most "albums" today are 1 or 2 sound bite songs with filler, cranked out as quickly and cheaply as possible. Not that I'm saying this is worse - we need one hit wonders, and some of my favorite songs are from one hit wonder bands. For some of the more rare ones, I'll buy the album (EP, LP, CD, DVD, whatever format happens to have the version of the song I want) and I'll take it from there under Fair Use. I have not bought a single MP3/AAC song yet, and would prefer not to until they are available in lossless format. I had heard some rumors of this occurring with some bands, but given my tastes, current collection and aggregation rate, there's no need for me to buy anything online. XMas and birthdays are great times to add the few things I deem worthy of owning.
And as much as the RIAA would have you believe no one buys music, people do. However, I only buy music I like, of which precious little is being produced these days. Just because no one is buying most of the tripe they're peddling doesn't mean people are stealing as the RIAA likes to think. We are just being very selective. I think I bought 1 album in the last 12 months (as a gift) for example. I will probably get 3 for XMas. That will most likely cover me until next XMas, provided anything I want comes out. Compare that to the roughly 2500 in my library, and that most of that library has been in my possession for more than a decade, and you'll see why sales are "down". Most I know were like me - prior to the true internet boom and online radio etc, buying albums and trading them was the most efficient way to get and share your own flavors of music. That is no longer necessary, and there's reams of "old" music I'm considering dumping. I have 500 CDs in a box ready to be donated to the local library, and that's just the first cut through the library. Why am I getting rid of these? Because should I wish to hear them again, Pandora or some web radio station I can easily get to will be playing whatever song I might still want to hear off of those.
So I suppose I'll "steal" another 500 potential sales or more by donating pieces of my collection to the library. Call out the goon squad.
CDs specify a pause before each track. Usually it's 2 seconds (my old player counts down -0:02, -0:01, 0:00, 0:01), but it can be set to zero, in which case there's no gap at all, and the index is just a pointer to a frame to start playback from.
I have a few electronic albums like this.
CDs do not specify a pause at all. The pause you're most likely referring to was that moronic burning software from the late 90s early 2000s that had those default options. A player that imposed such a moronic concept on its CDs would destroy the flow of an album like NIN's Pretty Hate Machine, from 1989, among others. Many CDs are mastered with a "quiet" period of approximately a second or so between songs, matching the pauses between songs on LPs, which were the visible areas (widely spaced grooves) so that a person could drop the needle near the beginning of a particular song of interest. There are also LPs where an entire side appears or sounds as one track - I believe side A of Tangerine Dream's Force Majeure and Rush's 2112 were 2 samples, but it's been a long time since I broke out any vinyl.
I'd rather see part 2 of that - upset parents use the fact that Verizon didn't step in and stop piracy, hate speech, bullying, child-pornography, pedophilia, terrorism and file a class action lawsuit against Verizon for all failures. You can't have it both ways - either you police your network, or you don't.
The one that gets me is on the last trip - when opting out - the lady was trying to convince me to go through the scanner "Why not go through? There's no radiation from these machines" she says. I was so floored I couldn't even reply.
A) Windows of any flavor sucks, simply sucks, compared to any of the alternatives. Just because there's enough lipstick on the pig to make it deceptively prettier than the competition does not make it "good" in any sense of the word.
B) OSX with Quicksilver (which, I believe is where the keyboard approach from Windows was stolen as QS predates 2004) is about the best combination of OS / app launchers ever, and QS has far more capabilities than just being a mere launcher. There's not much to learn on the OSX interface, really, and I have yet to meet someone that's embraced OSX that wants to go back to Winblows (yep - gotta throw in that invective - but they could at least have trademarked "Winblows" and probably should have;)
The only thing Windows had going for it was the large number of apps and decent eco system. As MS's growth rate slowed, they looked for more ways to squeeze additional growth out of their market, and they've been slowly squeezing out a large number of players out of their eco system as they expand their base to include all sorts of additional features. This has maintained their (still too high) stock price, but the cost has been the ready defection of developers to new markets, hence the success of iOS.
Just because it's couched in words with extreme distaste doesn't mean that anything said is incorrect, even the connotations may be correct. I don't know, I don't know the woman personally, nor even casually enough to know anything about her personality.
Steve Ballmer is a hot-headed bastard asshole who is driving MS into the ground with one bad decision after another. Does the invective on Ballmer (which can be proven by a number of different reported instances including those of chair-throwing) make the statement any less "correct"?
Back to the main topic - This woman's brain turds... err, children were the Ribbon AND Metro? She's still employed? (much less being promoted to CEO?) MS may fail faster than I thought.
You don't have a clue, and by "bashing the competition" I mean owning them completely. Why does Apple "own" those markets?
As for marketing, I suppose Samsung's budget is minuscule (as I walk by billboard after billboard of SIII touch me here - I wish to share a book/song/movie/podcast/etc a day with you, followed by more billboards of tablets, etc. Apple ads? Not that many)
And here's a last jab to just make you wax overly poetic: Why did Samsung not come out with a decent phone prior to the iPhone, especially in light of them making significant portions of the iPhone and having a large catalogues of phones, and were certainly more "experience" in the phone business than Apple? Perhaps it was a lack of vision? A lack of ability to meld parts together? A lack of focus? A lack of innovation? Take your pick, but there was at least one "lack" in there, if not more. And then for bonus points answer this honest question - why did Samsung come out with a phone that looks a lot like a clone of the iPhone just a few years after the iPhone was released?
The question is how company like MS can justify a P/E of greater than ~12. Without some degree of excitement, MS is a stock that has been flat for 10 years and is going to stay flat for the next 10 years.
That's assuming they stay flat. There's no indication that on their current trajectories that they're going to be able to maintain that flatness. Growth? Out of the question, IMNSHO. Downward trajectory? Absolutely. 1 or 2 more generations of tablets, and 90% of current consumer PC users won't need them, and more shockingly, neither will 90% of business users. And MS currently doesn't seem to be able to crack that market at all, Surface's recent introduction being a key in point. Keypads breaking within days? Not a good sign.
Interesting - just finished writing 3 applications using JPA in... 3 months. (Granted, 2 were small, one only took 6 hours and will be utilized as a hosted service solution for a game, the other for a large scale enterprise bus - but geez - what possibly would I know about programming, especially DB related programming?)
I know nothing about NHibernate, granted, but I do dislike Hibernate strongly, and for valid technical reasons at least up to Hibernate3 it is a solution I would never advocate. Other JPA providers don't appear to suffer from Hibernate's foibles and are suitable for simple ORM solutions. Note that for these cases, the annotations/mapping files will be almost non-existent, and the custom code should be 0. Anything reasonably complex, and I would argue that there's no data mapping/ORM solution out there that won't cause you more pain and provide a worse performance solution than a well-crafted persistence layer. Note that I'm not talking about the mom and pop bookstore case, but high transaction rate solutions in the 1000s/min or more with large tables (min 100K rows). With any ORM solution, you'll either keep scaling hardware which does have an upper limit or writing optimizations into your persistence layer as performance keeps lagging, which will exponentially increase continuing development and maintenance costs. I've yet to see a different outcome across many projects, only some of which I had to attempt to fix those issues.
So mainly, while I agree with your statements about Hibernate sucking, I doubt the Entity Framework is the panacea you make it out to be, and I give an equally anecdotal counterpoint to your being able to code something in weeks to me coding a full server solution in hours with a framework I don't even particularly like.
VMWare used to use software emulated CPUs, at least on OSX. It's why they were an order of magnitude slower than Parallels. You could also have more logical CPUs than actual cores on your system - at a huge performance hit, of course. I don't recall if you could set the specific CPU type, or if it was fixed - to a 32 bit CPU. So there was definitely some emulation going on there.
Still - you look at the target markets - Apple is 100% consumer at the moment, MS is significantly business, and RH is wholly business. Somehow the business market doesn't seem as lucrative as it once did.
See this comment just above. If you don't believe people copied Apple, well, there's a special place in bellevue for you.
Yes, Apple takes ideas from others - Xerox was the first example, and Jobs himself made no excuses about it. However, note that Apple's implementation of the idea was far in excess of what was accomplished at Xerox, hence why we had Apple computers in the 80s, and no Xerox computers to speak of. Regarding the phones, there were lots of phones out there. All bad, IMNSHO. Blackberries were the worst, again, my own perception. Until the iPhone came out, browsing on the web was painful, at best. But the best thing about the iPhone was that it broke the phone companies methodology about phones, and freed hardware makers from restrictive and anti-innovative contracts with the phone companies. Say what you will, but the iPhone broke open the phone hardware market for everyone. The same thing happened with the iPod, and the tablet was also, technically, a copy of ideas before it.
So why, if Apple merely copies, do they sell so well, and so thoroughly bash the competition? It's not because they low-ball their prices - you'll probably be the first in line to claim they're higher than similar competitive devices despite evidence to the contrary. (Yes, you can buy cheaper items from others, but not the same hardware, as soon as it's matched up, the prices are close or in Apple's favor - how's that work?) It could the the reality distortion field around Jobs - but he's been dead a year and that's some distortion field if it's still sticking around. Maybe, it's because the value for what you pay for is really there? The quality of the product is actually better than the competition? Perhaps it's the far better service? The lengthy support? The fact that a 3 year old laptop can still look almost new despite heavy usage and has at least another 2-3 years of life left in it? Gag - that starts to sound like an ad, but still, these are all true statements compared to their competitors.
That is true - the problem for Apple now is that with their huge outsourced supply chain and assembly facilities, the only way they're going to be able to manufacture these things in secret is to bring at least some manufacturing and assembly back in house, and definitely prior to the initial announcement.
IV through VI were masterpieces, but given recent events it had very little to do with George Lucas, whatever George likes to think.
I'll agree with Ep 1-3 being masterpieces of suckage. Ep 4 was great when it came out, and even today it's "ok". Ep 5 was easily the best of the entire set. Ep 6 almost made me walk out of the theater, those stupid ewoks were... extremely stupid (couldn't find a remotely other PC word that fit my feelings on the topic). I'd watch the original Ep 4 and 5 again, I don't think 6 could be saved even with heavy editing from being anything other than a movie targeted at 6 year olds, which is, of course, still two years older than the target for Ep 1-3. (Yes, I'm exaggerating, but not by much.)
As I said, Apple is weak--the Galaxy S3 is single-handedly outselling the iPhone
I tell you thrice, it must be true.
Just keep beating that drum. The only reason the iPhone 4S sales dropped was because of the extremely poorly kept secret that the iPhone5 was coming out in Oct. Before you declare your hollow victory, check the sales numbers out for the next quarter - post release. Then go cry into whatever cup you have, since it seems you are that emotionally invested in seeing Apple fall.
Personally, I own a few samsung products, they're OK. I don't think in the future I'd pay anywhere near top dollar though. My TV, for instance, sporting nifty brand new features, was obsolete and unsupported within a year. My phones had updates for 8 months. Guess that's how Android phone buyers feel. At least in my case, my primary video source will work just fine with the Samsung TV as a dumb monitor and I certainly didn't like the idea of it being connected to the internet in the first place.
The moral of the apparent segue is you have to stand behind your products or your one-time customers will be just that: one-time. Not a good prescription for staying at the top. Apple excels at keeping customers. Samsung has a lot to learn in this realm. One of the reasons they do not is because they are bottom feeding, and the margins apparently are too low to keep supporting their own products. There's a reason you can only get Apple products in less than 4 configurations, and usually less than 3 meaningful ones.
You mean like Google's CEO Eric Schmidt being on the board of Apple, seeing what Apple was doing, and then essentially copying it at Google? No conflict of interest there or potential theft of ideas. Nope, none at all. The only thing I'm surprised about is that he hasn't been sued or worse. Maybe that's coming.
No - it's a randomly changing keys, but even that's patently (excuse the pun) obvious to anyone within the encryption community. So this patent fails the obvious test as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I had the option to rate this "pedantic unsubstantiated crap", but I have to settle for a comment.
You mix pseudo facts with outright fabrication and opinion, and present it without backing. If you would make a statement somewhere in there that was meant to be offensive, you would even be trolling. Get some facts in there. PGP was created because Phil wanted us (the people) to have something besides the equivalent of a post card to send on the nascent internet. No more, no less. You can continue from there.
Thanks for the thorough explanation on the burning software and gaps they imposed. Multi-session CDs never did well for me - and I only tried a few before ditching that approach. CD blanks costs dropped, so my mutl-session process was create a new image and burn that on a new disk, throw away old disk. This also significantly improved my burn success rates. There was also the issue that "open" CDs did not play in my CD players.
I don't buy the landing zone explanation. It doesn't matter to the CD player, it seeks the proper start point and then plays when it hits the proper time. Having several CDs that have continuous flow, when I select an index - it jumps right to the same spot to start playing as near as I can tell. It certainly doesn't vary by up to a second. That doesn't mean this isn't correct, I'm just not convinced.
The funny thing is most people no longer listen to an album in its entirety in one sitting, and never really did. You had to flip it over. If you desire a single experience, flow the songs together. Rush did this on 2112, NIN on Pretty Hate Machine, and there are others I just don't have them at my fingertips.
There's only a few albums that are worth listening to all at once, no matter what the artist thinks. Pink Floyd's The Wall was one such and had a great run, even with singles being sold. Most "albums" today are 1 or 2 sound bite songs with filler, cranked out as quickly and cheaply as possible. Not that I'm saying this is worse - we need one hit wonders, and some of my favorite songs are from one hit wonder bands. For some of the more rare ones, I'll buy the album (EP, LP, CD, DVD, whatever format happens to have the version of the song I want) and I'll take it from there under Fair Use. I have not bought a single MP3/AAC song yet, and would prefer not to until they are available in lossless format. I had heard some rumors of this occurring with some bands, but given my tastes, current collection and aggregation rate, there's no need for me to buy anything online. XMas and birthdays are great times to add the few things I deem worthy of owning.
And as much as the RIAA would have you believe no one buys music, people do. However, I only buy music I like, of which precious little is being produced these days. Just because no one is buying most of the tripe they're peddling doesn't mean people are stealing as the RIAA likes to think. We are just being very selective. I think I bought 1 album in the last 12 months (as a gift) for example. I will probably get 3 for XMas. That will most likely cover me until next XMas, provided anything I want comes out. Compare that to the roughly 2500 in my library, and that most of that library has been in my possession for more than a decade, and you'll see why sales are "down". Most I know were like me - prior to the true internet boom and online radio etc, buying albums and trading them was the most efficient way to get and share your own flavors of music. That is no longer necessary, and there's reams of "old" music I'm considering dumping. I have 500 CDs in a box ready to be donated to the local library, and that's just the first cut through the library. Why am I getting rid of these? Because should I wish to hear them again, Pandora or some web radio station I can easily get to will be playing whatever song I might still want to hear off of those.
So I suppose I'll "steal" another 500 potential sales or more by donating pieces of my collection to the library. Call out the goon squad.
CDs specify a pause before each track. Usually it's 2 seconds (my old player counts down -0:02, -0:01, 0:00, 0:01), but it can be set to zero, in which case there's no gap at all, and the index is just a pointer to a frame to start playback from.
I have a few electronic albums like this.
CDs do not specify a pause at all. The pause you're most likely referring to was that moronic burning software from the late 90s early 2000s that had those default options. A player that imposed such a moronic concept on its CDs would destroy the flow of an album like NIN's Pretty Hate Machine, from 1989, among others. Many CDs are mastered with a "quiet" period of approximately a second or so between songs, matching the pauses between songs on LPs, which were the visible areas (widely spaced grooves) so that a person could drop the needle near the beginning of a particular song of interest. There are also LPs where an entire side appears or sounds as one track - I believe side A of Tangerine Dream's Force Majeure and Rush's 2112 were 2 samples, but it's been a long time since I broke out any vinyl.
I'd rather see part 2 of that - upset parents use the fact that Verizon didn't step in and stop piracy, hate speech, bullying, child-pornography, pedophilia, terrorism and file a class action lawsuit against Verizon for all failures. You can't have it both ways - either you police your network, or you don't.
Neither does a microwave...
The one that gets me is on the last trip - when opting out - the lady was trying to convince me to go through the scanner "Why not go through? There's no radiation from these machines" she says. I was so floored I couldn't even reply.
A) Windows of any flavor sucks, simply sucks, compared to any of the alternatives. Just because there's enough lipstick on the pig to make it deceptively prettier than the competition does not make it "good" in any sense of the word.
B) OSX with Quicksilver (which, I believe is where the keyboard approach from Windows was stolen as QS predates 2004) is about the best combination of OS / app launchers ever, and QS has far more capabilities than just being a mere launcher. There's not much to learn on the OSX interface, really, and I have yet to meet someone that's embraced OSX that wants to go back to Winblows (yep - gotta throw in that invective - but they could at least have trademarked "Winblows" and probably should have ;)
The only thing Windows had going for it was the large number of apps and decent eco system. As MS's growth rate slowed, they looked for more ways to squeeze additional growth out of their market, and they've been slowly squeezing out a large number of players out of their eco system as they expand their base to include all sorts of additional features. This has maintained their (still too high) stock price, but the cost has been the ready defection of developers to new markets, hence the success of iOS.
Just because it's couched in words with extreme distaste doesn't mean that anything said is incorrect, even the connotations may be correct. I don't know, I don't know the woman personally, nor even casually enough to know anything about her personality.
Steve Ballmer is a hot-headed bastard asshole who is driving MS into the ground with one bad decision after another. Does the invective on Ballmer (which can be proven by a number of different reported instances including those of chair-throwing) make the statement any less "correct"?
Back to the main topic - This woman's brain turds... err, children were the Ribbon AND Metro? She's still employed? (much less being promoted to CEO?) MS may fail faster than I thought.
I figured by now all the Ark B folks had moved on, this being more than 60s old.... ;)
There was no Ark A or Ark C.....
And nails!!!
Awesome reference! Maybe we can get most of the ACs on Ark B too.
You don't have a clue, and by "bashing the competition" I mean owning them completely. Why does Apple "own" those markets?
As for marketing, I suppose Samsung's budget is minuscule (as I walk by billboard after billboard of SIII touch me here - I wish to share a book/song/movie/podcast/etc a day with you, followed by more billboards of tablets, etc. Apple ads? Not that many)
And here's a last jab to just make you wax overly poetic: Why did Samsung not come out with a decent phone prior to the iPhone, especially in light of them making significant portions of the iPhone and having a large catalogues of phones, and were certainly more "experience" in the phone business than Apple? Perhaps it was a lack of vision? A lack of ability to meld parts together? A lack of focus? A lack of innovation? Take your pick, but there was at least one "lack" in there, if not more. And then for bonus points answer this honest question - why did Samsung come out with a phone that looks a lot like a clone of the iPhone just a few years after the iPhone was released?
The question is how company like MS can justify a P/E of greater than ~12. Without some degree of excitement, MS is a stock that has been flat for 10 years and is going to stay flat for the next 10 years.
That's assuming they stay flat. There's no indication that on their current trajectories that they're going to be able to maintain that flatness. Growth? Out of the question, IMNSHO. Downward trajectory? Absolutely. 1 or 2 more generations of tablets, and 90% of current consumer PC users won't need them, and more shockingly, neither will 90% of business users. And MS currently doesn't seem to be able to crack that market at all, Surface's recent introduction being a key in point. Keypads breaking within days? Not a good sign.
Interesting - just finished writing 3 applications using JPA in... 3 months. (Granted, 2 were small, one only took 6 hours and will be utilized as a hosted service solution for a game, the other for a large scale enterprise bus - but geez - what possibly would I know about programming, especially DB related programming?)
I know nothing about NHibernate, granted, but I do dislike Hibernate strongly, and for valid technical reasons at least up to Hibernate3 it is a solution I would never advocate. Other JPA providers don't appear to suffer from Hibernate's foibles and are suitable for simple ORM solutions. Note that for these cases, the annotations/mapping files will be almost non-existent, and the custom code should be 0. Anything reasonably complex, and I would argue that there's no data mapping/ORM solution out there that won't cause you more pain and provide a worse performance solution than a well-crafted persistence layer. Note that I'm not talking about the mom and pop bookstore case, but high transaction rate solutions in the 1000s/min or more with large tables (min 100K rows). With any ORM solution, you'll either keep scaling hardware which does have an upper limit or writing optimizations into your persistence layer as performance keeps lagging, which will exponentially increase continuing development and maintenance costs. I've yet to see a different outcome across many projects, only some of which I had to attempt to fix those issues.
So mainly, while I agree with your statements about Hibernate sucking, I doubt the Entity Framework is the panacea you make it out to be, and I give an equally anecdotal counterpoint to your being able to code something in weeks to me coding a full server solution in hours with a framework I don't even particularly like.
VMWare used to use software emulated CPUs, at least on OSX. It's why they were an order of magnitude slower than Parallels. You could also have more logical CPUs than actual cores on your system - at a huge performance hit, of course. I don't recall if you could set the specific CPU type, or if it was fixed - to a 32 bit CPU. So there was definitely some emulation going on there.
Still - you look at the target markets - Apple is 100% consumer at the moment, MS is significantly business, and RH is wholly business. Somehow the business market doesn't seem as lucrative as it once did.
VM's can fake a 32bit cpu.... its almost like there isn't a real CPU and someone is just pretending or something...
Guess the OP failed to comprehend the "Virtual" machine....
See this comment just above. If you don't believe people copied Apple, well, there's a special place in bellevue for you.
Yes, Apple takes ideas from others - Xerox was the first example, and Jobs himself made no excuses about it. However, note that Apple's implementation of the idea was far in excess of what was accomplished at Xerox, hence why we had Apple computers in the 80s, and no Xerox computers to speak of. Regarding the phones, there were lots of phones out there. All bad, IMNSHO. Blackberries were the worst, again, my own perception. Until the iPhone came out, browsing on the web was painful, at best. But the best thing about the iPhone was that it broke the phone companies methodology about phones, and freed hardware makers from restrictive and anti-innovative contracts with the phone companies. Say what you will, but the iPhone broke open the phone hardware market for everyone. The same thing happened with the iPod, and the tablet was also, technically, a copy of ideas before it.
So why, if Apple merely copies, do they sell so well, and so thoroughly bash the competition? It's not because they low-ball their prices - you'll probably be the first in line to claim they're higher than similar competitive devices despite evidence to the contrary. (Yes, you can buy cheaper items from others, but not the same hardware, as soon as it's matched up, the prices are close or in Apple's favor - how's that work?) It could the the reality distortion field around Jobs - but he's been dead a year and that's some distortion field if it's still sticking around. Maybe, it's because the value for what you pay for is really there? The quality of the product is actually better than the competition? Perhaps it's the far better service? The lengthy support? The fact that a 3 year old laptop can still look almost new despite heavy usage and has at least another 2-3 years of life left in it? Gag - that starts to sound like an ad, but still, these are all true statements compared to their competitors.
That is true - the problem for Apple now is that with their huge outsourced supply chain and assembly facilities, the only way they're going to be able to manufacture these things in secret is to bring at least some manufacturing and assembly back in house, and definitely prior to the initial announcement.
Episodes I through III.
IV through VI were masterpieces, but given recent events it had very little to do with George Lucas, whatever George likes to think.
I'll agree with Ep 1-3 being masterpieces of suckage. Ep 4 was great when it came out, and even today it's "ok". Ep 5 was easily the best of the entire set. Ep 6 almost made me walk out of the theater, those stupid ewoks were... extremely stupid (couldn't find a remotely other PC word that fit my feelings on the topic). I'd watch the original Ep 4 and 5 again, I don't think 6 could be saved even with heavy editing from being anything other than a movie targeted at 6 year olds, which is, of course, still two years older than the target for Ep 1-3. (Yes, I'm exaggerating, but not by much.)
As I said, Apple is weak--the Galaxy S3 is single-handedly outselling the iPhone
I tell you thrice, it must be true.
Just keep beating that drum. The only reason the iPhone 4S sales dropped was because of the extremely poorly kept secret that the iPhone5 was coming out in Oct. Before you declare your hollow victory, check the sales numbers out for the next quarter - post release. Then go cry into whatever cup you have, since it seems you are that emotionally invested in seeing Apple fall.
Personally, I own a few samsung products, they're OK. I don't think in the future I'd pay anywhere near top dollar though. My TV, for instance, sporting nifty brand new features, was obsolete and unsupported within a year. My phones had updates for 8 months. Guess that's how Android phone buyers feel. At least in my case, my primary video source will work just fine with the Samsung TV as a dumb monitor and I certainly didn't like the idea of it being connected to the internet in the first place.
The moral of the apparent segue is you have to stand behind your products or your one-time customers will be just that: one-time. Not a good prescription for staying at the top. Apple excels at keeping customers. Samsung has a lot to learn in this realm. One of the reasons they do not is because they are bottom feeding, and the margins apparently are too low to keep supporting their own products. There's a reason you can only get Apple products in less than 4 configurations, and usually less than 3 meaningful ones.
You mean like Google's CEO Eric Schmidt being on the board of Apple, seeing what Apple was doing, and then essentially copying it at Google? No conflict of interest there or potential theft of ideas. Nope, none at all. The only thing I'm surprised about is that he hasn't been sued or worse. Maybe that's coming.
No - it's a randomly changing keys, but even that's patently (excuse the pun) obvious to anyone within the encryption community. So this patent fails the obvious test as well.