The thing is that when we say "they created a competitive product", I think you're right in that Google also carefully work to their strengths and don't just join in with "me too". Someone explained recently that Google's whole driving force is that people use the internet (and I guess that's because that's where Google make their money). So, by making a free phone OS which is geared towards internet, they get more people using it. When they released Gmail, people started taking their email online.
It's why talk of competition between Apple and Google don't make much sense. Apple is barely involved with the net except in terms of iTMS and the App Store. Google hardly produce any branded hardware or desktop software.
Hulu.com, the Web’s headquarters for free hit TV shows, won’t confirm the talk that it’s working on an iPad app, but wow — can you imagine? A thin, flat, cordless, bottomless source of free, great TV shows, in your bag or on the bedside table?
My God! You mean, a way to sit and watch TV in bed? Wonders will never cease.
And a source of TV shows in my bag? Nope. Don't want it, don't need it. If I'm going somewhere on business, I've got a laptop and some form of internet. So, I can get all of this. Or a TV in my room. Or I'll go to the cinema. I'm not going to sit on a bus of a train with my iPad out watching a movie.
Just about every use-case of the iPad that I've thought about kills it when you think about it in practical terms. The only thing I've got is "surfing the web while I sit with my wife and she's watching something else on TV". That's it. And I can already do that with a laptop, so that has to be qualified with "and I don't want to put such a strain on my knees". Sorry, not going to spend $500 for that.
The idea that MS has shot.net in the foot because of people who use Mono is just hyperbole. I'd guess that 99.999% of people using.net do so on Windows.
Despite being a.net developer, I'd choose Python or Java if I had to do a project on Linux.
Yes, I know, then there could be a loophole that pedophiles just force their victims to take their own pictures. Honestly - I don't care. The current laws not only make criminals out of people who really didn't do anything wrong, but also terminally fuck someone for the rest of their lives just because they took a picture of themselves.
I'm sure the law could differentiate between someone taking a photo of themselves and being directed to do so.
The problem with the whole thing about naked cellphone pictures is that the generation of parents, lawmakers and so on never had this technology.
But I had 1 girlfriend who, had cellphones been around 25 years ago, would have been sending naked photos of herself.
What's annoying to me is that in the past, Apple always made their money by basically staying ahead. That's their thing. They're leaders and when you're leaders you don't need to do this patent crap. You just keep churning out the innovation and retain customers who want to stay on the cutting edge.
Exactly. The "unlocking with gestures" patent looks a lot like an older patent for "touch predefined areas of a screen" to me. Once you've broken through the conceptual barrier from entering passwords to selecting points, you're into variations of a theme.
check out the gesture unlock patent. It even cites a patent which says "A graphical password arrangement displays a predetermined graphical image and requires a user to "touch" predetermined areas of the image in a predetermined sequence, as a means of entering a password. "
How do you then get a different patent for unlocking? OK, it's different, but it's like someone patenting apple pie, and someone else patenting apple pie with cinnamon.
Patents need to be restricted to real inventions, not simple choices that anybody with a bachelor's degree could have come up with when faced by a problem. Fix this and you fix a lot of the problems with patent trolling
The main question is something like "in a week of thinking, would someone in a similar field have arrived at the same solution"?
Patents should be about revolutionary solutions, like James Dyson applying what he knew about grain sorting to vacuum cleaning, or Paul Graham applying Bayesian logic to spam. Saying "a cyclonic vacuum cleaner that has a longer hose" shouldn't count.
I looked at the 1st one and it was something like the aesthetics of minimising and maximising icons. That's not what we should have a patent system for.
I do find this whole "non geeks can't use PCs" pretty naive. I've got a bunch of relatives with PCs and while I get the odd call (generally something non-urgent nowadays), they all get around fine on PCs now.
I'm waiting about 4 or 5 months for the shitstorms that start appearing on the internet when people get their kids over and go to the Disney site and find that their iPad doesn't work with it, or when they're doing something that they want to print.
I think I'd better tell my friends that iPad is off limits in terms of calling me for support
This is the big problem. It's such a limited device that you're going to need a netbook or laptop as well, and once you've got that, the iPad adds very little.
There is no shame in that, but saying it is not a computer just to excuse it's designed-in deficiencies is disingenuous.
I think this is one of the things that I find hard about this machine.
For me, as a programmer, the great thing about computers is the amazing flexibility of them. And what I find quite depressing about the iPad is how it's taking away that amazingness and reducing it to being a dishwasher or a TV.
(and I know that phones are really the same, but we don't expect a computer in that size).
For example, they are easier to use while standing, but much more awkward while sitting at a table, and quite frankly a bit absurd while resting it in your lap. They are great for hand writing notes and drawing, but no matter how well they do an on-screen keyboard typing will never be as good on a tablet as on a laptop or even a netbook, for the simple fact that the screen will be in a much more awkward position.
This is something I've been thinking. I can sit on a sofa, open up a laptop, put a movie on, put my head back, adjust the screen and just watch. Or be on a train, adjust it, sit back and watch.
How's that going to work with an iPad? OK, I can buy the stand and prop it up, but that's hardly the point. So, the alternative is that you've got to hold it up.
It's size and portability, and that they're cheap enough for people to have as well as a laptop.
One thing that I've found on UK trains is that using a laptop in a regular seat (rather than at a table) is that there's not enough space to open one out, but there is enough room to open a netbook.
My problem with recommending it for relatives is twofold: Flash and "Other". I know that relatives do flash stuff whether it's the Disney site or Farmville. And by "Other", what would always concern me with a locked-down device is that a relative would find a need which Apple would choose not to service via the AppStore. I don't know what that "Other" would be, but it would come along 2 weeks after I recommended it to them;).
This is a serious problem. Most people don't get involved in politics, because they don't feel especially strong about changing from the current situation. Of course, this then means you've got no defence when change comes.
If every person in the US gave a couple of bucks to a group which called for copyright reform (like reducing the term to 30 years), it would be done.
In all seriousness, though, times like this are perfect example of the difference between free marketeers and scumsucking rent-seeking corporatists who don't deserve to live.
Exactly. I'd like mythical beasts to come out of the sea and walk onto the land to devour rent-seekers because they get associated with the free market and give it a bad name.
It's much better to live your life in a positive way. You see your job is getting destroyed by technology, you find another way to make a living. You'll learn new things and improve yourself.
I suspect this will fail because FOSS is too big now. The Obama campaign website was running on LAMP, for instance.
I'm generally skeptic about alternative medicine, but here's a really strange thing to consider: acupuncture, chiropractic medicine and bowen technique, developed in 3 different parts of the world have very similar "points".
Small double-blind trials (30 and 85 patients) have been done on patients using acupuncture for rhinitis and in both cases, patients who had acupuncture did better than the control group.
I'm not making any particular assertions, but it seems like there might be something in it (unlike homeopathy and crystal healing which have never proven anything other than placebo benefits). Oh, and detox is utter crap as well.
No, it's not about them providing evidence that their solutions work. It's entirely possible for someone to honestly believe that something works and to naively supply it because of gut instinct that it does.
The matter is the word "bogus". I've checked the OED on "bogus", and it's quite clear.
Incidentally, the BCA didn't just dump this on Singh. They were happy to reach an amicable settlement, which probably would have involved the retraction or explanation of "bogus", which he was not prepared to do. Instead, he wanted to debate the science, which was not the point. It was about character.
You should check what libel law says in the UK regarding truth. There is a defence of "justification", that the matter is in the public interest and that what has been stated can be proven. Google "patricia tierney" who was a woman that The Sun claimed was a prostitute. The case was thrown out after it was revealed that she had admitted this to the police in a statement 2 years earlier.
No, you're not correct in what you say. The actual libel act (1843) says:-
On the trial of any indictment or information for a defamatory libel, the defendant having pleaded such plea as hereinafter mentioned, the truth of the matters charged may be inquired into, but shall not amount to a defence, unless it was for the public benefit that the said matters charged should be published
So, as long as the statement is in the public interest and is accurate then that is sufficient defence.
Everyone knows what bogus treatments are. They are not merely treatments which have proved less effective than they were at first thought to be, or which have been shown by the subsequent acquisition of more detailed scientific knowledge to be ineffective. Bogus treatments equate to quack remedies; that is to say they are dishonestly presented to a trusting and, in some respects perhaps, vulnerable public as having proven efficacy in the treatment of certain conditions or illnesses, when it is known that there is nothing to support such claims.
Please, get this story right, people. It's not about whether these remedies work or not. It's the implication that they offer them, knowing full well that they don't work. Here's the OED definition of bogus:
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is that when we say "they created a competitive product", I think you're right in that Google also carefully work to their strengths and don't just join in with "me too". Someone explained recently that Google's whole driving force is that people use the internet (and I guess that's because that's where Google make their money). So, by making a free phone OS which is geared towards internet, they get more people using it. When they released Gmail, people started taking their email online.
It's why talk of competition between Apple and Google don't make much sense. Apple is barely involved with the net except in terms of iTMS and the App Store. Google hardly produce any branded hardware or desktop software.
Hulu.com, the Web’s headquarters for free hit TV shows, won’t confirm the talk that it’s working on an iPad app, but wow — can you imagine? A thin, flat, cordless, bottomless source of free, great TV shows, in your bag or on the bedside table?
My God! You mean, a way to sit and watch TV in bed? Wonders will never cease.
And a source of TV shows in my bag? Nope. Don't want it, don't need it. If I'm going somewhere on business, I've got a laptop and some form of internet. So, I can get all of this. Or a TV in my room. Or I'll go to the cinema. I'm not going to sit on a bus of a train with my iPad out watching a movie.
Just about every use-case of the iPad that I've thought about kills it when you think about it in practical terms. The only thing I've got is "surfing the web while I sit with my wife and she's watching something else on TV". That's it. And I can already do that with a laptop, so that has to be qualified with "and I don't want to put such a strain on my knees". Sorry, not going to spend $500 for that.
Definitely required in some parts of Newcastle ;)
The idea that MS has shot .net in the foot because of people who use Mono is just hyperbole. I'd guess that 99.999% of people using .net do so on Windows.
Despite being a .net developer, I'd choose Python or Java if I had to do a project on Linux.
Yes, I know, then there could be a loophole that pedophiles just force their victims to take their own pictures. Honestly - I don't care. The current laws not only make criminals out of people who really didn't do anything wrong, but also terminally fuck someone for the rest of their lives just because they took a picture of themselves.
I'm sure the law could differentiate between someone taking a photo of themselves and being directed to do so.
The problem with the whole thing about naked cellphone pictures is that the generation of parents, lawmakers and so on never had this technology.
But I had 1 girlfriend who, had cellphones been around 25 years ago, would have been sending naked photos of herself.
It's why Microsoft got bigger than Apple. Because they were actually less evil and more open than Apple were.
presumably butter memory used the FAT architecture?
Obligatory
The difference is that you don't remember a word but a pattern (although I used to choose cellphone numbers based on the pattern they formed).
What's annoying to me is that in the past, Apple always made their money by basically staying ahead. That's their thing. They're leaders and when you're leaders you don't need to do this patent crap. You just keep churning out the innovation and retain customers who want to stay on the cutting edge.
Exactly. The "unlocking with gestures" patent looks a lot like an older patent for "touch predefined areas of a screen" to me. Once you've broken through the conceptual barrier from entering passwords to selecting points, you're into variations of a theme.
check out the gesture unlock patent. It even cites a patent which says "A graphical password arrangement displays a predetermined graphical image and requires a user to "touch" predetermined areas of the image in a predetermined sequence, as a means of entering a password. "
How do you then get a different patent for unlocking? OK, it's different, but it's like someone patenting apple pie, and someone else patenting apple pie with cinnamon.
Patents need to be restricted to real inventions, not simple choices that anybody with a bachelor's degree could have come up with when faced by a problem. Fix this and you fix a lot of the problems with patent trolling
The main question is something like "in a week of thinking, would someone in a similar field have arrived at the same solution"?
Patents should be about revolutionary solutions, like James Dyson applying what he knew about grain sorting to vacuum cleaning, or Paul Graham applying Bayesian logic to spam. Saying "a cyclonic vacuum cleaner that has a longer hose" shouldn't count.
I looked at the 1st one and it was something like the aesthetics of minimising and maximising icons. That's not what we should have a patent system for.
I do find this whole "non geeks can't use PCs" pretty naive. I've got a bunch of relatives with PCs and while I get the odd call (generally something non-urgent nowadays), they all get around fine on PCs now.
I'm waiting about 4 or 5 months for the shitstorms that start appearing on the internet when people get their kids over and go to the Disney site and find that their iPad doesn't work with it, or when they're doing something that they want to print.
I think I'd better tell my friends that iPad is off limits in terms of calling me for support
This is the big problem. It's such a limited device that you're going to need a netbook or laptop as well, and once you've got that, the iPad adds very little.
There is no shame in that, but saying it is not a computer just to excuse it's designed-in deficiencies is disingenuous.
I think this is one of the things that I find hard about this machine.
For me, as a programmer, the great thing about computers is the amazing flexibility of them. And what I find quite depressing about the iPad is how it's taking away that amazingness and reducing it to being a dishwasher or a TV.
(and I know that phones are really the same, but we don't expect a computer in that size).
For example, they are easier to use while standing, but much more awkward while sitting at a table, and quite frankly a bit absurd while resting it in your lap. They are great for hand writing notes and drawing, but no matter how well they do an on-screen keyboard typing will never be as good on a tablet as on a laptop or even a netbook, for the simple fact that the screen will be in a much more awkward position.
This is something I've been thinking. I can sit on a sofa, open up a laptop, put a movie on, put my head back, adjust the screen and just watch. Or be on a train, adjust it, sit back and watch.
How's that going to work with an iPad? OK, I can buy the stand and prop it up, but that's hardly the point. So, the alternative is that you've got to hold it up.
It's size and portability, and that they're cheap enough for people to have as well as a laptop.
One thing that I've found on UK trains is that using a laptop in a regular seat (rather than at a table) is that there's not enough space to open one out, but there is enough room to open a netbook.
My problem with recommending it for relatives is twofold: Flash and "Other". I know that relatives do flash stuff whether it's the Disney site or Farmville. And by "Other", what would always concern me with a locked-down device is that a relative would find a need which Apple would choose not to service via the AppStore. I don't know what that "Other" would be, but it would come along 2 weeks after I recommended it to them ;).
This is a serious problem. Most people don't get involved in politics, because they don't feel especially strong about changing from the current situation. Of course, this then means you've got no defence when change comes.
If every person in the US gave a couple of bucks to a group which called for copyright reform (like reducing the term to 30 years), it would be done.
In all seriousness, though, times like this are perfect example of the difference between free marketeers and scumsucking rent-seeking corporatists who don't deserve to live.
Exactly. I'd like mythical beasts to come out of the sea and walk onto the land to devour rent-seekers because they get associated with the free market and give it a bad name.
It's much better to live your life in a positive way. You see your job is getting destroyed by technology, you find another way to make a living. You'll learn new things and improve yourself.
I suspect this will fail because FOSS is too big now. The Obama campaign website was running on LAMP, for instance.
I'm generally skeptic about alternative medicine, but here's a really strange thing to consider: acupuncture, chiropractic medicine and bowen technique, developed in 3 different parts of the world have very similar "points".
Small double-blind trials (30 and 85 patients) have been done on patients using acupuncture for rhinitis and in both cases, patients who had acupuncture did better than the control group.
I'm not making any particular assertions, but it seems like there might be something in it (unlike homeopathy and crystal healing which have never proven anything other than placebo benefits). Oh, and detox is utter crap as well.
No, it's not about them providing evidence that their solutions work. It's entirely possible for someone to honestly believe that something works and to naively supply it because of gut instinct that it does.
The matter is the word "bogus". I've checked the OED on "bogus", and it's quite clear.
Incidentally, the BCA didn't just dump this on Singh. They were happy to reach an amicable settlement, which probably would have involved the retraction or explanation of "bogus", which he was not prepared to do. Instead, he wanted to debate the science, which was not the point. It was about character.
You should check what libel law says in the UK regarding truth. There is a defence of "justification", that the matter is in the public interest and that what has been stated can be proven. Google "patricia tierney" who was a woman that The Sun claimed was a prostitute. The case was thrown out after it was revealed that she had admitted this to the police in a statement 2 years earlier.
On the trial of any indictment or information for a defamatory libel, the defendant having pleaded such plea as hereinafter mentioned, the truth of the matters charged may be inquired into, but shall not amount to a defence, unless it was for the public benefit that the said matters charged should be published
So, as long as the statement is in the public interest and is accurate then that is sufficient defence.
Everyone knows what bogus treatments are. They are not merely treatments which have proved less effective than they were at first thought to be, or which have been shown by the subsequent acquisition of more detailed scientific knowledge to be ineffective. Bogus treatments equate to quack remedies; that is to say they are dishonestly presented to a trusting and, in some respects perhaps, vulnerable public as having proven efficacy in the treatment of certain conditions or illnesses, when it is known that there is nothing to support such claims.
Please, get this story right, people. It's not about whether these remedies work or not. It's the implication that they offer them, knowing full well that they don't work.
Here's the OED definition of bogus:
pretending to be real or genuine