OK, let's take the example of the Slate. Look here and tell me you can't tell any difference in some of the other angle shots between the Slate and any version of the iPad. The iPad design is not just about its front view. Samsung. JooJoo and CrunchPad are the same thing, so you can't make the argument twice, and besides, it's my understanding that Apple's lawsuit against Samsung also has a lot to do with user interface, not just "rounded corners", and if you look at those early pictures of the CP and JJ tablets, there's no way anyone would confuse those with an iPad either.
Are you a patent attorney? Do you understand the intricacies of design patents? And do you believe that this is what the Apple/Samsung battle is about?
I'm actually not even saying that Apple should win this case; truth is, none of us needs to voice an uninformed opinion on the direction of the case because some people with real credentials are making those decisions. My posts are in reaction to people who seem to bristle at the idea that Samsung is trying to imitate the iPad's design in many ways in order to increase the likelihood of their own product's success. And further, I'm reacting to people who suggest that the way the iPad is designed is the only way to design such a device.
I'm just waiting for Samsung et al to start shipping white ones.
The Prada and the original iPhone were announced within days of each other, so it's clearly not a matter of Apple copying, and actually, I think their designs are significantly different. Nobody would ever confuse the two. Even if the Prada had come six months or a year after the iPhone, I wouldn't suggest that Prada was trying to ride Apple's coat tails in the way that Samsung has.
Dude, it's good that [car analogy] and [Godwin comparison] and [Rule 34 example] didn't happen either! That and [open vs. walled garden/jail comparison] and I can win any argument! And did I say "open"? Open!!!
Yes, that's true, but Apple's doesn't look like any tablet that existed as a commercial product before it, and the "rip offs" the GP poster is referring to is all the tablets coming after Apple who have copied Apple's successful design. Why couldn't they have instead copied other designs like the one that featured a convenient carry handle? Sony's got an interesting wedge design that is totally unmistakably not a rip-off of Apple's, for example.
There are laws in at least some states (California for sure, don't know about others) which prohibit the installation of non-essential external lights on vehicles. Of course, it's not heavily enforced, clearly, as I've seen the guys with their low-riders with fluorescent under-carriage lights cruising down the strip many a time. But if you're looking for a technicality...
If you pass through more than one toll gate, they can determine your average speed between the toll gates, and if it's over the average posted limit, they can send you a ticket. If they have a picture of you driving at both check points, then they have proof it was you speeding.
Further, if you're being investigated for some reason, your transponder may not be enough evidence ("Just because my car was parked outside that bank doesn't mean I was... I was nowhere *NEAR* that robbery!!"), getting pictures of you driving through toll gates at specific times may be enough to invalidate your alibi.
It may sound like tin foil hats, but I think this is far more insidious than, say, the caching of cell tower data in iPhone/Android/Blackberry devices.
This has nothing to do with government, the best time for middle class is when the government does the least amount of damage to undermine the economy and when businesses are allowed to compete on merit of market vote and not on any preferential treatment by the power of government intervention.
Thanks for the response. While I don't have time today to go into everything you wrote, I think this statement is a key difference between my viewpoint and yours. You might call it opinion, but regardless of the theoretical merits of your argument, there are millenia of actuarial data on the matter. Money begets money. Unless someone does something amazingly unselfish and bequeaths their wealth to an organization that benefits the public good, or unless they do something really stupid, that money will remain concentrated in a few pockets and will be frittered away on nothing. For every Andrew Carnegie, there are a thousand Paris Hiltons.
If you call it "stealing from the rich", then there's obviously no arguing with you. But just in case, let's try calling it something else: non-denominational tithing. Or an investment in your fellow human being. Or an insurance policy against the collapse of our society. Rich people get rich on the backs of mountains of people who work hard their whole lives for little gain; they bear some responsibility for ensuring that the least of their brothers are not cast out in the cold when they become aged or infirm. And the only agent for that mechanism which is committed not to exclude based on factors such as race, gender, religion, sexual preference nor profit factor is the government.
The government is not the cure for all ails, but for some things, it significantly outshines all other solutions.
I admire the religious fervor with which you pursue this argument, but you're wrong. On all counts. It's clear you've got a capable head on your shoulders; most people who spout the same sort of nonsense have trouble putting six words together without significant grammatical or spelling errors, or without resorting to cursing. So I can only imagine that either someone very charismatic has filled your mind with nonsense, or someone with very left-wing philosophies hurt you very, very badly. So I don't know how to reason with you, but you're absolutely wrong.
The Social Security system is not a Ponzi scheme. It is not an investment per se, as you've pointed out; it's simply a wealth redistribution system. However, because the payout is pre-determined based on your contribution, and because the government sticks to their payout promises, calling it an "investment" softens the blow of its being a mandatory contribution. It's a sales point.
You can argue that a wealth redistribution system is intrinsically bad, and I'd disagree, but we could certainly have a spirited debate about it.
You could argue that there are better ways to implement Social Security, assuming that you even accept its existence, and I'd agree that there are things that need to be tweaked. While we may not have the same end model, we could have a spirited debate about it.
You could argue that mandatory participation is bad policy, and I'd disagree, but we could certainly have a spirited debate about it.
But just calling it a Ponzi scheme is disingenuous. Doing so is like pulling a mini-Godwin, and it makes it clear that there's no room for discussion in your mind. I don't know why I'm even engaging in this conversation, but I sense that somewhere beneath all that fear and hatred, there's a rational being.
Here's the thing:
Economies work best when there is a strong middle class, and when the deltas between the poorest and the middle, and the middle and the richest, are relatively small.
Economies also work best when money circulates around rather than pooling in one place.
Not all rich people spend/invest their money in ways that create any significant number of jobs.
Even the ones who do don't spend it in ways that benefit the US economy. Your average multimillionaire will buy a Porsche or a BMW or a Ferrari or a Lotus before he buys a Cadillac. The majority of money spent on mega-yachts, jewelry and exotic whatsits leaves our economy never to be seen again.
Give a few extra bucks to a poor person and they'll spend it. On housing. On food. On entertainment. On healthcare. It'll support businesses of all sizes, it'll support the economy, and you know what? It'll end up right back in the rich person's pocket. Win, win, win.
No, the term "Ponzi scheme" carries with it the implication of intent to defraud. I recognize the similarities in their mechanisms as you outline, but to call them the same thing would be similar to calling any vegetarian a Nazi because Hitler was a vegetarian. (Yay for Godwin!)
I'm not saying there aren't things I'd change about SS if I were in charge, but the general idea--having everyone pay into a pool so that people who can't build their own safety net aren't discarded at the end of their working lives--is a good one in my book. Honestly, the only thing I'd change is to increase the cap on how much rich people contribute and and reduce the payouts to those who don't need it come retirement age in order to ensure that it does not have to be funded by the printing of money.
Now this I'd agree with. I don't think there's anything wrong with the mechanism or official aims of SS, but the current implementation, with the cap at (IIRC) $106,000 is ridiculous. As is the fact that multimillionaires get their SS payments at retirement age. I say if someone's got seven houses and a pension or investment payouts equal to or greater than (for example) twice the average income level in the states, they don't need to get their payouts. Those payouts should go to the people who for whatever reason were not able to build their own safety net.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, let's take the example of the Slate. Look here and tell me you can't tell any difference in some of the other angle shots between the Slate and any version of the iPad. The iPad design is not just about its front view. Samsung. JooJoo and CrunchPad are the same thing, so you can't make the argument twice, and besides, it's my understanding that Apple's lawsuit against Samsung also has a lot to do with user interface, not just "rounded corners", and if you look at those early pictures of the CP and JJ tablets, there's no way anyone would confuse those with an iPad either.
Are you a patent attorney? Do you understand the intricacies of design patents? And do you believe that this is what the Apple/Samsung battle is about?
I'm actually not even saying that Apple should win this case; truth is, none of us needs to voice an uninformed opinion on the direction of the case because some people with real credentials are making those decisions. My posts are in reaction to people who seem to bristle at the idea that Samsung is trying to imitate the iPad's design in many ways in order to increase the likelihood of their own product's success. And further, I'm reacting to people who suggest that the way the iPad is designed is the only way to design such a device.
I'm just waiting for Samsung et al to start shipping white ones.
The Prada and the original iPhone were announced within days of each other, so it's clearly not a matter of Apple copying, and actually, I think their designs are significantly different. Nobody would ever confuse the two. Even if the Prada had come six months or a year after the iPhone, I wouldn't suggest that Prada was trying to ride Apple's coat tails in the way that Samsung has.
Back when I was her age, 115 was just getting started! Now get off my lawn!
Dude, it's good that [car analogy] and [Godwin comparison] and [Rule 34 example] didn't happen either! That and [open vs. walled garden/jail comparison] and I can win any argument! And did I say "open"? Open!!!
Look at this URL and tell me you don't see a radical shift in design thinking after the iPad. Can you not tell the difference at all?
Yes, that's true, but Apple's doesn't look like any tablet that existed as a commercial product before it, and the "rip offs" the GP poster is referring to is all the tablets coming after Apple who have copied Apple's successful design. Why couldn't they have instead copied other designs like the one that featured a convenient carry handle? Sony's got an interesting wedge design that is totally unmistakably not a rip-off of Apple's, for example.
Prefect
Ford? Don't panic!
There are laws in at least some states (California for sure, don't know about others) which prohibit the installation of non-essential external lights on vehicles. Of course, it's not heavily enforced, clearly, as I've seen the guys with their low-riders with fluorescent under-carriage lights cruising down the strip many a time. But if you're looking for a technicality...
I will pop the battery out of my phone.
I have an iPhone, you insensitive clod!
I thought PHP replaced Cold Fusion years ago.
s/is more insidious/would be more insidious if they actually implemented it/
Ah, here's a subtle but distressing possibility:
If you pass through more than one toll gate, they can determine your average speed between the toll gates, and if it's over the average posted limit, they can send you a ticket. If they have a picture of you driving at both check points, then they have proof it was you speeding.
Further, if you're being investigated for some reason, your transponder may not be enough evidence ("Just because my car was parked outside that bank doesn't mean I was... I was nowhere *NEAR* that robbery!!"), getting pictures of you driving through toll gates at specific times may be enough to invalidate your alibi.
It may sound like tin foil hats, but I think this is far more insidious than, say, the caching of cell tower data in iPhone/Android/Blackberry devices.
One word: emulation!
Apparently Gruber thinks so.
Yes, I call those "week days".
That's insane! You can't ruin a company for less than $5 million! Everyone knows that you need at least $5 million to ruin a company!
I remember that episode, thinking, gee, that sounds plausible, but can they really make it work? It's pretty amazing to see real world results.
YES!
This has nothing to do with government, the best time for middle class is when the government does the least amount of damage to undermine the economy and when businesses are allowed to compete on merit of market vote and not on any preferential treatment by the power of government intervention.
Thanks for the response. While I don't have time today to go into everything you wrote, I think this statement is a key difference between my viewpoint and yours. You might call it opinion, but regardless of the theoretical merits of your argument, there are millenia of actuarial data on the matter. Money begets money. Unless someone does something amazingly unselfish and bequeaths their wealth to an organization that benefits the public good, or unless they do something really stupid, that money will remain concentrated in a few pockets and will be frittered away on nothing. For every Andrew Carnegie, there are a thousand Paris Hiltons. If you call it "stealing from the rich", then there's obviously no arguing with you. But just in case, let's try calling it something else: non-denominational tithing. Or an investment in your fellow human being. Or an insurance policy against the collapse of our society. Rich people get rich on the backs of mountains of people who work hard their whole lives for little gain; they bear some responsibility for ensuring that the least of their brothers are not cast out in the cold when they become aged or infirm. And the only agent for that mechanism which is committed not to exclude based on factors such as race, gender, religion, sexual preference nor profit factor is the government. The government is not the cure for all ails, but for some things, it significantly outshines all other solutions.
The Social Security system is not a Ponzi scheme. It is not an investment per se, as you've pointed out; it's simply a wealth redistribution system. However, because the payout is pre-determined based on your contribution, and because the government sticks to their payout promises, calling it an "investment" softens the blow of its being a mandatory contribution. It's a sales point.
You can argue that a wealth redistribution system is intrinsically bad, and I'd disagree, but we could certainly have a spirited debate about it.
You could argue that there are better ways to implement Social Security, assuming that you even accept its existence, and I'd agree that there are things that need to be tweaked. While we may not have the same end model, we could have a spirited debate about it.
You could argue that mandatory participation is bad policy, and I'd disagree, but we could certainly have a spirited debate about it.
But just calling it a Ponzi scheme is disingenuous. Doing so is like pulling a mini-Godwin, and it makes it clear that there's no room for discussion in your mind. I don't know why I'm even engaging in this conversation, but I sense that somewhere beneath all that fear and hatred, there's a rational being.
Here's the thing:
What if the pieces bounce?
Oh... my... GOD! Does that mean that 2.1 million people are going to die?
but a Ponzi scheme describes a means, not an end
No, the term "Ponzi scheme" carries with it the implication of intent to defraud. I recognize the similarities in their mechanisms as you outline, but to call them the same thing would be similar to calling any vegetarian a Nazi because Hitler was a vegetarian. (Yay for Godwin!)
I'm not saying there aren't things I'd change about SS if I were in charge, but the general idea--having everyone pay into a pool so that people who can't build their own safety net aren't discarded at the end of their working lives--is a good one in my book. Honestly, the only thing I'd change is to increase the cap on how much rich people contribute and and reduce the payouts to those who don't need it come retirement age in order to ensure that it does not have to be funded by the printing of money.
Now this I'd agree with. I don't think there's anything wrong with the mechanism or official aims of SS, but the current implementation, with the cap at (IIRC) $106,000 is ridiculous. As is the fact that multimillionaires get their SS payments at retirement age. I say if someone's got seven houses and a pension or investment payouts equal to or greater than (for example) twice the average income level in the states, they don't need to get their payouts. Those payouts should go to the people who for whatever reason were not able to build their own safety net.