"Apple can't develop a new GPU in isolation -- that any GPU developed by the company would still infringe on some of Imagination's IP. "
Why is that the case? I don't see AMD, Intel, or nVidia among their licensees, and they make GPUs. Maybe they have a patent for "GPU, but on an Apple product."
And it looks like Imagination's first GPU (by the name PowerVR) came out in 1996. So it seems that the foundational patents would be expired by now.
No one does. But burning bridges is never a good response. And if you want to strike back, the proper and accepted channel is the legal system.
The article first says "fired," which in modern vernacular implies "with cause," but then later says "let go," which is half way between being fired for cause and simply "laid off" for reasons beyond an individual's control (e.g. wrong position at the wrong time).
I've been laid off a couple of times. Both times, got a new position in months - first time with the same employer, second time (during the 2008 recession) with a company which was closely affiliated. All good, no complaints. Shit happens (and severance helps avoid digging into savings). In either case, I'd have screwed myself if I had lashed out and burned bridges.
To do so within an hour of being dismissed indicates an extreme lack of maturity and professionalism. Sending a "fuck you" email to the CEO a week later might have been a rational, albeit ineffective, vent. He probably deserved to be fired even if he was only laid off. And he deserves criminal repercussions for his actions, which significantly affected people who were completely innocent of the decision to dismiss him. He hurt his co-workers more than the company itself. Karma can be a bitch. Don't make life-changing decisions without at least sleeping on it.
Seriously, I think local access (rural vs. urban) is a bigger issue than rich/poor. There are lots of free options if you're in an urban area, you only have to expend a little effort.
Think 1930's rural electrification. And, that's coming from a (small "l") libertarian. If ISPs want to make profit from using public resources (RF spectrum, physical rights-of-way), make them build extended networks. Otherwise, let them negotiate with every landowner (including governments big and small) whose property their services cross.
"they lock the phone down so you cant install 3rd party ROMs"
Just buy a Pixel from Google. They work on VZW. They weren't bootloader lock to start, and AFAIK they still aren't.
And, with recent changes with regard to ISPs, what makes you think there's one which "doesn't do crap like this", or won't soon? If there's nothing to prevent it, you can't assume it's not happening just because you don't know about it.
I also find it surprising that this attack on DVB-T based TVs makes "about 90% of Smart TVs Vulnerable." Do China (which uses DTMB), the US, Canada (which use ATSC), Japan and South America (ISDB) and others who don't use DVB but represent over 25% of the world's population, only have 10% of the world's smart TVs?
Daleiden has called the charges "bogus," claiming that Planned Parenthood "has violated the law by selling fetal tissue -- an allegation that has been investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence supporting Daleiden's claim," reports NPR.
So, exactly who are they quoting here? Daleiden claiming there's no evidence to support his own claims? WTF. Can somebody find an editor who isn't BeauHD?
The same ones who would cheat on MACs would cheat on any other ID system. And a manufacturer who did so would soon be found out, as dupe registrations started happening.
"Peeping Tom would be looking in someone's windows"
It's that, and more (and I deliberately included other, similar concepts because the legal expression of the concept varies). What's illegal is circumventing barriers which create a reasonable expectation of privacy. Like climbing a tree to see over a fence, or flying a drone over someone's residence.
Perhaps you missed "the tree" part. You know, intentionally circumventing barriers which create a reasonable expectation of privacy. Drones occupy an even more unnatural position, being able to go places people can't.
I have no problem with your kid flying an unlicensed drone in your backyard if your neighbors don't, or if it doesn't have a camera which lets it look over your neighbor's fence.
"Someone can already hide in a tree and view you with a long lens without your knowledge."
OK, let's use your analogy. That's illegal, generally classified as "peeping Tom/voyeurism/invasion of privacy/intrusion of solitude." So let's restrict drone operation in the same manner instead of simply letting them broadcast an ID. I like your idea even better.
"Getting the unique id is going to take lawyers and incur costs...special transmitter..."
Why? A suitable WiFi module used to beacon its already unique MAC address is cheap ($10, retail) and ubiquitous. Some drones are even controlled with WiFi, so there would be zero incremental cost. The drone manufacturer doesn't need to be directly involved in creating or tracking the addresses, just require the address to be included as part of the registration paperwork.
"If they're aircraft, and I can't see a way to justify that they aren't, then the registration must be searchable in accordance wi the Chicago Convention (the ICAO treaty) as amended. I see no reason not to require them to transmit registration information, as flying is no more a right than driving."
And if they can't fit 12" letters on their drone, then a WiFi "transponder." The reasonable range of a WiFi transmission pretty reasonably matches the range of a drone camera. Zoom lens ~= dish antenna. Seems equitable.
It's the height of hypocrisy for DJI to argue that an operator who is violating someone's privacy has some right to their own privacy. The drone operator can go out in the boonies and fly if they have an issue.
Uh, no. If a drone is close enough to know who I am, I should be able to know who the operator is, without a layer of bureaucracy in the way. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
"Because rearranging the dimples is hardly a new invention or a new technical solution to a problem."
Are you an aerodynamicist? I'm not either, but I know how to use Google, and I know that the characteristics of the dimples can have a large impact on a ball's flight. So, developing a new pattern which makes a ball fly straighter, or flatter, or with any other desired characteristic is a useful invention. Exactly the sort of thing patents were created to protect.
If you don't think a new arrangement can provide an improvement so it can be patented, then you'll agree that other manufacturers can stick to the old patterns and not be at any competitive disadvantage, so there would be no reason for them to even try to copy the patented pattern.
Slashdot Mirror
It actually has content.
"Apple can't develop a new GPU in isolation -- that any GPU developed by the company would still infringe on some of Imagination's IP. "
Why is that the case? I don't see AMD, Intel, or nVidia among their licensees, and they make GPUs. Maybe they have a patent for "GPU, but on an Apple product."
And it looks like Imagination's first GPU (by the name PowerVR) came out in 1996. So it seems that the foundational patents would be expired by now.
"I guess he did not like getting the boot."
No one does. But burning bridges is never a good response. And if you want to strike back, the proper and accepted channel is the legal system.
The article first says "fired," which in modern vernacular implies "with cause," but then later says "let go," which is half way between being fired for cause and simply "laid off" for reasons beyond an individual's control (e.g. wrong position at the wrong time).
I've been laid off a couple of times. Both times, got a new position in months - first time with the same employer, second time (during the 2008 recession) with a company which was closely affiliated. All good, no complaints. Shit happens (and severance helps avoid digging into savings). In either case, I'd have screwed myself if I had lashed out and burned bridges.
To do so within an hour of being dismissed indicates an extreme lack of maturity and professionalism. Sending a "fuck you" email to the CEO a week later might have been a rational, albeit ineffective, vent. He probably deserved to be fired even if he was only laid off. And he deserves criminal repercussions for his actions, which significantly affected people who were completely innocent of the decision to dismiss him. He hurt his co-workers more than the company itself. Karma can be a bitch. Don't make life-changing decisions without at least sleeping on it.
"Yeah, you're right"
I know that. You didn't need to waste your time confirming it.
"these days is losing some hours of game play"
Panem et circenses. Gotta satiate the proles, with amusement or Soma (and that's being worked at the state level).
Fine. Bitch about the collection of personal information, not about the release of information used to regulate our lives.
I think Beau is Timothy's son, and it's a genetic disability.
I've been able to do that for years.
email: Go buy a lemon at the store. Taste it.
Let them drink Starbucks!
Seriously, I think local access (rural vs. urban) is a bigger issue than rich/poor. There are lots of free options if you're in an urban area, you only have to expend a little effort.
Think 1930's rural electrification. And, that's coming from a (small "l") libertarian. If ISPs want to make profit from using public resources (RF spectrum, physical rights-of-way), make them build extended networks. Otherwise, let them negotiate with every landowner (including governments big and small) whose property their services cross.
"they lock the phone down so you cant install 3rd party ROMs"
Just buy a Pixel from Google. They work on VZW. They weren't bootloader lock to start, and AFAIK they still aren't.
And, with recent changes with regard to ISPs, what makes you think there's one which "doesn't do crap like this", or won't soon? If there's nothing to prevent it, you can't assume it's not happening just because you don't know about it.
BeauHD is the new timothy.
I also find it surprising that this attack on DVB-T based TVs makes "about 90% of Smart TVs Vulnerable." Do China (which uses DTMB), the US, Canada (which use ATSC), Japan and South America (ISDB) and others who don't use DVB but represent over 25% of the world's population, only have 10% of the world's smart TVs?
So, exactly who are they quoting here? Daleiden claiming there's no evidence to support his own claims? WTF. Can somebody find an editor who isn't BeauHD?
The same ones who would cheat on MACs would cheat on any other ID system. And a manufacturer who did so would soon be found out, as dupe registrations started happening.
Just like preview on /., you've obviously never heard of common law, have you?
That they never GOTO work.
"Peeping Tom would be looking in someone's windows"
It's that, and more (and I deliberately included other, similar concepts because the legal expression of the concept varies). What's illegal is circumventing barriers which create a reasonable expectation of privacy. Like climbing a tree to see over a fence, or flying a drone over someone's residence.
Perhaps you missed "the tree" part. You know, intentionally circumventing barriers which create a reasonable expectation of privacy. Drones occupy an even more unnatural position, being able to go places people can't.
I have no problem with your kid flying an unlicensed drone in your backyard if your neighbors don't, or if it doesn't have a camera which lets it look over your neighbor's fence.
It's not just through windows. It's also over fences, over the river and through the woods.
"Someone can already hide in a tree and view you with a long lens without your knowledge."
OK, let's use your analogy. That's illegal, generally classified as "peeping Tom/voyeurism/invasion of privacy/intrusion of solitude." So let's restrict drone operation in the same manner instead of simply letting them broadcast an ID. I like your idea even better.
"Getting the unique id is going to take lawyers and incur costs...special transmitter..."
Why? A suitable WiFi module used to beacon its already unique MAC address is cheap ($10, retail) and ubiquitous. Some drones are even controlled with WiFi, so there would be zero incremental cost. The drone manufacturer doesn't need to be directly involved in creating or tracking the addresses, just require the address to be included as part of the registration paperwork.
"If they're aircraft, and I can't see a way to justify that they aren't, then the registration must be searchable in accordance wi the Chicago Convention (the ICAO treaty) as amended. I see no reason not to require them to transmit registration information, as flying is no more a right than driving."
And if they can't fit 12" letters on their drone, then a WiFi "transponder." The reasonable range of a WiFi transmission pretty reasonably matches the range of a drone camera. Zoom lens ~= dish antenna. Seems equitable.
It's the height of hypocrisy for DJI to argue that an operator who is violating someone's privacy has some right to their own privacy. The drone operator can go out in the boonies and fly if they have an issue.
Uh, no. If a drone is close enough to know who I am, I should be able to know who the operator is, without a layer of bureaucracy in the way. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
"I don't give a shit "
Obviously you do, or you wouldn't be commenting on them.
"your jackass comment "
Learn grammar. That should read "your comment to a jackass..."
"Because rearranging the dimples is hardly a new invention or a new technical solution to a problem."
Are you an aerodynamicist? I'm not either, but I know how to use Google, and I know that the characteristics of the dimples can have a large impact on a ball's flight. So, developing a new pattern which makes a ball fly straighter, or flatter, or with any other desired characteristic is a useful invention. Exactly the sort of thing patents were created to protect.
If you don't think a new arrangement can provide an improvement so it can be patented, then you'll agree that other manufacturers can stick to the old patterns and not be at any competitive disadvantage, so there would be no reason for them to even try to copy the patented pattern.