He wasn't talking about hate laws, you said that. His comment was about irrational fear, stereotyping, stupid generalizations and other small minded ways ol looking at things.
I'm not sure about this. I can type much faster on an on-screen keyboard than I can write (even on paper). There's not comparison, really, I type about three times faster. Even typing with just my thumb while holding my iPhone I can type about twice as fast. I wonder if the problem is just that you don't have enough practice with it, or you're using a device that responds more slowly than an iPad.
In any case, your experience is not typical. Most people will type faster on the iPads on-screen keyboard than they could write with a pen and paper.
As for the stylus, as many have pointed out, the accuracy on a capacitive touch screen is really not good enough to make a stylus worthwhile, and resistive touch screens are not sensitive enough to allow a user to interact well with his hands. Perhaps in a future device a company could include a magnetic sensor to more accurately pinpoint the position of the stylus, but even then it would only really be useful for drawing.
Consumer goods made in China have not increased in price once global competition decreased.
There are plenty of solar panel manufactures still in business outside of China, so this is a moot point. If they raised prices now, they would have not advantage. And with the 30% tariffs enacted by the US government, the US solar panel makers will not be going out of business because they will now be able to sell at a profit.
There are many cases pending in the WTO over this dumping. All the evidence is a matter of public record. Chinese solar companies are positing yearly losses even when you remove new capital expenses from their balance sheet. They make up the deficit by taking out new loans from the Chinese central bank, or loans backed by the Chinese central bank, which are not available to their foreign competitors. Selling items below cost like this is dumping, manufacturers will have to raise prices in the future to pay back the loans, and to become profitable.
The government of China has been using strategies like these for decades in order to drive up and sustain the trade imbalance, and it's well documented and well known. They're also known to make contributions to US politicians who look the other way.
The difference with these Chinese loans is they are clearly going to support an unprofitable business model. These Chinese manufacturers will never be able to make a profit at the prices they're selling at, they will have to raise prices in the future in order to make a profit. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's basic accounting. Airbus has received government loans to develop new aircraft (and Boeing certainly did protest as they do not receive similar loans) but this was for a fixed cost item (the aircraft's development) which was expected to generate a future return which would be used to repay the loan. If the loan was to cover a loss on every aircraft sold, you can bet that would be a scandal.
Even with the bailouts and economic stimulus, the money was loaned out under the condition that it would be used by the companies to make changes to their businesses to regain profitability, which they did. It was not used to offset the cost of selling vehicles at a loss. Companies which were loaned money and failed to pay it back were allowed to fail. The were not given new loans to finance a loss on product sold.
You seem to be totally ignorant about this issue. Chinese companies are losing money on photovoltaics as it is, and the situation would be much, much worse if the value of their currency weren't fixed to the dollar.
This is totally wrong (and has nothing to do with my comment). Solar panels will pay themselves back in about 10 years, and they should be able to last longer tan 10 years.
The Chinese central bank purchases US securities in order to peg their exchange rate to the dollar this keeps the value of the Yuan artificially low, thereby making the Chinese firms seem profitable by absorbing the loss itself. Ultimately, it's the Chinese workers who pay because the process essentially devalues their labor compared where it would be valued were it not for market interfearance on the part of the Chinese government.
How do you get "it is better if the jury themselves has all sorts of biases and no clear idea about how the law works" from "It would be better if the jury were already knowledgable about such things?" Isn't that exactly the opposite?
Yes, but the cheapness of the Chinese panels was due to price fixing. Once all the Americans were put out of business, the Chineese would have raised prices on their own to make back their investment, and the US would be closed out of the market. Not imposing those terrifs would have been short-sighted.
An OS that is stylus based is not touch based and not similar to a touch based OS. You basically used the stylus as a mouse. That's nice that you think it was better, I'm sure you're still using your "superior" phone today.
You have to have an established starting position in order to flip-flop on it. I am not aware of any statements made by John Roberts prior to his ruling that indicated a different stance than the one issued in his ruling.
Inferior to the iPhone, of course. There were touch screens before the iPhone, but everyone hated them and they were a hassle to use. That's why so many said "I could never use an on-screen keyboard" when the iPhone came out. My, how the times have changed. Now I hear that it was an "inevitable" design and that the industry was already "converging" on the design. In 2007, everyone was telling me the iPhone was a poor design that would never take off because it lacked a physical keyboard. Now, everyone seems to think it's a common sense design and, in fact, there's no other way to build a phone!
The iMac was released in 1998, so a phone from 2004 isn't prior art. These type of devices never took off because they were hacked together and ran an OS that was designed for a mouse. And the design looks nothing like an iPhone.
You don't know what you are talking about. Think about this for two seconds: there are plenty of phones and tablets that don't infringe on Apple's design patents, so there are no grounds for invalidating the patents. That's just a ridiculous wet dream you and a million other clueless nerds are having. Samsung was so lazy with their design they didn't even bother to try to come up with something new, and they were probably trying to capitalize on Apple's success by making similar looking devices. It's exactly the kind of thing patents are intended to prevent.
Slashdot Mirror
He wasn't talking about hate laws, you said that. His comment was about irrational fear, stereotyping, stupid generalizations and other small minded ways ol looking at things.
I'm not sure about this. I can type much faster on an on-screen keyboard than I can write (even on paper). There's not comparison, really, I type about three times faster. Even typing with just my thumb while holding my iPhone I can type about twice as fast. I wonder if the problem is just that you don't have enough practice with it, or you're using a device that responds more slowly than an iPad.
In any case, your experience is not typical. Most people will type faster on the iPads on-screen keyboard than they could write with a pen and paper.
As for the stylus, as many have pointed out, the accuracy on a capacitive touch screen is really not good enough to make a stylus worthwhile, and resistive touch screens are not sensitive enough to allow a user to interact well with his hands. Perhaps in a future device a company could include a magnetic sensor to more accurately pinpoint the position of the stylus, but even then it would only really be useful for drawing.
The point is it's a silly thing to say because it's not gonna happen.
There are plenty of solar panel manufactures still in business outside of China, so this is a moot point. If they raised prices now, they would have not advantage. And with the 30% tariffs enacted by the US government, the US solar panel makers will not be going out of business because they will now be able to sell at a profit.
There are many cases pending in the WTO over this dumping. All the evidence is a matter of public record. Chinese solar companies are positing yearly losses even when you remove new capital expenses from their balance sheet. They make up the deficit by taking out new loans from the Chinese central bank, or loans backed by the Chinese central bank, which are not available to their foreign competitors. Selling items below cost like this is dumping, manufacturers will have to raise prices in the future to pay back the loans, and to become profitable.
Why do you want handwriting recognition? Can't you type faster on an on-screen keyboard?
The government of China has been using strategies like these for decades in order to drive up and sustain the trade imbalance, and it's well documented and well known. They're also known to make contributions to US politicians who look the other way.
The difference with these Chinese loans is they are clearly going to support an unprofitable business model. These Chinese manufacturers will never be able to make a profit at the prices they're selling at, they will have to raise prices in the future in order to make a profit. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's basic accounting. Airbus has received government loans to develop new aircraft (and Boeing certainly did protest as they do not receive similar loans) but this was for a fixed cost item (the aircraft's development) which was expected to generate a future return which would be used to repay the loan. If the loan was to cover a loss on every aircraft sold, you can bet that would be a scandal.
Even with the bailouts and economic stimulus, the money was loaned out under the condition that it would be used by the companies to make changes to their businesses to regain profitability, which they did. It was not used to offset the cost of selling vehicles at a loss. Companies which were loaned money and failed to pay it back were allowed to fail. The were not given new loans to finance a loss on product sold.
You seem to be totally ignorant about this issue. Chinese companies are losing money on photovoltaics as it is, and the situation would be much, much worse if the value of their currency weren't fixed to the dollar.
This is totally wrong (and has nothing to do with my comment). Solar panels will pay themselves back in about 10 years, and they should be able to last longer tan 10 years.
The central bank is also loaning money to these companies directly in order to keep them in business while they drive the competition out of business.
The Chinese central bank purchases US securities in order to peg their exchange rate to the dollar this keeps the value of the Yuan artificially low, thereby making the Chinese firms seem profitable by absorbing the loss itself. Ultimately, it's the Chinese workers who pay because the process essentially devalues their labor compared where it would be valued were it not for market interfearance on the part of the Chinese government.
Oh, is today opposite day? My bad.
How do you get "it is better if the jury themselves has all sorts of biases and no clear idea about how the law works" from "It would be better if the jury were already knowledgable about such things?" Isn't that exactly the opposite?
Yes, but the cheapness of the Chinese panels was due to price fixing. Once all the Americans were put out of business, the Chineese would have raised prices on their own to make back their investment, and the US would be closed out of the market. Not imposing those terrifs would have been short-sighted.
An OS that is stylus based is not touch based and not similar to a touch based OS. You basically used the stylus as a mouse. That's nice that you think it was better, I'm sure you're still using your "superior" phone today.
That's nice, but it doesn't refute my claim at all.
You have to have an established starting position in order to flip-flop on it. I am not aware of any statements made by John Roberts prior to his ruling that indicated a different stance than the one issued in his ruling.
Inferior to the iPhone, of course. There were touch screens before the iPhone, but everyone hated them and they were a hassle to use. That's why so many said "I could never use an on-screen keyboard" when the iPhone came out. My, how the times have changed. Now I hear that it was an "inevitable" design and that the industry was already "converging" on the design. In 2007, everyone was telling me the iPhone was a poor design that would never take off because it lacked a physical keyboard. Now, everyone seems to think it's a common sense design and, in fact, there's no other way to build a phone!
Incidentally, Antarctica was probably ice free at the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Why?
The iMac was released in 1998, so a phone from 2004 isn't prior art. These type of devices never took off because they were hacked together and ran an OS that was designed for a mouse. And the design looks nothing like an iPhone.
You don't think a touch based shell is slightly. . .inferior? There's a reason they don't sell phones like that today.
Windows? That's not touch based. This is nothing at all like an iPhone.
There were? What touch based OS did they run?
Sure you were.
You don't know what you are talking about. Think about this for two seconds: there are plenty of phones and tablets that don't infringe on Apple's design patents, so there are no grounds for invalidating the patents. That's just a ridiculous wet dream you and a million other clueless nerds are having. Samsung was so lazy with their design they didn't even bother to try to come up with something new, and they were probably trying to capitalize on Apple's success by making similar looking devices. It's exactly the kind of thing patents are intended to prevent.