Perhaps it can only travel 1000km in a day? If you are looking at a 10 hour day, that would be a speed of 100km/h.
Photovoltaics are much lighter than you seem to think, many solar powered aircraft have been built. And a helium filled flying wing would have plenty of room for them.
Exposing military misconduct is obviously moral behavior. A system that punishes moral behavior is immoral. It does't matter whether he knew there would be consequences. It's the consequences that are the problem.
To understand why Jobs was pissed, just look at the smartphones that existed before the iPhone. A Blackberry has very little in common with an iPhone (you navigated by trackball!). That was the state of the art at the time. Then you get the iPhone, and soon after you get Android, which is almost indistinguishable from the iPhone (except, perhaps, not as polished). It is essentially a knock-off product.
Sure, you can say that people should learn from each other, but Google didn't make Android their own product. They didn't take it and improve on it. They didn't take it and add some of it's features to an existing product. They just took it.
It's safe to take a product that works and copy it. It's risky to develop something new. So Google didn't take any risks with Android. That may make sense with a physical product, but with ideas, that is a truly useless thing. Nothing of value was gained. All they did was undermine Apple.
Are they going to get a bunch of undercover agents to stake out craigslist? And what happens when people figure out they're living in an evil distopian future? You can't start pulling this sort of shit on the average joe until it is actually too late for them to do anything about it.
How is that not a fair agrument? Besides all that, every court that has reviewed the case has concluded that Samsung infringed on Apple's patents. It doesn't mater whether or not Samsung thinks they are infringing or not at this point.
Also, you are really bucking convention by complaining about the presence of cited source material. It is far more common for people to complain about the opposite. I commend you for your contrarian viewpoint.
A railgun can fire a projectile a lot faster than that (according to wikipedia, 20,000 m/s has been achieved while escape velocity is only 11,000 m/s). The navy recently conducted a 33 MJ shot. Such a railgun can fire a 10 kg projectile at 2500 m/s.
They do, however, make desktops without a built in display. It seems more like they are complaining that not everything they build is available with a matte screen. That seems a little whiny to me.
I know it's been said, but the different pickups are easy to tell apart. If you were a lawyer working on a case involving the look of these trucks, there's practically no way you would get it wrong if a judge asked you.
Apple has patents covering their design. This is what the judge is saying. The Galaxy clearly violates Apple's patents, but Apple still needs to prove that their patents are valid (Samsung claimed several instances of prior art, Apple has to show that those cases would not violate their patent).
I am not aware of another cell-phone that uses speech recognition combined with AI as a user interface. As far as I know, all the other implementations like this are syntax based, which means you need to know how to use them before you can start using them. Read the article, you'll see what I mean.
Oops, looks like you're correct. Apparently the phone itself still needs a lot of horsepower to encode the message, and that's why it's only available in the 4S.
I'm sure apple is just the first to do this, I don't think they have a patent on it or anything like that. Even if they did, that hasn't stopped phone manufacturers from copying them in the past.
The reason combining AI with speech recognition is different is it allows user tell the phone to do things when they don't know the syntax. It's equivalent to the difference between using DOS and Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it can only travel 1000km in a day? If you are looking at a 10 hour day, that would be a speed of 100km/h.
Photovoltaics are much lighter than you seem to think, many solar powered aircraft have been built. And a helium filled flying wing would have plenty of room for them.
They could fill it with hydrogen.
Killing journalists, then lying to cover it up is misconduct.
Exposing military misconduct is obviously moral behavior. A system that punishes moral behavior is immoral. It does't matter whether he knew there would be consequences. It's the consequences that are the problem.
To understand why Jobs was pissed, just look at the smartphones that existed before the iPhone. A Blackberry has very little in common with an iPhone (you navigated by trackball!). That was the state of the art at the time. Then you get the iPhone, and soon after you get Android, which is almost indistinguishable from the iPhone (except, perhaps, not as polished). It is essentially a knock-off product.
Sure, you can say that people should learn from each other, but Google didn't make Android their own product. They didn't take it and improve on it. They didn't take it and add some of it's features to an existing product. They just took it.
It's safe to take a product that works and copy it. It's risky to develop something new. So Google didn't take any risks with Android. That may make sense with a physical product, but with ideas, that is a truly useless thing. Nothing of value was gained. All they did was undermine Apple.
Just because governments didn't recognize them doesn't mean people didn't have them.
Are they going to get a bunch of undercover agents to stake out craigslist? And what happens when people figure out they're living in an evil distopian future? You can't start pulling this sort of shit on the average joe until it is actually too late for them to do anything about it.
Apple has a design patent on the shape of the iPad. Read the article I linked. This is not a trademark issue, it is a patent issue.
How is that not a fair agrument? Besides all that, every court that has reviewed the case has concluded that Samsung infringed on Apple's patents. It doesn't mater whether or not Samsung thinks they are infringing or not at this point.
What features are they missing?
Perhaps I should say it can deliver 10kg of cargo at 2500 m/s. Who is to say it's not a catapult? The next generation US aircraft carrier is going to use an electro-magnetic launch system for it's catapult. It's all the same.
Also, you are really bucking convention by complaining about the presence of cited source material. It is far more common for people to complain about the opposite. I commend you for your contrarian viewpoint.
A railgun can fire a projectile a lot faster than that (according to wikipedia, 20,000 m/s has been achieved while escape velocity is only 11,000 m/s). The navy recently conducted a 33 MJ shot. Such a railgun can fire a 10 kg projectile at 2500 m/s.
Is it grammatically correct to say "DNA Sequenced of Woman Who Lived to 115?" I feel like it should say "DNA of Woman Who Lived to 115 Sequenced."
They do, however, make desktops without a built in display. It seems more like they are complaining that not everything they build is available with a matte screen. That seems a little whiny to me.
But if you're going to buy an external monitor, there are plenty of matte screens available. You don't need to buy it from apple.
It's called a design patent.
You can buy a macbook pro with an "antiglare" screen.
Why would you go with AT&T, when you can spend the same amount for service from Verizon?
I know it's been said, but the different pickups are easy to tell apart. If you were a lawyer working on a case involving the look of these trucks, there's practically no way you would get it wrong if a judge asked you.
Apple has patents covering their design. This is what the judge is saying. The Galaxy clearly violates Apple's patents, but Apple still needs to prove that their patents are valid (Samsung claimed several instances of prior art, Apple has to show that those cases would not violate their patent).
That's why you go the the Apple store to try it out. . .
I don't know what RDF means.
I am not aware of another cell-phone that uses speech recognition combined with AI as a user interface. As far as I know, all the other implementations like this are syntax based, which means you need to know how to use them before you can start using them. Read the article, you'll see what I mean.
Oops, looks like you're correct. Apparently the phone itself still needs a lot of horsepower to encode the message, and that's why it's only available in the 4S.
Here it is on YouTube.
I'm sure apple is just the first to do this, I don't think they have a patent on it or anything like that. Even if they did, that hasn't stopped phone manufacturers from copying them in the past.
The reason combining AI with speech recognition is different is it allows user tell the phone to do things when they don't know the syntax. It's equivalent to the difference between using DOS and Windows.