A brand of devices that let you control objects with the power of your mind, called Jedi, has "no implications of anything Star Wars related"? It's pretty obvious what allusions to the movies he's trying to make.
Given Lucas' rampant brand-whoring, I would've thought it was a reasonable argument that anyone seeing a product marked "Jedi X" would assume it came out of the Lucas stable.
He's using Lucas' neologism to specifically call attention to the similarities between his products and the abilities of the characters that the neologism belongs to. Is there any way in which this is not a textbook correct application of trademarks?
Semantic mismatch. I've always thought that, unqualified, "zoom" could mean "zoom in" or "zoom out". I don't think of "zoom (in)" and "expand" as opposites.
Apple's UI patents (the pinch-to-zoom gesture springs to mind) neatly presaged the iPhone's announcement, although in that case they were likely filed back when it was a tablet project. To emphasise and confoundyour point, it's not something that'll ship this year, but that doesn't mean it'll never happen.
We're steadily losing our atmosphere to space by a process rather like conventional thermal evaporation, and we're losing helium far, far quicker than anything else because of its low mass and subborn refusal to form heavy compounds.
Make a man walk down a mountain, and he'll think twice before climbing up one the next time. Chase a man down a mountain with wolves, and his friends will think twice too.
You could wind up with a "cry wolf" situation, though. Much better to send the chopper up on the third strike, check that it's a false alarm, then airdrop actual wolves 200 yards uphill.
Undoubtedly, however there are meant to be safety nets against pilot incompetence. If such a system was compromised (as noted in a comment below, this is slightly dubious) then that error is partly responsibility for the incident.
It's not widely appreciated, but honest-to-God nuclear reactors for satellites were developed during the cold war by both sides. The US only got as far as a solitary flight test AFAIK but I believe the USSR got some into operation. Quite an advantage in having a spy satellite with no solar panels.
It's a technology testbed, not a scientific instrument. That said, NASA and its affiliated institutions have probably done more science with photographs than most R&D departments have with million-dollar laboratories.
Slashdot Mirror
A brand of devices that let you control objects with the power of your mind, called Jedi, has "no implications of anything Star Wars related"? It's pretty obvious what allusions to the movies he's trying to make.
Honestly common-law trademarks are a lot less draconian than registered ones, because you have to prove your own use and likelihood of confusion.
Given Lucas' rampant brand-whoring, I would've thought it was a reasonable argument that anyone seeing a product marked "Jedi X" would assume it came out of the Lucas stable.
He's using Lucas' neologism to specifically call attention to the similarities between his products and the abilities of the characters that the neologism belongs to. Is there any way in which this is not a textbook correct application of trademarks?
I'm not saying it will happen, I'm saying "it's not something that'll ship this year, but that doesn't mean it'll never happen.".
480 interlaced horizontal lines is standard broadcast resolution. "High definition television" has always meant resolutions above that.
The word from those with the tablet in-hand is that it has the same screen resolution as the Galaxy S, 800x480. It's simply a larger display.
If '95 hadn't got him by then, '98 would've finished him off anyway.
Given that Apple filed the patent in 2004, and that talk was in 2006, I shouldn't think so.
Semantic mismatch. I've always thought that, unqualified, "zoom" could mean "zoom in" or "zoom out". I don't think of "zoom (in)" and "expand" as opposites.
Apple's UI patents (the pinch-to-zoom gesture springs to mind) neatly presaged the iPhone's announcement, although in that case they were likely filed back when it was a tablet project. To emphasise and confoundyour point, it's not something that'll ship this year, but that doesn't mean it'll never happen.
They're referring to File Manager, the Windows GUI that preceded Explorer.
While I could imagine using this sort of anthropomorphisation for a product that was still active, I think Windows 95 is dead.
If it were dogma, physicists wouldn't be the ones challenging it. You don't see many Catholics disputing the existence of God. That's dogma.
Pirating Reach is a bit of a stretch, then.
...and all the guys with catchers' mitts and welding goggles you need to get the helium atoms as they come out.
Depressingly, the actual joke is that it's always fifty years away.
We're steadily losing our atmosphere to space by a process rather like conventional thermal evaporation, and we're losing helium far, far quicker than anything else because of its low mass and subborn refusal to form heavy compounds.
Make a man walk down a mountain, and he'll think twice before climbing up one the next time. Chase a man down a mountain with wolves, and his friends will think twice too.
You could wind up with a "cry wolf" situation, though. Much better to send the chopper up on the third strike, check that it's a false alarm, then airdrop actual wolves 200 yards uphill.
Precisely.
Okay, grab an SSD and solder it into your current motherboard's SATA bus. Good luck.
Undoubtedly, however there are meant to be safety nets against pilot incompetence. If such a system was compromised (as noted in a comment below, this is slightly dubious) then that error is partly responsibility for the incident.
It's not widely appreciated, but honest-to-God nuclear reactors for satellites were developed during the cold war by both sides. The US only got as far as a solitary flight test AFAIK but I believe the USSR got some into operation. Quite an advantage in having a spy satellite with no solar panels.
It's a technology testbed, not a scientific instrument. That said, NASA and its affiliated institutions have probably done more science with photographs than most R&D departments have with million-dollar laboratories.