The summary is very misleading. This work is purely theoretical.
Indeed. There are now three possibilities:
1. This work is flawed. 2. This work is correct in both theory and practice. 3. This work is correct in theory, but does not work in practice. Researchers will have an interesting time figuring out where the original theory of thermodynamics is flawed. And this will then hopefully lead to a better understanding of our universe.
... it was revealed that the reactor and its emergency generator had temporarily lost power...
So does this actually pose a safety risk? I thought that all modern reactors were protected by passive safety mechanisms (i.e., not requiring external power).
It's not the music that's lacking variety, it's the economy.
Copyright replaced passion for composing music by greed. Instead of making music that touches the heart, nowadays the only music that is created is the kind that sells best. Copyright is, contrary to political belief, not a good thing.
It is almost like small-term investments. Optimize your profits, and don't think about societal impact, and true wealth (happiness).
We need to seriously consider that our capitalist view of the world is just not so perfect after all.
The issue is not at all a technical one. It is about what people expect to be reasonable.
This makes it hard to come to a good opinion of whether this is fair or not. But I think most people don't even consider the possibility of their data being used in this particular way, and therefore I think what google has done is unreasonable. If you would like to use people's behavior in a way they didn't consider themselves, then at least inform them about your plans first.
Perhaps I should give a different example. Consider that google recorded all spoken conversations people have in public places (using ordinary microphones), converting the speech to text, and storing all of this in a large, indexed database. Would you consider this reasonable?
There is nothing wrong with one company offering the same as another company. Cars all offer a means of transportation. Do they sue eachother for that basic fact? (No.)
If the implementation of their engines was identical, then of course, they would sue, but that is not the case, and neither do the iPhone or Samsung share the same underlying implementation. That is what counts here.
Now, if Ford made a car that *looks* just like a BMW, then the latter company may start a lawsuit, but... that discussion does not belong here on Slashdot (!!!) So please look elsewhere and find yourself a metrosexual latte-sipping fashion-victim to listen to your crap.
The issues related to Apple can actually be split into two domains: a small domain covering technology, and... a significantly larger domain, which is of interest only to metrosexual latte-sipping fashion-victims. Makes one wonder if Slashdot cares about their demographics, or if they simply cannot decouple one thing from the other.
This stuff was was broadcast in the clear over public airwaves.
Using this logic, if you leave the shades of your bedroom open for, say, an inch or two, I am allowed to record from the outside what is happening inside (*), and then put these recordings on the web, index them, etc. After all, those electromagnetic waves are transmitted from your bedroom, and are for everybody to see.
They (Samsung) should just implement an enabling code (like an easter egg), that is supposed to be secret, but "accidentally" ends up in the open. Entering this code on your phone will then enable all features owned by Apple. With this workaround, all Apple can do is blame the individual users. Btw, this is the same technique that has been used successfully by DVD player manufacturers for circumventing region-code restrictions enforced by trading authorities.
They'll seal off their walled garden, turn it into a hellhole, and change their naming scheme to snakes. Remember the biblical story about the snake and the apple?
Or they could compare the circumference of the device to the iPad's. Measuring the circumference around every little detail (atom) may actually result in kilometers of difference between the two devices. Enough to invalidate any complaint of copying.
Also in the business sense. Locking content to a tablet-shaped device had been done before with great success by Amazon with its Kindle. Businesswise, the iPad is just the logical successor of this device.
The point is that these academics solve a smaller problem than the one you are describing. One cannot tackle all the problems of the world at once, one has to take small steps at it. That is one of the unwritten principles of the academic world. Yes, they know they do not reach a global optimum (Utopia) by solving only small problems. But at least it improves the world. Your post, on the other hand, is purely idealistic, and does not describe any path to come to your desired situation. A big difference.
What Google and Samsung should do, is make their products highly customizable. Allow the user to design their own product. Want rounded corners instead of sharp ones? There you go. Want a black border around your screen? No problem. Want an aluminum case? Want some fruit depicted on the back of your device? Etc.
That way, they avoid litigation, and give the users exactly what they want. Everybody happy, (except maybe Apple, who wants to give us all the same hamburger, like McDonald's does.)
This is incorrect. A person in a group behaves fundamentally differently than individually.
A good example is when you're walking on the street and meet a bunch of streetkids. There is a bigger chance they will harass you as a group, then if you met them individually. Why? Because in the latter case, they can't hide behind the group.
Same with corporations. People can have personal benefit for doing something "bad", and cleanse their souls by assuming somebody else (or the whole company) will be held responsible.
Hence it is stupid to identify or even compare corporations with individuals.
One of my other big problems with corporate culture is that corporations always try to seek the limits of the law, and then claim to behave ethically correctly because their actions are technically "allowed". If we, individuals, would live our lives in such a calculated indecent way, then surely we would all be living in a miserable world.
Slashdot Mirror
The summary is very misleading. This work is purely theoretical.
Indeed. There are now three possibilities:
1. This work is flawed.
2. This work is correct in both theory and practice.
3. This work is correct in theory, but does not work in practice. Researchers will have an interesting time figuring out where the original theory of thermodynamics is flawed. And this will then hopefully lead to a better understanding of our universe.
... it was revealed that the reactor and its emergency generator had temporarily lost power ...
So does this actually pose a safety risk? I thought that all modern reactors were protected by passive safety mechanisms (i.e., not requiring external power).
It's not the music that's lacking variety, it's the economy.
Copyright replaced passion for composing music by greed.
Instead of making music that touches the heart, nowadays the only music that is created is the kind that sells best.
Copyright is, contrary to political belief, not a good thing.
It is almost like small-term investments. Optimize your profits, and don't think about societal impact, and true wealth (happiness).
We need to seriously consider that our capitalist view of the world is just not so perfect after all.
The issue is not at all a technical one. It is about what people expect to be reasonable.
This makes it hard to come to a good opinion of whether this is fair or not. But I think most people don't even consider the possibility of their data being used in this particular way, and therefore I think what google has done is unreasonable. If you would like to use people's behavior in a way they didn't consider themselves, then at least inform them about your plans first.
Perhaps I should give a different example. Consider that google recorded all spoken conversations people have in public places (using ordinary microphones), converting the speech to text, and storing all of this in a large, indexed database. Would you consider this reasonable?
And you don't think that a google car, filled with recording electronics is comparable to a 400mm lens?
There is nothing wrong with one company offering the same as another company. Cars all offer a means of transportation. Do they sue eachother for that basic fact? (No.)
If the implementation of their engines was identical, then of course, they would sue, but that is not the case, and neither do the iPhone or Samsung share the same underlying implementation. That is what counts here.
Now, if Ford made a car that *looks* just like a BMW, then the latter company may start a lawsuit, but... that discussion does not belong here on Slashdot (!!!) So please look elsewhere and find yourself a metrosexual latte-sipping fashion-victim to listen to your crap.
The issues related to Apple can actually be split into two domains: a small domain covering technology, and... a significantly larger domain, which is of interest only to metrosexual latte-sipping fashion-victims. Makes one wonder if Slashdot cares about their demographics, or if they simply cannot decouple one thing from the other.
This stuff was was broadcast in the clear over public airwaves.
Using this logic, if you leave the shades of your bedroom open for, say, an inch or two, I am allowed to record from the outside what is happening inside (*), and then put these recordings on the web, index them, etc. After all, those electromagnetic waves are transmitted from your bedroom, and are for everybody to see.
(*) don't worry, I won't.
World's Most Powerful x86 Supercomputer Boots Up in Germany
So, how fast does it boot?
They (Samsung) should just implement an enabling code (like an easter egg), that is supposed to be secret, but "accidentally" ends up in the open. Entering this code on your phone will then enable all features owned by Apple. With this workaround, all Apple can do is blame the individual users. Btw, this is the same technique that has been used successfully by DVD player manufacturers for circumventing region-code restrictions enforced by trading authorities.
Software has dramatically outpaced hardware over the last decade.
Yet, we're still waiting for the ultimate programming language for multicore systems.
I guess they should get ready to be sued by Apple for using a lowercase "i" suffix in their product name.
Speaking of which, I wonder when we'll see the first iLawyer, iJudge, and iPatentClerk.
They'll seal off their walled garden, turn it into a hellhole, and change their naming scheme to snakes.
Remember the biblical story about the snake and the apple?
Or they could compare the circumference of the device to the iPad's. Measuring the circumference around every little detail (atom) may actually result in kilometers of difference between the two devices. Enough to invalidate any complaint of copying.
Sadly, 99% of consumers don't give a damn about this issue, and just buys iPads because they're shinier and easier to use.
So you're saying the iPad was not innovative?
Also in the business sense. Locking content to a tablet-shaped device had been done before with great success by Amazon with its Kindle.
Businesswise, the iPad is just the logical successor of this device.
Also, the internet never forgets. So a teenager who makes some stupid comments may regret this for the rest of his life.
Me now != me in five or ten years.
Because soon, all available content will be locked to these vendor-locked devices.
The point is that these academics solve a smaller problem than the one you are describing. One cannot tackle all the problems of the world at once, one has to take small steps at it. That is one of the unwritten principles of the academic world. Yes, they know they do not reach a global optimum (Utopia) by solving only small problems. But at least it improves the world. Your post, on the other hand, is purely idealistic, and does not describe any path to come to your desired situation. A big difference.
What Google and Samsung should do, is make their products highly customizable. Allow the user to design their own product. Want rounded corners instead of sharp ones? There you go. Want a black border around your screen? No problem. Want an aluminum case? Want some fruit depicted on the back of your device? Etc.
That way, they avoid litigation, and give the users exactly what they want. Everybody happy, (except maybe Apple, who wants to give us all the same hamburger, like McDonald's does.)
I especially like the "ruptured" look-and-feel of these designs. I think modern couturiers can learn from that.
Technology is too good! We need to outlaw it!
All bad side-effects of technology can be defeated by different technology.
Facial-recognition software, for example, can be defeated by Burqa technology, invented by Muslims ages ago!
This is incorrect. A person in a group behaves fundamentally differently than individually.
A good example is when you're walking on the street and meet a bunch of streetkids. There is a bigger chance they will harass you as a group, then if you met them individually. Why? Because in the latter case, they can't hide behind the group.
Same with corporations. People can have personal benefit for doing something "bad", and cleanse their souls by assuming somebody else (or the whole company) will be held responsible.
Hence it is stupid to identify or even compare corporations with individuals.
Lady: "Well, you have the shape of an apple."
One of my other big problems with corporate culture is that corporations always try to seek the limits of the law, and then claim to behave ethically correctly because their actions are technically "allowed". If we, individuals, would live our lives in such a calculated indecent way, then surely we would all be living in a miserable world.