Turn off JavaScript if you're on an iOS device, and take a look at the google cache of the app's iTunes page. It was up on AppStore for a month and didn't even get enough downloads to get any ratings or rankings or reviews... even buried AC slashdot comments get more exposure than this app's AppStore page. I can't figure out what the purpose of the app is nor what the author was attempting to accomplish with this trojan.
"C++" (which, as I understand it, is also hated by most who use it)
Not true, a kind of Stockholm Syndrome seems to affect C++ programmers. There are self-help groups available, but first they need to admit that they have a problem and most are still in denial. Even then, their dislike of the language is nothing compared to the raw hatred experienced by those of us who have implemented the abomination and know exactly how much of it is undefined or implementation defined...
My bland and uninsightful comment is really not worthy of this brilliant response. I thank you, sir, for the generosity of your spirit.
But design patents cover a design, not technology. Design patents are the bastard child of patents and trademarks, with a smattering of copyright thrown in. The fact that the same designs existed with slate or whiteboard instead of a touch-screen should invalidate the patent.
I don't think you're correct. You're comparing apples and oranges, so to speak. By what you're saying, a car manufacturer should not be able to patent the design of a car if there was a toy manufacturer that created the same design 2 decades earlier... on a toy. That's ridiculous.
US Law doesn't contradict my beliefs. US Law states that patents need to actually be original and non-obvious.
Did you read the story the you're commenting on? Case law now does indeed contradict your beliefs. Apple won, Samsung lost and lost the appeal. Its over.
Such an incredibly derivative design is, in fact, obvious.
It only seems obvious after Apple releases it. If it was so obvious then, as I said earlier, during the at least TWO AND A HALF YEARS that the technology existed to produce iPad someone would have released it. The reason? None of the other technology manufacturers have the ability to create markets the way Apple can. Apple sells like mad, everyone rushes to mimic their designs to cash in on Apple's work.
The USPTO is fundamentally broken and follows a mentality of allowing pretty much everything and letting the courts sort it out.
This is how the law works. A law isn't even quite The Law until it is questioned and tested in the courts. If it passes muster in the courts, then it becomes true law. This is how it works in America, how the law has always worked here.
A slippery slope of bad precedents has also broadened and broadened the scope of what is patentable up to our current situation where software and even business methods (which once upon a time were one of the standard examples of what sorts of things were explicitly _not_ patentable).
Generalizing without citations isn't helping your argument. No one agrees with you but people who hate Apple. Using them as an example is one thing, but in this case it is evidently clear that Samsung violated their patents.
Whether or not any company imitated any other company in the superficial design elements of their tablet computing device should not be legally relevant.
Samsung intentionally copied the iPad in nearly every way imaginable in order to take advantage of the market that Apple created single-handedly. Apple did all the work, Samsung sought to benefit. The US Court system shot them down. In this case at least, justice was served.
Designs should not have any IP protection unless they truly are original.
In this case, that's all that mattered. The iPad was the first of its kind and is still the best of its class. Samsung should not, and will not be allowed in the US, to jump in and take advantage of Apple's right to the first bite of the market. Samsung can wait until the patent expires and then sell all the iPad knockoffs it wants.
Copycatting to ride on Apple's coattails to degree is a possibility. It's irrelevant, however. A certain amount of originality needs to be required for any sort of intellectual property protection. Even design patents need to have some originality.
Apparently US Law contradicts your beliefs. There was nothing like iPad prior to its release except iPhone and iPod Touch, that's original enough. Samsung took a gamble with their mimicks and lost in the US market. I'm sure they'll sell well in Asian markets where counterfeit is acceptable.
Inferior product? Careful.. your bias is showing. What about Windows? Office? Xbox? Visual Studio? C#?
These aren't the products I was speaking of... but now you mention it Windows is crap, about the worst thing MS has ever done and one of the worst operating systems ever conceived. Xbox is about the best thing MS has done, and they sold at loss for years. Exchange has little competition, and this is unfortunate because of the lock in... but I suppose it does what it does reasonably well, as long as its being taken care of by someone competant. C# is a Java ripoff, and VS had promise, but as explained to me in another post, MS alienated their developer base. Active Directory is pretty great, but it's really just a proprietary LDAP.
...The reason people use Office suites these days is more from tradition than need.
Long time Microsoft enemy here, and I have to strongly disagree. There are few packages that do what Exchange does... which boils down to, apparently, integrating calendar and mail. You're thinking too individually... an individual can find software that they like better that works better than Office, but when you add 2K - 10K collaborating users to the mix, there's nothing competing with it (there are a few alternatives, Zimbra is one... but Exchange doesn't seem to be going anywhere even with the few actually free alternatives, and the alleged popularity of outsourcing to Google apps). Exchange admins can fuck off all they want and never worry about losing their job, and if they do, never worry about finding work... there's always an Exchange server somewhere in crisis.
The reason people use Office is because that's what their company uses because there are few alternatives, and it came with their home computer. I have to give credit where credit is due... Exchange works pretty well, even with its lockout pitfalls and instability after not having any maintenance for a few months while corporate tries to find the rare individual that is competent at administrating the thing and isn't a complete jerk.
Windows might be the worst thing to come out of Microsoft, and Office is probably right there with it if you aren't collaborating (except, I think, for Excel 2003... Word and PowerPoint are crap, but I've never seen a spreadsheet application as nice as Excel, before all the new needless bells and whistles they added in 2009/11... so I don't think 2003 Excel is bad software at all), but Exchange sits up with the best of Microsoft's products, along with Active Directory and XBox (and someone told me they made a good mouse).
Whenever anyone asks me for something in a.doc format, I always ask if.txt or.pdf will do, because, I tell them,.doc is not a standard but a proprietary format, and I neither own nor use Microsoft products (unless someone is paying me to).
That was 30 years ago, man. Check their stock... they're fine and in the last few years they've made a lot of shareholders rich. How many other manufacturers of big iron can you name? They've been a household name since the 50's with insane brand recognition. So they had 3 years of loses in the early 90's... 3 against idk like.. 100? But they recovered... decades ago. They shouldn't even have been mentioned in this conversation. IBM and Microsoft have so little in common.
The popularity and ubiquity of DoT Net, until very very recently, seems to disagree with that... for a while there I thought it was going to overtake everything. The google says ".NET Framework" still pulls 41M results, Xcode results are 28M, and "C++" (which, as I understand it, is also hated by most who use it... but IANAP) rules at 231M results. Java API pulls 300M+ results until you use quotes... then it's only about 4M. I have no idea if google results mean anything, btw... but the feeling I personally got from.NETters is that they liked it and despised everything else.
Or IBM, remember when they used to be a going concern? Oh wait, they still are.
Yes... I remember 1992, when Microsoft nearly killed IBM. So IBM had a few bad years... like... about 3 of them. So they moved away from the consumer market and have been doing well for the last 20 years. IBM's five year low is twice that of Microsoft's five year high. They closed at almost $200 yesterday. Exactly what are you babbling about?
The parallel is actually pretty apt: Kodak had a fuckload of R&D, and patents, in digital imaging and the managed to throw more or less all of it away through a myopic focus on their legacy business.
Completely false. Kodak did nearly the exact opposite of what you're claiming. What killed Kodak wasn't "myopic focus on their legacy business," as they developed a decent plan with foresight for a shift to digital (Kodak's first digital camera was 1975). What killed them was low margins in the commodity market of digital photography. Had they recognized the wave of competition in digital and the commodization of digital cameras, and instead of shifting to low end competitions with manufacturers of cheap equipment and focused on the higher-end large margins in the commercial market (as IBM did with computers), they might have survived. Kodak is a casualty of the speed of technological innovation in a low end market, unlike Microsoft in every way, which is an arrogant behemoth in comparison. Unlike Kodak, Microsoft never innovated anything ever... their modus operandi is to purchase or copy innovation, and force their smaller competition out of business by flooding markets with inferior product.
yeah... I think you have no idea what you're talking about, and you just made that up. IBM experienced loss when all other tech companies did too, and the only clear mistake I can think that they made was going up against Microsoft in the early 90's after MS pretty much screwed them over on OS/2. So they moved away from the consumer market, and have been fine ever since those loses in the early 90's... but I don't think they were ever in danger of "collapse." They are hardly comparable to Nokia or Kodak, and frankly, I fail to see how Nokia or Kodak compare to each other except in the most shallow manner, as Nokia failed to act when it could, and Kodak scrambled from the moment digital began to overtake analog, and though could never regain the central importance they once had, it wasn't for lack of trying. Nokia are arrogant fools... but Kodak is a casualty to technology.
Really? It was Windows 3.1 (1992) that excited the entire world about a GUI? ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS??!!!!! Because I remember a much different history.
The first version of the Mac OS (simply called System) is easily distinguished between other operating systems from the same period [1984] because it does not use a command line interface; it was one of the first operating systems to use an entirely graphical user interface or GUI.
If you think your OS is so superior step right up and take the hairyfeet challenge. Simply remove CLI from your OS for 1 YEAR, that's all. Personally I doubt you'll even get it to boot, much less make even the 6 month mark, simply because CLI has become the all purpose crutch in Linux. Don't believe me, go ask for help with a common problem like say WiFi issues in ANY Linux forum and tell them you need a non CLI solution, I dare you. You'll will get cursed and insulted because in reality THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT CLI.
If you think your OS is so superior step right up and take the uptime challenge. Simply remove rebooting from your OS for 1 YEAR, that's all. Personally I doubt you'll even get it to stay up a week, much less make even the 6 month mark, simply because rebooting has become the all purpose crutch in Windows. Don't believe me, go ask for help with a common problem like say WiFi issues in ANY Windows forum and tell them you need a non rebooting solution, I dare you. You'll will get cursed and insulted because in reality THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT REBOOTING.
I thing the biggest thing he revealed was how mundane most information truly was.. and how out of control the US 'classified by default' culture has become.
Well... something about some of the information sparked revolution in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya... you'd think the US would want to give Assange a medal for helping to accomplish what the secrets agencies of the West could not. And it would be great if all the US wanted was to extradite him... because the US has no legal standing to do so... is everyone forgetting about extraordinary rendition? That's what would be keeping me up nights... a bag over the head and a Polish vacation.
Sorry... it is overwhelmingly conspicuous that none of these tablet manufacturers released anything like iPad during the period between the release of iPhone and the release of iPad... for two and a half years they just kept plugging along with their old designs --until they saw iPad. I'm not saying Apple invented this... I'm saying everything that looks like an iPad is an intentional copycat... and the timing and the facts support this.
The simple fact is that tablet design reflects what's possible with technology.
This is not fact and as explanation it is far more complex than the simple truth. In 2007 when iPhone was released, all the technology was there to create the tablets we know today... the iPad is, after all, merely a large iPod Touch, which is simply an iPhone without a baseband radio. Apple kept their secrets and waited to release the iPad until there was enough of a development community working on iOS to support the device. Samsung and Apple's tablet competition had nearly two and a half years with all the pieces available to them to release anything like iPad... yet conspicuously did not... not until after iPad is released. Arguably, Apple created the entire market for this style of tablet. Again... the technology was there and they had plenty of time to come up with this design you say is obvious from the available tech at the time,.. yet released nothing like it. Thus the idea that it was technology driving the innovation is utter nonsense. The simplest explanation is that once Samsung saw how well iPad was selling, they rushed to market with their copy... and not that it just wasn't possible. Had Apple released iPad in 2007, there is no doubt that others would have released their copycats sooner.
Linux has gone mainstream... Just not on the desktop. Where is remains a distant 3rd behind Windows and OS/X...
Linux never made it to the desktop, because
What is ironic is that most people (not companies or their employees, but private individuals) that personally use Linux use it for a desktop.
Mainly because most people are fed up with what passes for "justice" these days. Obvious corporate/political connections to cases at hand, yet judges are not stepping aside to maintain impartiality. Twisting and perverting the constitution to fit these political agendas. Applying precedence when it fits the agenda, ignoring it when it doesn't... It goes on and on.
The whole stinking system is corrupt and nothing that comes out of it can be trusted.
What's ridiculous is that you can infer all this from a slashdot summary. If those commenting were in any way actually, you know... informed... these sweeping generalizations that pass for opinions might count for something.
That's not what's happening here. Proview is in bankruptcy... and was seeking a windfall to save the company. Apple was generous to even go to court with them. Had Apple waited another year, maybe Proview would be no more, and Apple could have used the name in the Chinese market without dispute. Here, FWIW, is their product. The Proview iPAD is not a tablet computer but a 800x600px 15" CRT-based 256Mhz AIO Linux desktop w/ 32MB RAM and a 16GB HDD... maybe its just me but I think it looks all too familiar. At any rate, I don't think Apple's iPad was competing with it nor putting their sales at risk. Hopefully this sheckle Apple has thrown to Proview allows them to restructure and stay in business.
The whole thing with this is underlining a major flaw in our court system.
Your entire comment underlines major flaws in your reasoning.
1) you list two "flaws"... two is more than one... that is, plural... thus not "a major flaw"
2) the second flaw you list has nothing to do with the court system
3) with no credentials, you assume that you know better, know more about the law, than the judges and lawyers that graduated with advanced degrees and have real world experience working with the law, and advanced professionally to the positions they now hold.
4) with no credentials, you assume that you know better, know more about patents and the patent system... and oddly enough you insinutate that Samsung is somehow comparable to the "little guy in his garage," when, in fact, it was Apple that started out with a couple guys in a garage.
Yeah, because the adversarial court system, jurisprudence, the rule of law and legitimate decisions of the Court just isn't enough for the discriminating slashdotter.
Using the Command Line evokes a sense of pride, so I expect to get flamed by your readers," Lim told Linux Girl. "But I have to admit, I usually wind up typing commands from a guide without fully understanding their import."
Lim is using a fallacious argument known as argumentum ex silentio, or appeal to ignorance: Lim is unaware or ignorant of the reasons for a command line to exist, therefore, command line has no reason to exist. Here's another example of the appeal to ignorance fallacy:
Using a lawyer evokes a sense of pride, so I expect to get flamed by the members of your bar, but I have to admit, I usually wind up following instructions from an attorney without fully understanding their import. Lawyers don't make any sense to me, so lawyers are unnecessary.
"YES YES YES!" hairyfeet began. "There are only TWO reasons to use CLI -- repetition and scripting --
Here hairyfeet is employing half truths or suppressed evidence --a statement intended to deceive that conveniently omits the facts necessary for an accurate description.
...and how many desktop or laptop jobs require writing scripts or repeating the same actions constantly? That would be pretty much none,
Here hairyfeet cleverly combines half truths with observational selection, which is similar to confirmation bias, as he points out unfavorable circumstances while ignoring the favorable.
...which is why I say as long as CLI is the dominant way to do anything in Linux, it is a SERVER OS and not a Desktop OS."
Spectacularly, hairyfeet ends his nonsensical rant with a blatant non sequitur, as his wildly inaccurate conclusion does not follow from any legitimate established premises, nor even his own prejudicial opinion. Hairyfeet's reasoning is flawed beginning to end. Apparently, in hairyfeet's world, computer servers are not what they are because they serve the requests of client computers or programs, but they are servers because the type of their human interface is not used for anything often. Let me see if I can construct a similar example of hairyfeet's flawed argument:
There are only TWO reasons to write a blog -- boredom and conceit -- and how many readers or editors require writing blogs or repeating the same editorial constantly? That would be pretty much none, which is why I say as long as a blog is the dominant way to do anything on a webpage, it is a bad habit indicative of narcissistic compulsion and neither a legitimate profession nor a constructive use of free time.
Slashdot Mirror
Turn off JavaScript if you're on an iOS device, and take a look at the google cache of the app's iTunes page. It was up on AppStore for a month and didn't even get enough downloads to get any ratings or rankings or reviews... even buried AC slashdot comments get more exposure than this app's AppStore page. I can't figure out what the purpose of the app is nor what the author was attempting to accomplish with this trojan.
"C++" (which, as I understand it, is also hated by most who use it)
Not true, a kind of Stockholm Syndrome seems to affect C++ programmers. There are self-help groups available, but first they need to admit that they have a problem and most are still in denial. Even then, their dislike of the language is nothing compared to the raw hatred experienced by those of us who have implemented the abomination and know exactly how much of it is undefined or implementation defined...
My bland and uninsightful comment is really not worthy of this brilliant response. I thank you, sir, for the generosity of your spirit.
But design patents cover a design, not technology. Design patents are the bastard child of patents and trademarks, with a smattering of copyright thrown in. The fact that the same designs existed with slate or whiteboard instead of a touch-screen should invalidate the patent.
I don't think you're correct. You're comparing apples and oranges, so to speak. By what you're saying, a car manufacturer should not be able to patent the design of a car if there was a toy manufacturer that created the same design 2 decades earlier... on a toy. That's ridiculous.
US Law doesn't contradict my beliefs. US Law states that patents need to actually be original and non-obvious.
Did you read the story the you're commenting on? Case law now does indeed contradict your beliefs. Apple won, Samsung lost and lost the appeal. Its over.
Such an incredibly derivative design is, in fact, obvious.
It only seems obvious after Apple releases it. If it was so obvious then, as I said earlier, during the at least TWO AND A HALF YEARS that the technology existed to produce iPad someone would have released it. The reason? None of the other technology manufacturers have the ability to create markets the way Apple can. Apple sells like mad, everyone rushes to mimic their designs to cash in on Apple's work.
The USPTO is fundamentally broken and follows a mentality of allowing pretty much everything and letting the courts sort it out.
This is how the law works. A law isn't even quite The Law until it is questioned and tested in the courts. If it passes muster in the courts, then it becomes true law. This is how it works in America, how the law has always worked here.
A slippery slope of bad precedents has also broadened and broadened the scope of what is patentable up to our current situation where software and even business methods (which once upon a time were one of the standard examples of what sorts of things were explicitly _not_ patentable).
Generalizing without citations isn't helping your argument. No one agrees with you but people who hate Apple. Using them as an example is one thing, but in this case it is evidently clear that Samsung violated their patents.
Whether or not any company imitated any other company in the superficial design elements of their tablet computing device should not be legally relevant.
Samsung intentionally copied the iPad in nearly every way imaginable in order to take advantage of the market that Apple created single-handedly. Apple did all the work, Samsung sought to benefit. The US Court system shot them down. In this case at least, justice was served.
Designs should not have any IP protection unless they truly are original.
In this case, that's all that mattered. The iPad was the first of its kind and is still the best of its class. Samsung should not, and will not be allowed in the US, to jump in and take advantage of Apple's right to the first bite of the market. Samsung can wait until the patent expires and then sell all the iPad knockoffs it wants.
Copycatting to ride on Apple's coattails to degree is a possibility. It's irrelevant, however. A certain amount of originality needs to be required for any sort of intellectual property protection. Even design patents need to have some originality.
Apparently US Law contradicts your beliefs. There was nothing like iPad prior to its release except iPhone and iPod Touch, that's original enough. Samsung took a gamble with their mimicks and lost in the US market. I'm sure they'll sell well in Asian markets where counterfeit is acceptable.
Inferior product? Careful.. your bias is showing. What about Windows? Office? Xbox? Visual Studio? C#?
These aren't the products I was speaking of... but now you mention it Windows is crap, about the worst thing MS has ever done and one of the worst operating systems ever conceived. Xbox is about the best thing MS has done, and they sold at loss for years. Exchange has little competition, and this is unfortunate because of the lock in... but I suppose it does what it does reasonably well, as long as its being taken care of by someone competant. C# is a Java ripoff, and VS had promise, but as explained to me in another post, MS alienated their developer base. Active Directory is pretty great, but it's really just a proprietary LDAP.
Who needs office anymore?
...The reason people use Office suites these days is more from tradition than need.
Long time Microsoft enemy here, and I have to strongly disagree. There are few packages that do what Exchange does... which boils down to, apparently, integrating calendar and mail. You're thinking too individually... an individual can find software that they like better that works better than Office, but when you add 2K - 10K collaborating users to the mix, there's nothing competing with it (there are a few alternatives, Zimbra is one ... but Exchange doesn't seem to be going anywhere even with the few actually free alternatives, and the alleged popularity of outsourcing to Google apps). Exchange admins can fuck off all they want and never worry about losing their job, and if they do, never worry about finding work... there's always an Exchange server somewhere in crisis.
The reason people use Office is because that's what their company uses because there are few alternatives, and it came with their home computer. I have to give credit where credit is due... Exchange works pretty well, even with its lockout pitfalls and instability after not having any maintenance for a few months while corporate tries to find the rare individual that is competent at administrating the thing and isn't a complete jerk.
Windows might be the worst thing to come out of Microsoft, and Office is probably right there with it if you aren't collaborating (except, I think, for Excel 2003... Word and PowerPoint are crap, but I've never seen a spreadsheet application as nice as Excel, before all the new needless bells and whistles they added in 2009/11... so I don't think 2003 Excel is bad software at all), but Exchange sits up with the best of Microsoft's products, along with Active Directory and XBox (and someone told me they made a good mouse).
Whenever anyone asks me for something in a .doc format, I always ask if .txt or .pdf will do, because, I tell them, .doc is not a standard but a proprietary format, and I neither own nor use Microsoft products (unless someone is paying me to).
That was 30 years ago, man. Check their stock... they're fine and in the last few years they've made a lot of shareholders rich. How many other manufacturers of big iron can you name? They've been a household name since the 50's with insane brand recognition. So they had 3 years of loses in the early 90's... 3 against idk like.. 100? But they recovered... decades ago. They shouldn't even have been mentioned in this conversation. IBM and Microsoft have so little in common.
Programmers hate Microsoft.
The popularity and ubiquity of DoT Net, until very very recently, seems to disagree with that... for a while there I thought it was going to overtake everything. The google says ".NET Framework" still pulls 41M results, Xcode results are 28M, and "C++" (which, as I understand it, is also hated by most who use it... but IANAP) rules at 231M results. Java API pulls 300M+ results until you use quotes... then it's only about 4M. I have no idea if google results mean anything, btw... but the feeling I personally got from .NETters is that they liked it and despised everything else.
Or IBM, remember when they used to be a going concern? Oh wait, they still are.
Yes... I remember 1992, when Microsoft nearly killed IBM. So IBM had a few bad years... like... about 3 of them. So they moved away from the consumer market and have been doing well for the last 20 years. IBM's five year low is twice that of Microsoft's five year high. They closed at almost $200 yesterday. Exactly what are you babbling about?
The parallel is actually pretty apt: Kodak had a fuckload of R&D, and patents, in digital imaging and the managed to throw more or less all of it away through a myopic focus on their legacy business.
Completely false. Kodak did nearly the exact opposite of what you're claiming. What killed Kodak wasn't "myopic focus on their legacy business," as they developed a decent plan with foresight for a shift to digital (Kodak's first digital camera was 1975). What killed them was low margins in the commodity market of digital photography. Had they recognized the wave of competition in digital and the commodization of digital cameras, and instead of shifting to low end competitions with manufacturers of cheap equipment and focused on the higher-end large margins in the commercial market (as IBM did with computers), they might have survived. Kodak is a casualty of the speed of technological innovation in a low end market, unlike Microsoft in every way, which is an arrogant behemoth in comparison. Unlike Kodak, Microsoft never innovated anything ever... their modus operandi is to purchase or copy innovation, and force their smaller competition out of business by flooding markets with inferior product.
yeah... I think you have no idea what you're talking about, and you just made that up. IBM experienced loss when all other tech companies did too, and the only clear mistake I can think that they made was going up against Microsoft in the early 90's after MS pretty much screwed them over on OS/2. So they moved away from the consumer market, and have been fine ever since those loses in the early 90's... but I don't think they were ever in danger of "collapse." They are hardly comparable to Nokia or Kodak, and frankly, I fail to see how Nokia or Kodak compare to each other except in the most shallow manner, as Nokia failed to act when it could, and Kodak scrambled from the moment digital began to overtake analog, and though could never regain the central importance they once had, it wasn't for lack of trying. Nokia are arrogant fools... but Kodak is a casualty to technology.
...since Win 3.x CLI based OSes...
Really? It was Windows 3.1 (1992) that excited the entire world about a GUI? ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS??!!!!! Because I remember a much different history.
If you think your OS is so superior step right up and take the hairyfeet challenge. Simply remove CLI from your OS for 1 YEAR, that's all. Personally I doubt you'll even get it to boot, much less make even the 6 month mark, simply because CLI has become the all purpose crutch in Linux. Don't believe me, go ask for help with a common problem like say WiFi issues in ANY Linux forum and tell them you need a non CLI solution, I dare you. You'll will get cursed and insulted because in reality THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT CLI.
If you think your OS is so superior step right up and take the uptime challenge. Simply remove rebooting from your OS for 1 YEAR, that's all. Personally I doubt you'll even get it to stay up a week, much less make even the 6 month mark, simply because rebooting has become the all purpose crutch in Windows. Don't believe me, go ask for help with a common problem like say WiFi issues in ANY Windows forum and tell them you need a non rebooting solution, I dare you. You'll will get cursed and insulted because in reality THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT REBOOTING.
Or like IBM...
huh? What about IBM?
I thing the biggest thing he revealed was how mundane most information truly was.. and how out of control the US 'classified by default' culture has become.
Well... something about some of the information sparked revolution in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya... you'd think the US would want to give Assange a medal for helping to accomplish what the secrets agencies of the West could not. And it would be great if all the US wanted was to extradite him... because the US has no legal standing to do so... is everyone forgetting about extraordinary rendition? That's what would be keeping me up nights... a bag over the head and a Polish vacation.
If it's Texas.... should have said "God Particle" in the proposal.
Eleventy billion dollar grant.
Make that a God Particle Gun instead of "Superconducting Super Collider" and you're golden.
If only a Texan would have caught them sneaking off with this stolen discovery, they could have legally murdered them.
Sorry... it is overwhelmingly conspicuous that none of these tablet manufacturers released anything like iPad during the period between the release of iPhone and the release of iPad... for two and a half years they just kept plugging along with their old designs --until they saw iPad. I'm not saying Apple invented this... I'm saying everything that looks like an iPad is an intentional copycat... and the timing and the facts support this.
The simple fact is that tablet design reflects what's possible with technology.
This is not fact and as explanation it is far more complex than the simple truth. In 2007 when iPhone was released, all the technology was there to create the tablets we know today... the iPad is, after all, merely a large iPod Touch, which is simply an iPhone without a baseband radio. Apple kept their secrets and waited to release the iPad until there was enough of a development community working on iOS to support the device. Samsung and Apple's tablet competition had nearly two and a half years with all the pieces available to them to release anything like iPad... yet conspicuously did not... not until after iPad is released. Arguably, Apple created the entire market for this style of tablet. Again... the technology was there and they had plenty of time to come up with this design you say is obvious from the available tech at the time,.. yet released nothing like it. Thus the idea that it was technology driving the innovation is utter nonsense. The simplest explanation is that once Samsung saw how well iPad was selling, they rushed to market with their copy... and not that it just wasn't possible. Had Apple released iPad in 2007, there is no doubt that others would have released their copycats sooner.
gee.. I wonder who might have had the cash just to pick up that IP if/when it became available?
Linux has gone mainstream... Just not on the desktop. Where is remains a distant 3rd behind Windows and OS/X...
Linux never made it to the desktop, because
What is ironic is that most people (not companies or their employees, but private individuals) that personally use Linux use it for a desktop.
Mainly because most people are fed up with what passes for "justice" these days. Obvious corporate/political connections to cases at hand, yet judges are not stepping aside to maintain impartiality. Twisting and perverting the constitution to fit these political agendas. Applying precedence when it fits the agenda, ignoring it when it doesn't... It goes on and on.
The whole stinking system is corrupt and nothing that comes out of it can be trusted.
What's ridiculous is that you can infer all this from a slashdot summary. If those commenting were in any way actually, you know... informed... these sweeping generalizations that pass for opinions might count for something.
That's not what's happening here. Proview is in bankruptcy... and was seeking a windfall to save the company. Apple was generous to even go to court with them. Had Apple waited another year, maybe Proview would be no more, and Apple could have used the name in the Chinese market without dispute. Here, FWIW, is their product. The Proview iPAD is not a tablet computer but a 800x600px 15" CRT-based 256Mhz AIO Linux desktop w/ 32MB RAM and a 16GB HDD... maybe its just me but I think it looks all too familiar. At any rate, I don't think Apple's iPad was competing with it nor putting their sales at risk. Hopefully this sheckle Apple has thrown to Proview allows them to restructure and stay in business.
The whole thing with this is underlining a major flaw in our court system.
Your entire comment underlines major flaws in your reasoning.
1) you list two "flaws" ... two is more than one... that is, plural... thus not "a major flaw"
2) the second flaw you list has nothing to do with the court system
3) with no credentials, you assume that you know better, know more about the law, than the judges and lawyers that graduated with advanced degrees and have real world experience working with the law, and advanced professionally to the positions they now hold.
4) with no credentials, you assume that you know better, know more about patents and the patent system... and oddly enough you insinutate that Samsung is somehow comparable to the "little guy in his garage," when, in fact, it was Apple that started out with a couple guys in a garage.
That would certainly stop these bogus lawsuits.
Yeah, because the adversarial court system, jurisprudence, the rule of law and legitimate decisions of the Court just isn't enough for the discriminating slashdotter.
Lim is using a fallacious argument known as argumentum ex silentio, or appeal to ignorance: Lim is unaware or ignorant of the reasons for a command line to exist, therefore, command line has no reason to exist. Here's another example of the appeal to ignorance fallacy:
Using a lawyer evokes a sense of pride, so I expect to get flamed by the members of your bar, but I have to admit, I usually wind up following instructions from an attorney without fully understanding their import. Lawyers don't make any sense to me, so lawyers are unnecessary.
Here hairyfeet is employing half truths or suppressed evidence --a statement intended to deceive that conveniently omits the facts necessary for an accurate description.
Here hairyfeet cleverly combines half truths with observational selection, which is similar to confirmation bias, as he points out unfavorable circumstances while ignoring the favorable.
Spectacularly, hairyfeet ends his nonsensical rant with a blatant non sequitur, as his wildly inaccurate conclusion does not follow from any legitimate established premises, nor even his own prejudicial opinion. Hairyfeet's reasoning is flawed beginning to end. Apparently, in hairyfeet's world, computer servers are not what they are because they serve the requests of client computers or programs, but they are servers because the type of their human interface is not used for anything often. Let me see if I can construct a similar example of hairyfeet's flawed argument:
There are only TWO reasons to write a blog -- boredom and conceit -- and how many readers or editors require writing blogs or repeating the same editorial constantly? That would be pretty much none, which is why I say as long as a blog is the dominant way to do anything on a webpage, it is a bad habit indicative of narcissistic compulsion and neither a legitimate profession nor a constructive use of free time.
would remove Safari if it was possible, much like pretty much everyone I know with a Windows machine would dump I.E. in a second if that were possible
Oh, it's really tricky... but it can be done with these secret, undocumented and 1337 instructions:
And I'd like to add another step for you personally, just to play it safe
4) when you don't know WTF you're talking about, STFU