Now they seem to be focusing on ways to prohibit you from using your device the way in which you'd like.
Unless they are squatting on the patent to prevent its development... which if you're not a paranoid tinfoil-hatted slashdotter, seems far more likely. Looking at other unused patents in Apple's massive portfolio bears this out.
There is actually a very good market for this invention
Perhaps. But there is an exponentially larger market for subverting such technology... so if the motivation was marketability, they'd be going the other direction. Rest assured, this will never exist (at least not while Apple holds the patent). Apple holds many patents like this... inventions that they do not want developed. I believe Google is doing the same thing with some of their patents.
Bullshit. Don't be so paranoid. This will NEVER see the light of day. Where is the patent on the other half of the system? The part that transmits? I believe this is merely another example of Apple patenting something before anyone else merely to prevent it from being developed. Apple has been patenting things in this mannor for the last 5 years, like... a pair of glasses you mount your iPhone into to make it a HMD. They patented this several years ago, and pretty much killed the development of such a thing by third parties. There are plenty of other examples. Apple is hoarding patents on things that they do not want developed.
Thanks again. From your link:: "KVM has a very different model - Linux kernel as hypervisor"
Aha! KVM is a hypervisor too? Xen has no kernel? Again... besides the features... the function appears the same to me. Take KVM, remove the drivers, make it tiny, minimalistic... and besides features, the model appears the same to me. Xen is more advanced, more features... but basically, they're both bare iron hypervisors, right?
thanks, but it still sounds to me like the difference between, say, Linux and BSD and SysV... yeah, different... but, oh so similar (basically they're all kernel+user land). So sounds like Xen is a little more sophisticated. But besides that, besides features, at their core, what really is all that different between KVM and bare iron hypervisors?
so... the iPhone android market isn't affecting performance... but the Android app store is...
Why couldn't the headline simply be "Motorola CEO Blames Android Market For Phone Performance Ills?" Just what is wrong with correctly calling application managers and package managers what they are named? Who is benefitting from this deliberate and clumbsy obfuscation?
Thx for posting. I, as well, don't understand why slashdot editors incist on publishing false information. Flywheels are not novel in the electrical grid. I know they've been used for sometime for maintaining brief power when switching from one power source to another.
Unless the buyer is Microsoft (embrace, extend, extinguish) and even then it doesn't make sense. Why purchase something of value only to discard what is valuable about it? Purchasing IO.com and then removing all users and services is like purchasing a bag of gold, and discarding the gold for the worthless bag. The very value of the site is the users and services!
Prior to the popularity of social networking with computers, those identical activities were considered anti-social. I still believe Facebook/Twitter et al. is fundamentally anti-social.
The trademark wouldn't even be necessary if Apple's competitors had an ounce of creativity and didn't ALWAYS immediately knee jerk in the direction Apple is going. Cross pollination of technologies is one thing. But when one company does something, and then every other competitor subsequently attempts to do the same thing, their feigned motivational innocence is suspect.
Of course my post was tongue in cheek. All systems have security susceptibilities. But in Windows, we have the entire gamut. In UNIX, its mostly brute force login attacks (I'd say this is 90+% of the vulnerability, at least), trojans, and root kits. Saying these systems are equally susceptible is being intellectually dishonest. If there are 300,000 ways to skin a dog, and more than one way skin a cat, which is more susceptible to skinning? All systems are susceptible... but in truth, not all systems are equally susceptible.
I suspect you are getting caught up on the words. Today, when someone uses the word "computer" we immediately have an understanding of what that is: a machine. However, this machine is merely one that does the work of a human computer. Prior to mechanical computers, we had individuals that computed. The science of those individuals was the earliest Computer Science. We don't necessarily have direct evidence of this in the archeological record, but we know they must have existed, because we found their ancestors' primitive computers. Do you really believe that computers just spontaneously appeared, and then Computer Science was born?
Looking at this in another way: Computer Science is a subset of Mathematics (and not, as some universities have tried to claim for marketing purposes, an engineering discipline). Mathematics is an a priori knowledge. It exists without any connection to reality or experience. Long before humans, long before the Earth, long before the Solar System, there was Mathematics.
Think of a computer not as a device... but as a person, one who computes. Then apply that definition to Computer Science... and you'll begin to see that Computer Science, though primitive, must have existed before the abacus.
Yes, but this is not informative. Its the same as saying the atmosphere is the air of horses. Mathematics is mathematics. There are jokes to be made... such as distinguishing "clown math" or "blond math"... but if we are being honest, all true mathematics is simply mathematics. However, Mathematics isn't science... again, it's math. I believe that's were the distiction resides. Computer Scientists are, well, scientists. This is why a programmer isn't a Computer Scientist, per se.
At its core, CS is the study of the properties of computing devices and their programs.
No, dude. No. You are way... way off. Computer Science existed LONG before computers or programs. At its core, and in the simplest terms, Computer Science is Mathematics.
But most university CS curricula start by teaching you a programming language
True, but incidental. The programming language is taught in order to teach algorithms. So really, most CS curricula begin by teaching algorithms (with some teaching language you'll never see again), descrete math and logic. Computer Science is not programming, and programming is not Computer Science.
This is a silly response and demonstrates a limited understanding of the scope of your discipline and where it fits into the continuum of education. Sure, these topics are not appropriate for a college level CS course, but that doesn't mean they aren't related to computer science.
You are entirely incorrect. GP is right on. None of that has anything to do with Computer Science. NONE OF IT, regardless of the level. The OP has merely expressed an extremely common misnomer... that stuff that has to do with computers is Computer Science. In fact, Computer Science has nothing to do with computers. It has to do with very specialized Mathematics. You can think of it more correctly as the Science of Math rather than the Science of Computers. I think it should have been called "Computing Science;" there'd be less confusion.
Depends on who you ask. If you ask a security expert that, due to the fact that they are a security expert, they of course spent most of their time buried in Windows fixing the broken, they will tell you all computer operating systems are equally susceptible. However, if you ask a long toothed grey beard UNIX systems administrator, he will tell you all computer operating systems are equally susceptible, but he's never seen a virus because he has spent most of his time buried in UNIX.
yeah, but we've called applications apps for 20+ years and stores stores for a lot longer, so once again, blame apple for generic naming. they even had a strong brand they could of used so their marketing team failed miserably on 2 levels then decided they couldn't be bothered any more and started throwing lawyers at it.
ah... so... because we've had burgers for 60 years, and kings for thousands of years... and we've had taco's and bells for as long, so Burger King and Taco Bell are also a generic by your logic. And there's plenty of other examples... BMW, Petsmart, Bank of America,... and, well... Fine. But anyone that decides to call all burger joints burger kings and all taco bars taco bells would likely be borderline retarded. What's anathema is none of these competitors would have used "App Store" had Apple not successfully marketed it. So what is happening is exactly as Apple suggests: competitors are unlawfully using Apple's trademark to promote their own package managers. And idiot editors think its clever to stir up comments by inexplicably and incorrectly referring to Android Market (also 2 generic terms put together!) as App Store. It is absolutely your right to be incorrect. Just don't expect anyone to listen to you.
Slashdot Mirror
If we don't finish our meditation, we get... cranky.
Now they seem to be focusing on ways to prohibit you from using your device the way in which you'd like.
Unless they are squatting on the patent to prevent its development... which if you're not a paranoid tinfoil-hatted slashdotter, seems far more likely. Looking at other unused patents in Apple's massive portfolio bears this out.
There is actually a very good market for this invention
Perhaps. But there is an exponentially larger market for subverting such technology... so if the motivation was marketability, they'd be going the other direction. Rest assured, this will never exist (at least not while Apple holds the patent). Apple holds many patents like this... inventions that they do not want developed. I believe Google is doing the same thing with some of their patents.
Bullshit. Don't be so paranoid. This will NEVER see the light of day. Where is the patent on the other half of the system? The part that transmits? I believe this is merely another example of Apple patenting something before anyone else merely to prevent it from being developed. Apple has been patenting things in this mannor for the last 5 years, like... a pair of glasses you mount your iPhone into to make it a HMD. They patented this several years ago, and pretty much killed the development of such a thing by third parties. There are plenty of other examples. Apple is hoarding patents on things that they do not want developed.
Thanks for your patience! Explanation appreciated.
Thanks again. From your link:: "KVM has a very different model - Linux kernel as hypervisor"
Aha! KVM is a hypervisor too? Xen has no kernel? Again... besides the features... the function appears the same to me. Take KVM, remove the drivers, make it tiny, minimalistic... and besides features, the model appears the same to me. Xen is more advanced, more features... but basically, they're both bare iron hypervisors, right?
thanks, but it still sounds to me like the difference between, say, Linux and BSD and SysV... yeah, different... but, oh so similar (basically they're all kernel+user land). So sounds like Xen is a little more sophisticated. But besides that, besides features, at their core, what really is all that different between KVM and bare iron hypervisors?
so... the iPhone android market isn't affecting performance... but the Android app store is...
Why couldn't the headline simply be "Motorola CEO Blames Android Market For Phone Performance Ills?" Just what is wrong with correctly calling application managers and package managers what they are named? Who is benefitting from this deliberate and clumbsy obfuscation?
But what is this "California Institute of Technology?" Is that anything like Caltech?
Just what the hell is the difference between a bare iron hypervisor and KVM? Aren't they pretty much the same? Where are the patent lawsuits?
Thx for posting. I, as well, don't understand why slashdot editors incist on publishing false information. Flywheels are not novel in the electrical grid. I know they've been used for sometime for maintaining brief power when switching from one power source to another.
Unless the buyer is Microsoft (embrace, extend, extinguish) and even then it doesn't make sense. Why purchase something of value only to discard what is valuable about it? Purchasing IO.com and then removing all users and services is like purchasing a bag of gold, and discarding the gold for the worthless bag. The very value of the site is the users and services!
Prior to the popularity of social networking with computers, those identical activities were considered anti-social. I still believe Facebook/Twitter et al. is fundamentally anti-social.
The trademark wouldn't even be necessary if Apple's competitors had an ounce of creativity and didn't ALWAYS immediately knee jerk in the direction Apple is going. Cross pollination of technologies is one thing. But when one company does something, and then every other competitor subsequently attempts to do the same thing, their feigned motivational innocence is suspect.
Of course my post was tongue in cheek. All systems have security susceptibilities. But in Windows, we have the entire gamut. In UNIX, its mostly brute force login attacks (I'd say this is 90+% of the vulnerability, at least), trojans, and root kits. Saying these systems are equally susceptible is being intellectually dishonest. If there are 300,000 ways to skin a dog, and more than one way skin a cat, which is more susceptible to skinning? All systems are susceptible... but in truth, not all systems are equally susceptible.
I suspect you are getting caught up on the words. Today, when someone uses the word "computer" we immediately have an understanding of what that is: a machine. However, this machine is merely one that does the work of a human computer. Prior to mechanical computers, we had individuals that computed. The science of those individuals was the earliest Computer Science. We don't necessarily have direct evidence of this in the archeological record, but we know they must have existed, because we found their ancestors' primitive computers. Do you really believe that computers just spontaneously appeared, and then Computer Science was born?
Looking at this in another way: Computer Science is a subset of Mathematics (and not, as some universities have tried to claim for marketing purposes, an engineering discipline). Mathematics is an a priori knowledge. It exists without any connection to reality or experience. Long before humans, long before the Earth, long before the Solar System, there was Mathematics.
Think of a computer not as a device... but as a person, one who computes. Then apply that definition to Computer Science... and you'll begin to see that Computer Science, though primitive, must have existed before the abacus.
Yes, but this is not informative. Its the same as saying the atmosphere is the air of horses. Mathematics is mathematics. There are jokes to be made... such as distinguishing "clown math" or "blond math"... but if we are being honest, all true mathematics is simply mathematics. However, Mathematics isn't science... again, it's math. I believe that's were the distiction resides. Computer Scientists are, well, scientists. This is why a programmer isn't a Computer Scientist, per se.
At its core, CS is the study of the properties of computing devices and their programs.
No, dude. No. You are way... way off. Computer Science existed LONG before computers or programs. At its core, and in the simplest terms, Computer Science is Mathematics.
But most university CS curricula start by teaching you a programming language
True, but incidental. The programming language is taught in order to teach algorithms. So really, most CS curricula begin by teaching algorithms (with some teaching language you'll never see again), descrete math and logic. Computer Science is not programming, and programming is not Computer Science.
This is a silly response and demonstrates a limited understanding of the scope of your discipline and where it fits into the continuum of education. Sure, these topics are not appropriate for a college level CS course, but that doesn't mean they aren't related to computer science.
You are entirely incorrect. GP is right on. None of that has anything to do with Computer Science. NONE OF IT, regardless of the level. The OP has merely expressed an extremely common misnomer... that stuff that has to do with computers is Computer Science. In fact, Computer Science has nothing to do with computers. It has to do with very specialized Mathematics. You can think of it more correctly as the Science of Math rather than the Science of Computers. I think it should have been called "Computing Science;" there'd be less confusion.
There is no operating system that can protect against user stupidity.
Sadly, most users are stupid.
Correct. Though most Windows shops mitigate the stupidity by eliminating the users, and making everyone an administrator.
Depends on who you ask. If you ask a security expert that, due to the fact that they are a security expert, they of course spent most of their time buried in Windows fixing the broken, they will tell you all computer operating systems are equally susceptible. However, if you ask a long toothed grey beard UNIX systems administrator, he will tell you all computer operating systems are equally susceptible, but he's never seen a virus because he has spent most of his time buried in UNIX.
Close... z80's were first sold in July 1976. However, the evidence for the possibility of a z80 in 1943 is compelling.
yeah, but we've called applications apps for 20+ years and stores stores for a lot longer, so once again, blame apple for generic naming. they even had a strong brand they could of used so their marketing team failed miserably on 2 levels then decided they couldn't be bothered any more and started throwing lawyers at it.
ah... so... because we've had burgers for 60 years, and kings for thousands of years... and we've had taco's and bells for as long, so Burger King and Taco Bell are also a generic by your logic. And there's plenty of other examples... BMW, Petsmart, Bank of America, ... and, well... Fine. But anyone that decides to call all burger joints burger kings and all taco bars taco bells would likely be borderline retarded. What's anathema is none of these competitors would have used "App Store" had Apple not successfully marketed it. So what is happening is exactly as Apple suggests: competitors are unlawfully using Apple's trademark to promote their own package managers. And idiot editors think its clever to stir up comments by inexplicably and incorrectly referring to Android Market (also 2 generic terms put together!) as App Store. It is absolutely your right to be incorrect. Just don't expect anyone to listen to you.