I heard Google employees have to post ten times a week on internet forums defending Android and Google's latest beta shitware that gets farted out only to land with a dull thud.
I don't really feel that the virtues or values of patents can be argued any more. When you can secure a patent for doing something that somebody has done for 25 years, but "in a cell phone" you know that the technical patent system is just as screwed as anything.
Secondly, I personally support both Apple and Google's lawsuits. Hopefully they completely destroy one another. It is only when all companies have deadlocked each other in a patent death-grip, and none are able to do anything whatsoever, that they will force Congress to actually reform the broken system that allows this kind of bullshit to occur in the first place.
Sure. After all, Android was nothing but a knockoff of the look n' feel of the early iPhones anyway. Why wouldn't Apple try to eliminate the clones? They have done this consistently with companies that knocked them off since the 1980s. Franklin, Microsoft, the Apple clones, you name it.
So I guess once anybody sues Google, no matter how justified they are ultimately found to be, that Google can abandon its principles and continue suing them indefinitely?
I don't really give a shit about it either way, it's just hilarious to see the attitude on display here. When Apple does something, it's bad, but when Google does it, it's ok.
My personal opinion, as a lawful concealed carrier who always packs heat, is that I would not wait to be physically damaged by an attacker before ventilating them. The threat of severe bodily harm and / or death is enough to justify the use of lethal force. But we're talking about two gigantic companies, both doing slightly different things to each other. Apple wanted the most blatant of the iPhone and iPad knockoffs banned, while Google is trying to extort money.
Yes, this is a typical response, exactly what I expected. I'm glad to see that I'm not going to be disappointed in this thread!
Pray tell, doesn't this go against Google's pledge to "only use patents defensively" which I often hear quoted here? Is it OK to abandon another one of your principles (Don't Be Evil was clearly just something that you repeated to suckers) when it suits you?
But I'm assuming the whole thing was just a gigantic sausage-fest. Even if any of the attendees has managed to gain the favor of an actual (non-artificial I mean) woman, I somehow doubt they would dare subject her to the awkward stares, spontaneously exploding pimples, or shrieking laughter that one would see at such an event.
I wonder if we can sense any consistency from the pro-Google now that Motorola (ie Google) has decided to go ahead and sue Apple. We all know the general feeling on Slashdot has been driven by people who feel that Apple should not be able to protect what it feels are its important patents - now that Google is on the warpath, is it possible that we will see them maintain a consistent position regarding how "evil" patent lawsuits are and that they are "holding back technology?" Or will they simply take the line that, "Well, it's ok if Google does it because I either work for them, or I have such tunnel vision that I can't see the hypocrisy that everybody else sees in me?"
Anyway, this will be a delicious bunch of posts to read - the screeds will be incoherent, filled with vague and un-provable legal prognostication, and cause many particles of sand to become lodged in many, many manginas (pre- and post-op).
Please list the LCD panels that meet or exceed Apple's resolution, that are not bespoke $5000+ models. I can wait until 2014 if you want. I'm sure I'll be waiting long than that for you to come up with your imaginary wheezings.
It's not my fault that Google had to copy every single thing they ever did, including their "premiere" shitware OS for cheap Chinese phones. Please don't be offended by the fact that Apple is the only company making a laptop sturdy enough to actually last, and certainly the only laptop with a decent trackpad.
If you have anything useful to say, please come back and try again once you douche the rat-feces out of your stretched out cunt. Loser.
There were no such things. There were HD+ (1920x1200) display laptops, but nothing approaching the Retina displays that exist now.
It's painfully obvious that other manufacturers are racing each other to the bottom, which I think is why Apple had to be the company to put a really high-rez display in a really nice laptop.
Everybody already knows that Apple doesn't make the displays. This doesn't change the fact that Apple has created the high-rez tablet and laptop markets single-handedly.
If Apple hadn't placed orders for millions and millions of these displays, and even gone to the extent of partnering with companies in constructing the factory processes that enable their manufacture, would these displays even be on offer now, in 2012?
It's highly doubtful.
Apple also created the large-scale tablet market with the iPad, and the current archetype for a smartphone is the Apple iPhone.
Yes, you have Apple to thank for your whizzy Samsung or Motorola multitouch phone. Have you seen photographs of the pre-iPhone era Android phones? Fuckin' garbage, and they would have stayed in the trash bin had Google not had a spy on Apple's board.
If Apple wanted to destroy open personal computing, they would stop publishing the source code for their BSD codebase. They would stop funding LLVM, they would completely disable the ability to install software on OS X from sources other than their app store, etc.
They have a phone and tablet line that is locked down, and that's the way that people like it. If you need to run your own software, you can, but it costs $99 for a developer license.
If people didn't like Apple's phone and tablet scheme, they would vote with their dollars. Thing is, to most people, the phone and tablet are not things they want to spend time tinkering on. They are like a TV or a toaster - an appliance that you use, not something to tinker with.
If anything, Google is a bigger threat, with their pervasive spying, their ad-model, and their other stunts like wardriving and collecting people's personal information at every step in the process that people go through when using the WWW.
CRTs are bigger, heavier, more costly to ship, and have more expensive parts.
LCDs are much lighter, the manufacturing and assembly process is easier, and once you have a manufacturing process in place it is far cheaper to produce an LCD per unit than a CRT. The CRT was the last mass-manufactured vacuum tube artifact in the world, aside from specialty products like guitar amps and audiophile equipment. The process for making tubes is expensive, environmentally filthy, and somewhat more dangerous than the LCD production process. They CRT is also far more fragile, and the parts have a more limited lifespan.
LCDs also have significant advantages with their flat screens and better color consistency across the screen. They are also much, much easier on the eyes than a CRT.
LCDs are superior in every single way that matters to the vast majority of consumers.
If you still want a CRT, they are available and at heavily discounted prices compared to just a few years ago. Get one while you still can.
You should at least have to balls to insult people without going AC. For example I can point out that you're an inconsistent little smear of shit on the trousers of the world, without fear of losing much precious karma.
"Newspapers already cannot make enough money off of online advertising to pay for the creation of their content."
Of course they make plenty of money. Their "content" is largely taken from the wire, retyped by a fresh journalism grad working for $9 an hour, and then spit back out the other end.
Many of these papers are owned by gigantic media conglomerates, which are doing better than ever despite the shitty economy.
The thing is, newspapers make money by showing people ads. Lots and lots of ads. Probably over 75% of any newspaper's printed materials these days are ads, paid product placements, paid reviews, etc. They also cram every kind of ad they can manage onto their web sites, which are generally a horrific mess.
The problem is that most major newspapers are still trying to be everything for everybody. The smaller, locally-focused ones are doing fine and also create interest that the NYT and USA Today type rags can not.
Anyway with the media just basically being a propaganda arm at this point, even if they were going under (they aren't) I don't think we would suffer.
I stopped reading this after I realized you had been accessing content by reading Slashdot. A blatant lie like this just makes the rest of your post - in fact, probably anything that you say or type - just complete bullshit.
The new Kin phone will feature 'people you care about' so you can 'squirt' files at them. It's really a breakthrough in synergizing social media with rich smart-apps to create a mobile internet experience that the kids will like. Who else can create a product that unifies the social networks with a broad ecosystem and includes Exchange calendar syncing and Xbox Live Chat?
What if the Surface is really an unholy piece of shit and even though it worked "as advertised" it was still not very good?
Fucking retail stores can suck a dick. That's the reason they exist in the first place - to satisfy curiosity. Otherwise they couldn't get away with jacking the price by 30% compared with online retailers.
BeOS did this too, every virtual desktop had its own individual resolution and color depth.
I don't believe it kept the other virtual desktops in VRAM at the same time though. Could be wrong, but I probably would have noticed performance hits if they had.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like he links to the actual court documents in the article. Everybody knows you can't read though.
This is probably a net benefit - keeps the spread of CyberAIDS to a minimum.
I don't think Google cares who makes the phones, as long as Google sells the ads and can use its spyware on them uninhibited.
They C&D'd that one fella for making a Droid ROM that blocked their spyware, remember.
Full retard would be claiming that Google has a long term interest in anything that doesn't allow them to sell ads.
Most of their beta shitware is not directly monetized through ads.
I heard Google employees have to post ten times a week on internet forums defending Android and Google's latest beta shitware that gets farted out only to land with a dull thud.
I don't really feel that the virtues or values of patents can be argued any more. When you can secure a patent for doing something that somebody has done for 25 years, but "in a cell phone" you know that the technical patent system is just as screwed as anything.
Secondly, I personally support both Apple and Google's lawsuits. Hopefully they completely destroy one another. It is only when all companies have deadlocked each other in a patent death-grip, and none are able to do anything whatsoever, that they will force Congress to actually reform the broken system that allows this kind of bullshit to occur in the first place.
The board was Googlized, and Google now owns Motorola, so yes, Motorola is nothing more than the hardware arm of Google at this point.
Sure. After all, Android was nothing but a knockoff of the look n' feel of the early iPhones anyway. Why wouldn't Apple try to eliminate the clones? They have done this consistently with companies that knocked them off since the 1980s. Franklin, Microsoft, the Apple clones, you name it.
So I guess once anybody sues Google, no matter how justified they are ultimately found to be, that Google can abandon its principles and continue suing them indefinitely?
I don't really give a shit about it either way, it's just hilarious to see the attitude on display here. When Apple does something, it's bad, but when Google does it, it's ok.
My personal opinion, as a lawful concealed carrier who always packs heat, is that I would not wait to be physically damaged by an attacker before ventilating them. The threat of severe bodily harm and / or death is enough to justify the use of lethal force. But we're talking about two gigantic companies, both doing slightly different things to each other. Apple wanted the most blatant of the iPhone and iPad knockoffs banned, while Google is trying to extort money.
Yes, this is a typical response, exactly what I expected. I'm glad to see that I'm not going to be disappointed in this thread!
Pray tell, doesn't this go against Google's pledge to "only use patents defensively" which I often hear quoted here? Is it OK to abandon another one of your principles (Don't Be Evil was clearly just something that you repeated to suckers) when it suits you?
But I'm assuming the whole thing was just a gigantic sausage-fest. Even if any of the attendees has managed to gain the favor of an actual (non-artificial I mean) woman, I somehow doubt they would dare subject her to the awkward stares, spontaneously exploding pimples, or shrieking laughter that one would see at such an event.
I wonder if we can sense any consistency from the pro-Google now that Motorola (ie Google) has decided to go ahead and sue Apple. We all know the general feeling on Slashdot has been driven by people who feel that Apple should not be able to protect what it feels are its important patents - now that Google is on the warpath, is it possible that we will see them maintain a consistent position regarding how "evil" patent lawsuits are and that they are "holding back technology?" Or will they simply take the line that, "Well, it's ok if Google does it because I either work for them, or I have such tunnel vision that I can't see the hypocrisy that everybody else sees in me?"
Anyway, this will be a delicious bunch of posts to read - the screeds will be incoherent, filled with vague and un-provable legal prognostication, and cause many particles of sand to become lodged in many, many manginas (pre- and post-op).
Happy posting everybody!
Please list the LCD panels that meet or exceed Apple's resolution, that are not bespoke $5000+ models. I can wait until 2014 if you want. I'm sure I'll be waiting long than that for you to come up with your imaginary wheezings.
It's not my fault that Google had to copy every single thing they ever did, including their "premiere" shitware OS for cheap Chinese phones. Please don't be offended by the fact that Apple is the only company making a laptop sturdy enough to actually last, and certainly the only laptop with a decent trackpad.
If you have anything useful to say, please come back and try again once you douche the rat-feces out of your stretched out cunt. Loser.
There were no such things. There were HD+ (1920x1200) display laptops, but nothing approaching the Retina displays that exist now.
It's painfully obvious that other manufacturers are racing each other to the bottom, which I think is why Apple had to be the company to put a really high-rez display in a really nice laptop.
Everybody already knows that Apple doesn't make the displays. This doesn't change the fact that Apple has created the high-rez tablet and laptop markets single-handedly.
If Apple hadn't placed orders for millions and millions of these displays, and even gone to the extent of partnering with companies in constructing the factory processes that enable their manufacture, would these displays even be on offer now, in 2012?
It's highly doubtful.
Apple also created the large-scale tablet market with the iPad, and the current archetype for a smartphone is the Apple iPhone.
Yes, you have Apple to thank for your whizzy Samsung or Motorola multitouch phone. Have you seen photographs of the pre-iPhone era Android phones? Fuckin' garbage, and they would have stayed in the trash bin had Google not had a spy on Apple's board.
If Apple wanted to destroy open personal computing, they would stop publishing the source code for their BSD codebase. They would stop funding LLVM, they would completely disable the ability to install software on OS X from sources other than their app store, etc.
They have a phone and tablet line that is locked down, and that's the way that people like it. If you need to run your own software, you can, but it costs $99 for a developer license.
If people didn't like Apple's phone and tablet scheme, they would vote with their dollars. Thing is, to most people, the phone and tablet are not things they want to spend time tinkering on. They are like a TV or a toaster - an appliance that you use, not something to tinker with.
If anything, Google is a bigger threat, with their pervasive spying, their ad-model, and their other stunts like wardriving and collecting people's personal information at every step in the process that people go through when using the WWW.
CRTs are bigger, heavier, more costly to ship, and have more expensive parts.
LCDs are much lighter, the manufacturing and assembly process is easier, and once you have a manufacturing process in place it is far cheaper to produce an LCD per unit than a CRT. The CRT was the last mass-manufactured vacuum tube artifact in the world, aside from specialty products like guitar amps and audiophile equipment. The process for making tubes is expensive, environmentally filthy, and somewhat more dangerous than the LCD production process. They CRT is also far more fragile, and the parts have a more limited lifespan.
LCDs also have significant advantages with their flat screens and better color consistency across the screen. They are also much, much easier on the eyes than a CRT.
LCDs are superior in every single way that matters to the vast majority of consumers.
If you still want a CRT, they are available and at heavily discounted prices compared to just a few years ago. Get one while you still can.
You should at least have to balls to insult people without going AC. For example I can point out that you're an inconsistent little smear of shit on the trousers of the world, without fear of losing much precious karma.
"Newspapers already cannot make enough money off of online advertising to pay for the creation of their content."
Of course they make plenty of money. Their "content" is largely taken from the wire, retyped by a fresh journalism grad working for $9 an hour, and then spit back out the other end.
Many of these papers are owned by gigantic media conglomerates, which are doing better than ever despite the shitty economy.
The thing is, newspapers make money by showing people ads. Lots and lots of ads. Probably over 75% of any newspaper's printed materials these days are ads, paid product placements, paid reviews, etc. They also cram every kind of ad they can manage onto their web sites, which are generally a horrific mess.
The problem is that most major newspapers are still trying to be everything for everybody. The smaller, locally-focused ones are doing fine and also create interest that the NYT and USA Today type rags can not.
Anyway with the media just basically being a propaganda arm at this point, even if they were going under (they aren't) I don't think we would suffer.
An AirLINER? Like a gigantic tube carrying many tons and tons of people and cargo?
Just think about the size of the solar panels required to generate enough thrust to keep something like that airborne.
Maybe if you use a lighter-than-air craft, like a solar powered airship, then it'd be possible. But for a typical airplane, no way.
"I don't use it to access content"
I stopped reading this after I realized you had been accessing content by reading Slashdot. A blatant lie like this just makes the rest of your post - in fact, probably anything that you say or type - just complete bullshit.
The new Kin phone will feature 'people you care about' so you can 'squirt' files at them. It's really a breakthrough in synergizing social media with rich smart-apps to create a mobile internet experience that the kids will like. Who else can create a product that unifies the social networks with a broad ecosystem and includes Exchange calendar syncing and Xbox Live Chat?
Microsoft - that's who.
What if the Surface is really an unholy piece of shit and even though it worked "as advertised" it was still not very good?
Fucking retail stores can suck a dick. That's the reason they exist in the first place - to satisfy curiosity. Otherwise they couldn't get away with jacking the price by 30% compared with online retailers.
Prove me wrong. Thing is, you know I'm right.
BeOS did this too, every virtual desktop had its own individual resolution and color depth.
I don't believe it kept the other virtual desktops in VRAM at the same time though. Could be wrong, but I probably would have noticed performance hits if they had.