The antenna snafu was pretty much a media issue; it didn't really impact consumers or Apple's sales. As it turns out, my iPhone 3gs did the same thing. The real problem was that the grooves told people the exact place to hold to screw up reception, if they were really determined to do so. It turns out that with pretty much any phone with an internal antenna, you don't want to clutch it too tight if you're in a marginal signal area, and despite all of the "you're holding it wrong jokes," it didn't take people long to figure out how to avoid the problem. In practice, the greater sensitivity of the iPhone 4 was more significant pretty much canceled out the "grip effect" in normal use.
Pretty much. On a small touch-screen device, screen space is precious. Things can't just scale with resolution on an iPhone, for example, as they do on a computer monitor, because a finger is not a precise pointing device like a mouse. And you have only one "window" on an iOS device, while a Mac has multiple windows that you can manipulate the proportions of, so a different proportioned screen is not such a problem.
5 or 6? How many docks do you have? Just put the adapter on and leave it. I'm amazed that Apple held onto that big clunky connector for as long as they did.
Apple's generally gotten pretty much everybody to update; I doubt if things will be much different this time around, particularly with the enhancements to Siri. Google will doubtless have their own version of Google Maps, so this is not much of a big deal. For most apps, supporting the new screen layout will just mean going through your screen displays and moving a few things around a bit--maybe a day's work. I imagine that the major apps will already by optimized for the new screen size by the time the iPhone 5 hits the street.
These days, AppleCare includes replacement for at least two incidents of accidental damage (even your BB probably won't survive if you drop it in the toilet). For the butter-fingered, Apple's bumpers provide good protection against falls--and there are 3rd party cases that will let your throw it across a room.
This is one of the differences between a large screen device and a small screen one. For its phones and tablets, it is important for apps to take best advantage of the available screen real estate, so Apple wants developers to customize apps for the actual screen size, not rely upon some kind of automated routine. So the old apps will look exactly as they did before, down to the pixel. And it will be fairly trivial for most app developers to support a bit more screen real estate.
Apple has always sued competitors that imitated their designs. The current lawsuits are nothing new, and most of them have been in the works for a long time. Everybody knows that Apple releases one iPhone per year, so once you get halfway through the year, prospective buyers are starting to think about holding out for the next one. We'll know in a few months whether the iPhone was falling behind with consumers or whether it was just pent-up demand. It will be interesting to see whether Apple's conviction that a phone should be small and light wins out over the "like an iPhone but bigger!" competition. Certainly the new screen form factor sets it apart from the competition--for now. I imagine that some competitors are already working on tall-screen models, just out of general fear that, once again, it will turn out that Apple knows better.
The iPhone is the headliner here, and Apple's biggest cash cow. Apple would never allow another new device to steal its thunder. A new form factor for the iPad would be a big enough deal to deserve a show all to itself. Why have one publicity splash when you can have two?
Apple's view is that an app should be hand-customized to support the resolution and screen size of the device, not shoehorned in by an automated scaling routine. So the last thing Apple wants to do is tell developers, "Don't worry, the API will fit your app onto the new display." What Apple's API will do is allow developers to check the screen size and take advantage of the extra screen space in a way that fully exploits it. Based on the way that Apple's development environment works, this should be pretty trivial for the vast majority of apps. And for those developers who don't care enough to bother, the app will look exactly the way it did before, down to the pixel.
From the actual quote, it does not sound like Zuckerberg is really down on HTML5 overall. I think, rather, he is saying that the company invested too much time trying to optimize the HTML5 client for mobile clients, when the company was ultimately able to get better performance with less effort by developing native apps.
I find it revealing that my rather mild comment that "it is not known whether chronic fatigue syndrome is immune related" has morphed in your mind into a "claim" that "there was no connection between CFS and the immune system." I've noticed this same behavior in climate "skeptics," where instead of engaging with what climate scientists actually say, they instead attack a caricature that exists only in their own minds. I've often seen such "skeptics" insist that climatologists claim that "CO2 is the only driver of climate," even though no climatologist has ever made such an assertion (and they frequently say the exact opposite).
Again, you are ignoring data points because they do not fit your preconceived expectations. That is a much bigger scientific fallacy than the fundamental limitations I was operating under in performing my observations.
The plural of anecdote is not "data." I have no particular preconceived expectations; I don't pretend to know what the cause of CFS is. I suspect that your recollection of your doctor telling you, "You can't be right, because it conflicts with what I've been taught" is probably no more reliable than your recollection of what I told you just a couple of posts back. I think that it is far more likely that your doctor gave little weight to your attempts at self-diagnosis because his own experience had shown him that patients' rationalizations of the source of their illness is not a reliable aid to diagnosis. And if the kind of "evidence" you offered him was similar to what you have offered here, I think that he was probably right to do so.
It is not uncommon to hear amateurs pontificating to scientists about what the "scientific process" should be. And almost invariably, what they are advocating is the opposite of science—a kind of superstitious thinking that is precisely what the disciplines of science, statistics, experimental controls, blinded analysis, etc., have been developed to counteract, dressed up with "sciencey" jargon, what Richard Feynman famously characterized as "cargo cult science".
As human beings, we are all prone to superstitious thinking. Our brains are hyperaware of connections and associations, to the point of often seeing them where they do not actually exist, and this is even more exaggerated where risks are concerned. It is easy to understand why "jumping to conclusions" has been favored by evolution—the rabbit cannot afford to think, "Perhaps the next fox will be friendly." We are particularly prone to see exaggerated significance in "runs" of behavior. Any sports fan will tell you that their favorite player or team has periods in which they are "hot" or "cold," even though numerous statistical analyses have shown that such runs occur no more frequently than expected from random fluctuations about a mean. Such erroneous perceptions often have associated with them an emotional conviction of great meaning and certainty. So you have attached great significance to the fact that you had a run of of years with colds, and then a run without colds (something that tends to happen with greater frequency as we get older and develop immunity to many of the common pathogens around us), and have developed an unshakeable conviction that this was associated with your vaccination, and also with your illness. In fact, you were undoubtedly exposed to numerous novel substances and organisms over that period of time, but your mind has likely seized upon vaccination because the experience of receiving an injection stands our more prominently in your mind because being stuck with a syringe is a more unusual experience than the routine cuts and scrapes that are constantly introducing bacteria, viruses, and environmental contaminants into our bloodstreams.
One of the reasons why doing science requires experience and training is that we have to learn the hard way just how often that such convictions, which often arrive in our minds with a sense of great clarity and certainty, turn out to be mistaken when subjected to the hard discipline of scientific analysis. So it is certainly possible that CFS is some sort of immune dysfunction (perhaps even interacting with a vaccination), just as it is possible that it is some sort of chronic infection, and these are hypotheses worth investigating (and they have, indeed, been investigated for quite a few years, so far without major insights), but your own experience, no matter how compelling it feels to you, is very weak evidence from a scientific perspective.
Elevated cytokines are not necessarily diagnostic of immune dysfunction. In animal studies, chronic stress alone is sufficient to elevate some cytokines, and there is evidence of a link between activation of beta-adrenergic adrenaline receptors and cytokine production. Of course, being ill is stressful. So disturbance of cytokine levels could be an effect rather than a cause. Or of course, it could be both; there could be a vicious circle, in which stress stimulates cytokine production, which causes you to feel ill and anxious, further elevating blood adrenaline, which stimulates further cytokine production, which causes you to feel worse and more stressed, etc. Some people may be more sensitive to this than others, or it might be triggered by some sort of infection and then become self-sustaining--sort of the way that some people can become a bit anxious, which causes them to breathe faster, which blows off CO2, changing the pH of their blood, which causes them to feel weird, which leads them to be more anxious and breathe even faster, etc., etc. So an exercise/rehabilitation program may turn out to be the CFS equivalent of breathing into a bag.
A huge number of people get flu shots every year. So just by random chance, a very large number of people will develop medical conditions, some of which will be immune related (although it is not known whether chronic fatigue syndrome is immune related), in proximity to getting a flu shot. And not getting sick one year is hardly such an odd event that it is reasonable to assume that your immune system has been affected. That's why anecdotes of this sort are pretty much worthless. You've seized upon a chronic illness that developed a couple of months after the shot, well after all of the ingredients of the vaccine were out of your system, and have decided to blame the vaccine. And you are specifically blaming thimerosal, even though the amount is very small (and we now know that this particular form of mercury is rapidly eliminated), and the symptoms of your illness do not resemble the symptoms of mercury toxicity. So it's not really very plausible, and the likelihood is very high that it's a coincidence. You can report it to VAERS, however, and in the unlikely even that a pattern develops, somebody will likely eventually do a proper study to determine whether there is any actual association. But post hoc ergo propter hoc is wired into our brains at a very low level, and we are particularly prone to seek causes for traumatic events--so I doubt if anything could ever convince you that your illness was not due to your vaccination.
It follows very well because the difference in scale and use is not that different, its function and use is the same. It just has different constraints. You shouldn't be able to patent an idea, so the idea of using 1-handed gestures with fingers should not be patented. If however you're arguing that its the implementation and algorithm that is being patented here then I argue that those should not be patented either.
Algorithms should not be patented as algorithms are really just mathematics, which can't be patented.
It's not a patent on an idea, it's a patent on a method. And it's not something that can simply be calculated by mathematics, because it is not merely a problem in math, it is a problem in human behavior and perception.
When a person tries to indicate a point on a small touch-screen display, where exactly do the contours of the contact point fall relative to that point? How much variability is there from person to person? When a person tries to draw a small, one-handed gesture on such a screen, what tolerance is required in order to recognize a single gesture with high probability, yet not mis-recognize movements intended to be other gestures? What specific set of gestures is distinct enough from one another to minimize mis-recognition, yet intuitive and easy to execute with one hand on a small display?
These are not problems that are faced with gesture recognition on large displays, and they are not problems that can be solved by calculation, or for which the answer could conceivably have been "obvious" to anybody before the fact--they are problems that must be solved by experiment, using trial and error. It's quite a bit of work. But once somebody has done all of that work, it is very easy to copy it.
I have a Kindle with ads. Basically, you get a display ad on the sleep page, and a discrete little ad on the menu page, but aside from that, the ads pretty much stay out of your way. On the other hand, the worst case is represented by Microsoft's XBox 360 interface, where you feel like you are wading through ads whenever you try to do anything at all.
For example, their facetious narrowing of the problem domain to "95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers". There's the "no true Scotsman" argument for you.
It sounds like you don't understand the "no true scotsman" fallacy, or what makes it fallacious. It is a fallacy because it is circular--i.e. in the statement "No true scotsman doesn't eat haggis," eating haggis defines one as being a scotsman. It purports to be a assertion about the real world that potentially could be true or false, but in fact it is a tautology that no real-world evidence can refute. The statement can be made non-fallacious by defining a true scotsman by an independent criterion that does not depend upon eating haggis. So, for example, "Nobody born in scotland does not eat haggis" is not an example of the fallacy, even though it is likely false.
So the study cited is not an example of the "no true scotsman" fallacy, because the criterion for being considered a climate scientist is independent of the answer to the survey question (as demonstrated by the fact that there was a very percentage of climate scientists who were not convinced of the reality of AGW; there can be no counterexamples at all to a no-true-scotsman assertion, because it is tautological)
THEN they play straw-man, citing a survey that asked scientists "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
That seems to me a pretty good definition of anthropogenic global warming. If you want to move the goalposts, you should conduct your own survey.
If this is really substantially misleading, one would expect that several of the 75 (out of 77 surveyed) highly published climate scientists who answered "yes" to the question would have stood up to say, "I answered YES to the question, but I don't really think that anthropogenic global warming is a major problem." So where are they? Or is the conspiracy keeping them quiet?
Peiser did retract ONE specific criticism of Oreskes' paper. [abc.net.au] [pdf] But he has far more than just that one
Peiser was obliged to retract his major criticism because it was shown not to be true (which seems to be fairly typical of Peiser)--he falsely claimed to have replicated the study and gotten different results. If he said anything that actually was true and meaningful (which would be very out of character), what was it?
And in fact, there was no rational expectation that Apple's solution would obviously follow from that shown in the video, because the method shown in the video addressed a very different problem from the one Apple confronted in designing a touch phone:
The video addressed tracking gestures on a surface and manipulating virtual objects that were large relative to the area of a finger, using very large gestures. So accurate identification of the exact point of contact intended by the user was not needed. Apple's method addressed a very different (and considerably harder) problem: how to achieve the needed degree of precision for object manipulation and gesture recognition when the width of a the contact area of a finger is a substantial fraction of the width of the display and the virtual objects being manipulated are often smaller than the contact area. So it is hardly surprising that the methods used were quite different, and that one does not obviously follow from the other. It's like expecting the design of a motor scooter to "obviously follow" from the design of a pickup truck.
Movies and software generally have copyright notices which state that they are protected. So if you could figure out how to watch somebody else's movie being streamed over the internet, you would probably be free to do it, but you could not legally make a copy of it.
You can certainly put your email in an "envelope" that would indicate your intention to keep them private. A good way of doing this would be to encode them, such as with PGP. Sending them in plaintext, on the other hand, which can be read by any system administrator between you and the destination, argues that you have no serious concern about keeping them private.
No, it suggests they aren't processing as much information being a prototype on early hardware, on more modern faster hardware and with better sensors it can run faster.
Yes, it is possible that limitations on computing power would have prevented Apple's algorithm from being used. But the reason is immaterial--Apple's patent is on the algorithm, not on the general concept of multitouch, so the algorithm was different, it would not qualify as prior art. Of course, Samsung would be free to use the same algorithm as that used in the video instead of Apple's--even if patented, the method used in the video would by now have passed into the public domain.
As for 2 hands versus 1, totally irrelevant, it's still multiple touch points.
Again, it is not attempting to assert a general patent on "multiple touch points." Apple's patent covers specific gestures that can be made with one hand, and a method whereby these gestures are recognized. These gestures do not appear in the video. Thus, not prior art.
Image scaling algorithms and the like are standard linear 2D matrix transformations the same as all 2D graphics work uses or standard interpolation algorithms depending if we are talking rasterized or vectorized data..
Apple is not asserting a patent on "image scaling by matrix transformations," so this is also quite irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
The antenna snafu was pretty much a media issue; it didn't really impact consumers or Apple's sales. As it turns out, my iPhone 3gs did the same thing. The real problem was that the grooves told people the exact place to hold to screw up reception, if they were really determined to do so. It turns out that with pretty much any phone with an internal antenna, you don't want to clutch it too tight if you're in a marginal signal area, and despite all of the "you're holding it wrong jokes," it didn't take people long to figure out how to avoid the problem. In practice, the greater sensitivity of the iPhone 4 was more significant pretty much canceled out the "grip effect" in normal use.
Pretty much. On a small touch-screen device, screen space is precious. Things can't just scale with resolution on an iPhone, for example, as they do on a computer monitor, because a finger is not a precise pointing device like a mouse. And you have only one "window" on an iOS device, while a Mac has multiple windows that you can manipulate the proportions of, so a different proportioned screen is not such a problem.
5 or 6? How many docks do you have? Just put the adapter on and leave it. I'm amazed that Apple held onto that big clunky connector for as long as they did.
Apple's generally gotten pretty much everybody to update; I doubt if things will be much different this time around, particularly with the enhancements to Siri. Google will doubtless have their own version of Google Maps, so this is not much of a big deal. For most apps, supporting the new screen layout will just mean going through your screen displays and moving a few things around a bit--maybe a day's work. I imagine that the major apps will already by optimized for the new screen size by the time the iPhone 5 hits the street.
These days, AppleCare includes replacement for at least two incidents of accidental damage (even your BB probably won't survive if you drop it in the toilet). For the butter-fingered, Apple's bumpers provide good protection against falls--and there are 3rd party cases that will let your throw it across a room.
This is one of the differences between a large screen device and a small screen one. For its phones and tablets, it is important for apps to take best advantage of the available screen real estate, so Apple wants developers to customize apps for the actual screen size, not rely upon some kind of automated routine. So the old apps will look exactly as they did before, down to the pixel. And it will be fairly trivial for most app developers to support a bit more screen real estate.
Actually, on Slashdot they've been pretty histrionic every time around--even the first one.
Apple has always sued competitors that imitated their designs. The current lawsuits are nothing new, and most of them have been in the works for a long time. Everybody knows that Apple releases one iPhone per year, so once you get halfway through the year, prospective buyers are starting to think about holding out for the next one. We'll know in a few months whether the iPhone was falling behind with consumers or whether it was just pent-up demand. It will be interesting to see whether Apple's conviction that a phone should be small and light wins out over the "like an iPhone but bigger!" competition. Certainly the new screen form factor sets it apart from the competition--for now. I imagine that some competitors are already working on tall-screen models, just out of general fear that, once again, it will turn out that Apple knows better.
The iPhone is the headliner here, and Apple's biggest cash cow. Apple would never allow another new device to steal its thunder. A new form factor for the iPad would be a big enough deal to deserve a show all to itself. Why have one publicity splash when you can have two?
Apple's view is that an app should be hand-customized to support the resolution and screen size of the device, not shoehorned in by an automated scaling routine. So the last thing Apple wants to do is tell developers, "Don't worry, the API will fit your app onto the new display." What Apple's API will do is allow developers to check the screen size and take advantage of the extra screen space in a way that fully exploits it. Based on the way that Apple's development environment works, this should be pretty trivial for the vast majority of apps. And for those developers who don't care enough to bother, the app will look exactly the way it did before, down to the pixel.
One of the keys to Apple's success is the unshakeable conviction that "Nobody wants X--until Apple figures out how to do it right."
From the actual quote, it does not sound like Zuckerberg is really down on HTML5 overall. I think, rather, he is saying that the company invested too much time trying to optimize the HTML5 client for mobile clients, when the company was ultimately able to get better performance with less effort by developing native apps.
I find it revealing that my rather mild comment that "it is not known whether chronic fatigue syndrome is immune related" has morphed in your mind into a "claim" that "there was no connection between CFS and the immune system." I've noticed this same behavior in climate "skeptics," where instead of engaging with what climate scientists actually say, they instead attack a caricature that exists only in their own minds. I've often seen such "skeptics" insist that climatologists claim that "CO2 is the only driver of climate," even though no climatologist has ever made such an assertion (and they frequently say the exact opposite).
The plural of anecdote is not "data." I have no particular preconceived expectations; I don't pretend to know what the cause of CFS is. I suspect that your recollection of your doctor telling you, "You can't be right, because it conflicts with what I've been taught" is probably no more reliable than your recollection of what I told you just a couple of posts back. I think that it is far more likely that your doctor gave little weight to your attempts at self-diagnosis because his own experience had shown him that patients' rationalizations of the source of their illness is not a reliable aid to diagnosis. And if the kind of "evidence" you offered him was similar to what you have offered here, I think that he was probably right to do so.
It is not uncommon to hear amateurs pontificating to scientists about what the "scientific process" should be. And almost invariably, what they are advocating is the opposite of science—a kind of superstitious thinking that is precisely what the disciplines of science, statistics, experimental controls, blinded analysis, etc., have been developed to counteract, dressed up with "sciencey" jargon, what Richard Feynman famously characterized as "cargo cult science".
As human beings, we are all prone to superstitious thinking. Our brains are hyperaware of connections and associations, to the point of often seeing them where they do not actually exist, and this is even more exaggerated where risks are concerned. It is easy to understand why "jumping to conclusions" has been favored by evolution—the rabbit cannot afford to think, "Perhaps the next fox will be friendly." We are particularly prone to see exaggerated significance in "runs" of behavior. Any sports fan will tell you that their favorite player or team has periods in which they are "hot" or "cold," even though numerous statistical analyses have shown that such runs occur no more frequently than expected from random fluctuations about a mean. Such erroneous perceptions often have associated with them an emotional conviction of great meaning and certainty. So you have attached great significance to the fact that you had a run of of years with colds, and then a run without colds (something that tends to happen with greater frequency as we get older and develop immunity to many of the common pathogens around us), and have developed an unshakeable conviction that this was associated with your vaccination, and also with your illness. In fact, you were undoubtedly exposed to numerous novel substances and organisms over that period of time, but your mind has likely seized upon vaccination because the experience of receiving an injection stands our more prominently in your mind because being stuck with a syringe is a more unusual experience than the routine cuts and scrapes that are constantly introducing bacteria, viruses, and environmental contaminants into our bloodstreams.
One of the reasons why doing science requires experience and training is that we have to learn the hard way just how often that such convictions, which often arrive in our minds with a sense of great clarity and certainty, turn out to be mistaken when subjected to the hard discipline of scientific analysis. So it is certainly possible that CFS is some sort of immune dysfunction (perhaps even interacting with a vaccination), just as it is possible that it is some sort of chronic infection, and these are hypotheses worth investigating (and they have, indeed, been investigated for quite a few years, so far without major insights), but your own experience, no matter how compelling it feels to you, is very weak evidence from a scientific perspective.
Elevated cytokines are not necessarily diagnostic of immune dysfunction. In animal studies, chronic stress alone is sufficient to elevate some cytokines, and there is evidence of a link between activation of beta-adrenergic adrenaline receptors and cytokine production. Of course, being ill is stressful. So disturbance of cytokine levels could be an effect rather than a cause. Or of course, it could be both; there could be a vicious circle, in which stress stimulates cytokine production, which causes you to feel ill and anxious, further elevating blood adrenaline, which stimulates further cytokine production, which causes you to feel worse and more stressed, etc. Some people may be more sensitive to this than others, or it might be triggered by some sort of infection and then become self-sustaining--sort of the way that some people can become a bit anxious, which causes them to breathe faster, which blows off CO2, changing the pH of their blood, which causes them to feel weird, which leads them to be more anxious and breathe even faster, etc., etc. So an exercise/rehabilitation program may turn out to be the CFS equivalent of breathing into a bag.
A huge number of people get flu shots every year. So just by random chance, a very large number of people will develop medical conditions, some of which will be immune related (although it is not known whether chronic fatigue syndrome is immune related), in proximity to getting a flu shot. And not getting sick one year is hardly such an odd event that it is reasonable to assume that your immune system has been affected. That's why anecdotes of this sort are pretty much worthless. You've seized upon a chronic illness that developed a couple of months after the shot, well after all of the ingredients of the vaccine were out of your system, and have decided to blame the vaccine. And you are specifically blaming thimerosal, even though the amount is very small (and we now know that this particular form of mercury is rapidly eliminated), and the symptoms of your illness do not resemble the symptoms of mercury toxicity. So it's not really very plausible, and the likelihood is very high that it's a coincidence. You can report it to VAERS, however, and in the unlikely even that a pattern develops, somebody will likely eventually do a proper study to determine whether there is any actual association. But post hoc ergo propter hoc is wired into our brains at a very low level, and we are particularly prone to seek causes for traumatic events--so I doubt if anything could ever convince you that your illness was not due to your vaccination.
It's not a patent on an idea, it's a patent on a method. And it's not something that can simply be calculated by mathematics, because it is not merely a problem in math, it is a problem in human behavior and perception.
When a person tries to indicate a point on a small touch-screen display, where exactly do the contours of the contact point fall relative to that point? How much variability is there from person to person? When a person tries to draw a small, one-handed gesture on such a screen, what tolerance is required in order to recognize a single gesture with high probability, yet not mis-recognize movements intended to be other gestures? What specific set of gestures is distinct enough from one another to minimize mis-recognition, yet intuitive and easy to execute with one hand on a small display?
These are not problems that are faced with gesture recognition on large displays, and they are not problems that can be solved by calculation, or for which the answer could conceivably have been "obvious" to anybody before the fact--they are problems that must be solved by experiment, using trial and error. It's quite a bit of work. But once somebody has done all of that work, it is very easy to copy it.
I've never experienced this, either.
I have a Kindle with ads. Basically, you get a display ad on the sleep page, and a discrete little ad on the menu page, but aside from that, the ads pretty much stay out of your way. On the other hand, the worst case is represented by Microsoft's XBox 360 interface, where you feel like you are wading through ads whenever you try to do anything at all.
It sounds like you don't understand the "no true scotsman" fallacy, or what makes it fallacious. It is a fallacy because it is circular--i.e. in the statement "No true scotsman doesn't eat haggis," eating haggis defines one as being a scotsman. It purports to be a assertion about the real world that potentially could be true or false, but in fact it is a tautology that no real-world evidence can refute. The statement can be made non-fallacious by defining a true scotsman by an independent criterion that does not depend upon eating haggis. So, for example, "Nobody born in scotland does not eat haggis" is not an example of the fallacy, even though it is likely false.
So the study cited is not an example of the "no true scotsman" fallacy, because the criterion for being considered a climate scientist is independent of the answer to the survey question (as demonstrated by the fact that there was a very percentage of climate scientists who were not convinced of the reality of AGW; there can be no counterexamples at all to a no-true-scotsman assertion, because it is tautological)
That seems to me a pretty good definition of anthropogenic global warming. If you want to move the goalposts, you should conduct your own survey.
If this is really substantially misleading, one would expect that several of the 75 (out of 77 surveyed) highly published climate scientists who answered "yes" to the question would have stood up to say, "I answered YES to the question, but I don't really think that anthropogenic global warming is a major problem." So where are they? Or is the conspiracy keeping them quiet?
Peiser was obliged to retract his major criticism because it was shown not to be true (which seems to be fairly typical of Peiser)--he falsely claimed to have replicated the study and gotten different results. If he said anything that actually was true and meaningful (which would be very out of character), what was it?
And in fact, there was no rational expectation that Apple's solution would obviously follow from that shown in the video, because the method shown in the video addressed a very different problem from the one Apple confronted in designing a touch phone:
The video addressed tracking gestures on a surface and manipulating virtual objects that were large relative to the area of a finger, using very large gestures. So accurate identification of the exact point of contact intended by the user was not needed. Apple's method addressed a very different (and considerably harder) problem: how to achieve the needed degree of precision for object manipulation and gesture recognition when the width of a the contact area of a finger is a substantial fraction of the width of the display and the virtual objects being manipulated are often smaller than the contact area. So it is hardly surprising that the methods used were quite different, and that one does not obviously follow from the other. It's like expecting the design of a motor scooter to "obviously follow" from the design of a pickup truck.
Movies and software generally have copyright notices which state that they are protected. So if you could figure out how to watch somebody else's movie being streamed over the internet, you would probably be free to do it, but you could not legally make a copy of it.
You can certainly put your email in an "envelope" that would indicate your intention to keep them private. A good way of doing this would be to encode them, such as with PGP. Sending them in plaintext, on the other hand, which can be read by any system administrator between you and the destination, argues that you have no serious concern about keeping them private.
Yes, it is possible that limitations on computing power would have prevented Apple's algorithm from being used. But the reason is immaterial--Apple's patent is on the algorithm, not on the general concept of multitouch, so the algorithm was different, it would not qualify as prior art. Of course, Samsung would be free to use the same algorithm as that used in the video instead of Apple's--even if patented, the method used in the video would by now have passed into the public domain.
Again, it is not attempting to assert a general patent on "multiple touch points." Apple's patent covers specific gestures that can be made with one hand, and a method whereby these gestures are recognized. These gestures do not appear in the video. Thus, not prior art.
Apple is not asserting a patent on "image scaling by matrix transformations," so this is also quite irrelevant.
The driver is part of the OS, and covered by Apple's patent