Touch-screens weren't invented by Apple. Smartphones and tablets were not invented by Apple. In fact, I can't really think of anything Apple sells that ultimately wasn't someone else's invention first. They're good marketers, I'll give them that, but this idea that you can patent a round-edged rectangular tablet is beyond ludicrous. If Apple is so superior, surely their products can compete without abusive court cases.
The situations are different. Android is effectively a consortium of companies with Google as lead developer of the operating system and development tools. Apple owns the "i" line. Thus there positions are entirely different. In this case Google is lending an Android manufacturer a helping hand against a company with ludicrous patents but a chest full of money to keep competitors tied up in the courts for years. No matter how you look at it, Apple is the bad guy.
More to the point, Apple has been using highly questionable design patents, not to mention some very questionable chicanery.to attempt to fool courts, but now finds itself against competitors in possession of real and meaningful patents on pertinent technologies.
Maybe Apple should spend less time trying to use the courts as its henchman.
Oh and the Apple fanboy posting here is a fucking useless retard.
Sticking a finger inside a woman's vagina multiple times doesn't sound like simply an unpleasant search. It sounds like a sexual assault. If there was suspicion that she was carrying banned implements inside her vagina, then an appropriate cavity search should have been done.
Is it rape? No, I wouldn't say. But I would say it was a sexual assault and if the TSA officer did it, she should be fired. Nowhere have I heard that sticking fingers inside vaginas is permitted under security search rules, have you?
Frankly, the only thing I'd like is to bump the RAM up to 512mb. I have about 20 computers in the organization I work for that are public use, and you get up to that amount of RAM and they should run Open/LibreOffice okay, and then I just buy the the HDMI/DVI patch and toss the eight year old Dells we're using.
With max. RAM of about 256mb and probably a pretty low amount of storage, I'm guessing if you want to build apps for it, you would use a full-blown Debian install and cross-compile for ARM.
It comes with an HDMI port and a USB port, so it has display and input device capabilities. I'm not sure what your complaint is. Possibly it's because you have no idea what you're talking about, in which case, you're just a fucking retard.
And yet, for what you view as his lack of foresight, here we sit, with capitalism having delivered us to the brink. I don't agree with Marx's solutions, but I have to say, when we look at having allowed any company to become so big that it cannot fail lest we all fall into the abyss, I have to say he was spot on.
Whatever the solutions are, surely they involve limiting the capacity to accrue capital, particular in terms of companies that become "too big to fail".
I don't know of too many societies that have ended up like this. In most cases, the strong will share with the weak, because, you see, most humans are not sociopaths.
In an ideal capitalist economy you can. In what appears to be the post-20th century capitalist economy, the wealthy get wealthier, get rewarded for bad behavior as much as for good, and the average guy increasingly becomes more marginalized, at best a cog in a wheel if he can find a wheel to be a cog in at all.
I'm all for free enterprise, but clearly deregulation has not produced a more vibrant economy, it's simply sent us back eighty or ninety years. We need to start cutting the largest banks and corporations into pieces, we need to start holding those, whether politicians, bankers or corporate leaders to account in a very real and harsh sense for their errors.
People may be competitive, but the very fact that we have large-scale societies also demonstrates that people need to work together. This idea that we're all just predatory creatures out for what we can get is ludicrous. We are social creatures. Yes, we compete, but we also co-operate, for far more rewards than just how many cars we can fit in our garage.
This ignores the fact that the larger society creates the environment in which someone "works their asses off". Surely even those who "work their asses off" owe the society something, right?
More to the point, Marx didn't consider countries like Russia or China to be ready for Communism. These were fundamentally agrarian societies that did not have a substantial capitalist class at all. Only small parts of Russia and China were in any way meaningfully industrialized during Marx's time, the majority of their populations still being land-bound peasants living under a landed gentry class. Marx was specifically looking at places like Germany and the UK because those were societies that had, or were approaching full industrialization, and did have capitalist classes, as opposed to iterations on the older land holder-serf systems found in Russia and China.
Marxism dictated only a limited period of centralized authority (the dictatorship of the Proletariat). Now maybe it was always unreasonable to think that once a central authority had been set up that it would ever let go of the reigns, but I don't think anyone would say Marxism was in its entirety a sensible politico-economic theory.
But when I look at bankers and corporate executives collecting vast bonuses even as the interests they oversee crumble, when I watch politicians basically frozen in place, panic-stricken at the thought of letting these corporate interests collapse but unwilling to make the severe regulatory changes that would rebalance the situation, I'm having a hard time seeing how your complaint doesn't land as squarely in the hands of 21st century Capitalism as it does in the hands of 20th century Communism.
In either case, the average citizen finds himself in a situation where the political leadership simply will not do as the populace demands.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. The problem in Marx's case was that none of the states he thought were ready for a Communist revolution did in fact tip over. There were failed revolutions in some European countries, but the rulers got smart and began instituting relatively liberal constitutions, increasing worker protections and other various cries from classical 19th century Liberals and Socialists. The industrialized nations all got the hint pretty fast that if they didn't at least increase standards of living and rebalance the social equation, they would end up with revolutions.
The places that actually fell to Communism, at least in the first wave, were countries that Marx distinctly said were not ready, and that was the largely agrarian societies of Russia and China. In both cases, the revolutionaries literally had to lift up their economies and carry them through to industrialization, which was what the capitalist epoch in classical Marxism was supposed to be for. In essence, Marxism is an industrialized political and economic theory.
There are other problems with Marxism, but I think Marx himself was proven to be a pretty smart guy, even if there were some substantial flaws in his theory. Certainly the Marxist view of history as class struggles has a lot of adherents in the historical and scholarly community, and it's very clear that he did a rather good job of dissecting Capitalism's major flaws. I wouldn't go out and suggest we all adopt Marxist Communism, I don't think it would work at all, but at the same time I think we can take the warnings of out of control capitalism and see the truth in them.
I don't think any particular political or economic theory should exist solely for its means. The idea that we should pursue Capitalism simply for Capitalism's sake is absurd, and I think underlies the flaws in tossing out pragmatism. In certain circles, Capitalism seems almost a religion, much as Leninist Communism and its descendants did in their day. But clearly by allowing vast sums of money, and almost more importantly, vast amounts of economic influence, to accrue to large commercial and corporate interests has lead us down a dark dark path. The whole notion of too big to fail suggests to me that the time has come to perhaps put caps on just how big any given commercial interest, whether it be a corporation, consortium, co-operative or whatever formulation you can imagine can get. Maybe we shouldn't consider mergers or buy-outs beyond a certain size, maybe when companies reach whatever size seems dangerous they should be cut into pieces, in part to foster competition, but also to assure that the collapse of any one entity doesn't become so dangerous as to threaten the underlying economy.
The success of post-War Capitalism was in no small part due to the embedding of what could only be called socialist principles. Yes, we would allow free enterprise, but with controls, and just as importantly we would create a welfare apparatus to assure that those who would inevitably be harmed by the economic system could at least be guaranteed a certain minimum lifestyle. Different nations took this mix in different degrees; in Europe the welfare state took on a larger role, whereas in the United States, it was less overarching, though I would argue every bit as present, though implementation much less even due to constitutional and political constraints. Regardless of how it was instituted, the goal was to create a balance.
What I think we've seen from the wave of deregulation beginning in the late 1980s and early 1990s is a tipping of that balance. We've allowed commercial interests to accrue a vast amount of economic influence, to the point where their success or failure substantially impacts the success or failure of whole economies, even the global economy. Suddenly we've been plunged into a whole new form of welfare, nations literally printing or borrowing vast amounts of money just to keep these sputtering engines from dying and taking everything with them. Now we
Only insofar as he lacked tact in outlining his observation. The observation itself is likely accurate. I've got full time employment, but I could probably free lance enough to come close to my salary.
I agree. This was a con where the con-artist got greedy and overreached. They should have taken Google's money and ran for the hills. Now they're going to be revealed as an empty bag of air.
In the end SCO did, but initially basically what they provided were huge data dumps. Initially they did not make clear where the alleged infringements were. It was very much a case of pointing to a stack of books and claiming "there's the infringement." My point is that I don't think they should even be allowed into a courtroom until they provide clear evidence, and not just vast claims that the court then has to oversee. The court should never have even heard this case, so far as I can see.
Slashdot Mirror
Touch-screens weren't invented by Apple. Smartphones and tablets were not invented by Apple. In fact, I can't really think of anything Apple sells that ultimately wasn't someone else's invention first. They're good marketers, I'll give them that, but this idea that you can patent a round-edged rectangular tablet is beyond ludicrous. If Apple is so superior, surely their products can compete without abusive court cases.
The situations are different. Android is effectively a consortium of companies with Google as lead developer of the operating system and development tools. Apple owns the "i" line. Thus there positions are entirely different. In this case Google is lending an Android manufacturer a helping hand against a company with ludicrous patents but a chest full of money to keep competitors tied up in the courts for years. No matter how you look at it, Apple is the bad guy.
No one is forced to use Google's search, it's not as if they control the web and can force anyone, user or advertiser, to their site.
More to the point, Apple has been using highly questionable design patents, not to mention some very questionable chicanery.to attempt to fool courts, but now finds itself against competitors in possession of real and meaningful patents on pertinent technologies.
Maybe Apple should spend less time trying to use the courts as its henchman.
Oh and the Apple fanboy posting here is a fucking useless retard.
Sticking a finger inside a woman's vagina multiple times doesn't sound like simply an unpleasant search. It sounds like a sexual assault. If there was suspicion that she was carrying banned implements inside her vagina, then an appropriate cavity search should have been done.
Is it rape? No, I wouldn't say. But I would say it was a sexual assault and if the TSA officer did it, she should be fired. Nowhere have I heard that sticking fingers inside vaginas is permitted under security search rules, have you?
Let me know how that native compile of a 2.6 kernel in your brain goes...
Frankly, the only thing I'd like is to bump the RAM up to 512mb. I have about 20 computers in the organization I work for that are public use, and you get up to that amount of RAM and they should run Open/LibreOffice okay, and then I just buy the the HDMI/DVI patch and toss the eight year old Dells we're using.
Yeah, who the hell runs Linux on ARM processors...
With max. RAM of about 256mb and probably a pretty low amount of storage, I'm guessing if you want to build apps for it, you would use a full-blown Debian install and cross-compile for ARM.
It comes with an HDMI port and a USB port, so it has display and input device capabilities. I'm not sure what your complaint is. Possibly it's because you have no idea what you're talking about, in which case, you're just a fucking retard.
So you wait four or five days and then come back with this?
What kind of fucking retard are you?
Overplaying Popper doesn't get you very far at all, and neither does circular reasoning.
And yet, for what you view as his lack of foresight, here we sit, with capitalism having delivered us to the brink. I don't agree with Marx's solutions, but I have to say, when we look at having allowed any company to become so big that it cannot fail lest we all fall into the abyss, I have to say he was spot on.
Whatever the solutions are, surely they involve limiting the capacity to accrue capital, particular in terms of companies that become "too big to fail".
I don't know of too many societies that have ended up like this. In most cases, the strong will share with the weak, because, you see, most humans are not sociopaths.
In an ideal capitalist economy you can. In what appears to be the post-20th century capitalist economy, the wealthy get wealthier, get rewarded for bad behavior as much as for good, and the average guy increasingly becomes more marginalized, at best a cog in a wheel if he can find a wheel to be a cog in at all.
I'm all for free enterprise, but clearly deregulation has not produced a more vibrant economy, it's simply sent us back eighty or ninety years. We need to start cutting the largest banks and corporations into pieces, we need to start holding those, whether politicians, bankers or corporate leaders to account in a very real and harsh sense for their errors.
People may be competitive, but the very fact that we have large-scale societies also demonstrates that people need to work together. This idea that we're all just predatory creatures out for what we can get is ludicrous. We are social creatures. Yes, we compete, but we also co-operate, for far more rewards than just how many cars we can fit in our garage.
This ignores the fact that the larger society creates the environment in which someone "works their asses off". Surely even those who "work their asses off" owe the society something, right?
More to the point, Marx didn't consider countries like Russia or China to be ready for Communism. These were fundamentally agrarian societies that did not have a substantial capitalist class at all. Only small parts of Russia and China were in any way meaningfully industrialized during Marx's time, the majority of their populations still being land-bound peasants living under a landed gentry class. Marx was specifically looking at places like Germany and the UK because those were societies that had, or were approaching full industrialization, and did have capitalist classes, as opposed to iterations on the older land holder-serf systems found in Russia and China.
Marxism dictated only a limited period of centralized authority (the dictatorship of the Proletariat). Now maybe it was always unreasonable to think that once a central authority had been set up that it would ever let go of the reigns, but I don't think anyone would say Marxism was in its entirety a sensible politico-economic theory.
But when I look at bankers and corporate executives collecting vast bonuses even as the interests they oversee crumble, when I watch politicians basically frozen in place, panic-stricken at the thought of letting these corporate interests collapse but unwilling to make the severe regulatory changes that would rebalance the situation, I'm having a hard time seeing how your complaint doesn't land as squarely in the hands of 21st century Capitalism as it does in the hands of 20th century Communism.
In either case, the average citizen finds himself in a situation where the political leadership simply will not do as the populace demands.
I'll wager there are probably less than five posters on this particular article who have even read the Communist Manifesto.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. The problem in Marx's case was that none of the states he thought were ready for a Communist revolution did in fact tip over. There were failed revolutions in some European countries, but the rulers got smart and began instituting relatively liberal constitutions, increasing worker protections and other various cries from classical 19th century Liberals and Socialists. The industrialized nations all got the hint pretty fast that if they didn't at least increase standards of living and rebalance the social equation, they would end up with revolutions.
The places that actually fell to Communism, at least in the first wave, were countries that Marx distinctly said were not ready, and that was the largely agrarian societies of Russia and China. In both cases, the revolutionaries literally had to lift up their economies and carry them through to industrialization, which was what the capitalist epoch in classical Marxism was supposed to be for. In essence, Marxism is an industrialized political and economic theory.
There are other problems with Marxism, but I think Marx himself was proven to be a pretty smart guy, even if there were some substantial flaws in his theory. Certainly the Marxist view of history as class struggles has a lot of adherents in the historical and scholarly community, and it's very clear that he did a rather good job of dissecting Capitalism's major flaws. I wouldn't go out and suggest we all adopt Marxist Communism, I don't think it would work at all, but at the same time I think we can take the warnings of out of control capitalism and see the truth in them.
I don't think any particular political or economic theory should exist solely for its means. The idea that we should pursue Capitalism simply for Capitalism's sake is absurd, and I think underlies the flaws in tossing out pragmatism. In certain circles, Capitalism seems almost a religion, much as Leninist Communism and its descendants did in their day. But clearly by allowing vast sums of money, and almost more importantly, vast amounts of economic influence, to accrue to large commercial and corporate interests has lead us down a dark dark path. The whole notion of too big to fail suggests to me that the time has come to perhaps put caps on just how big any given commercial interest, whether it be a corporation, consortium, co-operative or whatever formulation you can imagine can get. Maybe we shouldn't consider mergers or buy-outs beyond a certain size, maybe when companies reach whatever size seems dangerous they should be cut into pieces, in part to foster competition, but also to assure that the collapse of any one entity doesn't become so dangerous as to threaten the underlying economy.
The success of post-War Capitalism was in no small part due to the embedding of what could only be called socialist principles. Yes, we would allow free enterprise, but with controls, and just as importantly we would create a welfare apparatus to assure that those who would inevitably be harmed by the economic system could at least be guaranteed a certain minimum lifestyle. Different nations took this mix in different degrees; in Europe the welfare state took on a larger role, whereas in the United States, it was less overarching, though I would argue every bit as present, though implementation much less even due to constitutional and political constraints. Regardless of how it was instituted, the goal was to create a balance.
What I think we've seen from the wave of deregulation beginning in the late 1980s and early 1990s is a tipping of that balance. We've allowed commercial interests to accrue a vast amount of economic influence, to the point where their success or failure substantially impacts the success or failure of whole economies, even the global economy. Suddenly we've been plunged into a whole new form of welfare, nations literally printing or borrowing vast amounts of money just to keep these sputtering engines from dying and taking everything with them. Now we
Only insofar as he lacked tact in outlining his observation. The observation itself is likely accurate. I've got full time employment, but I could probably free lance enough to come close to my salary.
I agree. This was a con where the con-artist got greedy and overreached. They should have taken Google's money and ran for the hills. Now they're going to be revealed as an empty bag of air.
And in other news, Satan demands the residents of Hades put out their camp fires.
In the end SCO did, but initially basically what they provided were huge data dumps. Initially they did not make clear where the alleged infringements were. It was very much a case of pointing to a stack of books and claiming "there's the infringement." My point is that I don't think they should even be allowed into a courtroom until they provide clear evidence, and not just vast claims that the court then has to oversee. The court should never have even heard this case, so far as I can see.