Funny story: most Persians would probably be offended that you fingered them as the dominant Muslim population, thereby suggesting they're both Arab and Sunni.
FYI, the dominant language of believers of Islam is Arabic. Farsi is a distant other-place on that list (if I had to guess, I'd assume Indonesian is the second largest language given that it contains the highest percentage of worldwide Muslims).
When the href is finally added, can we please make sure it's to the debian release rather than the link provided in the submission? Slashvertisements are depressing.
My Envy 15 did that for me this past winter. I shaved 100 bucks off my electric bill by taking the thing with me from room to room and never turning on the heatpump.
Clearly you have never been involved in lawsuits with large corporations and nuance lawsuits.
A few points your experienced lawyerly self seems to have missed: any massive entity owning a large block of patents on conceptual items will avoid using them against another company of equal or slightly lesser size (or a company with which it has a favorable relationship) in the event that it is unsure of whether those patents will withstand a round in court. However, if said massive entity is certain the patents will withstand claims such as prior art, "obviousness," and so forth, they may pursue royalties from the aforementioned "other company" (such as HTC).
This is why many companies have many magazines of conceptual yet questionable patents under their belts which they generally do not exercise: mutually assured destruction of patents in a war of words is the only way each can protect itself from the other. However, patents which are exercised (either through a royalty agreement or in a patent infringement suit) are almost certainly done either with confidence that said patents will withstand a court challenge or with hopes that the responding corporation will also have its own patent claims nulled, freeing the company that originated litigation to pursue any ideas potentially covered by the opponent's now-voided patents.
Keep up on your studies of IP law. You'll enjoy it, I promise you.
I feel like this analogy is the best shot any ISP would have at combating the law, or rather, unequal treatment under the law.
I honestly wonder, given that corporations are considered "persons" in the eyes of the government, if they can claim that discrimination by the nature of the service provided is unconstitutional. It would be an interesting approach. It seems the use of the first section of the 14th amendment may actually be a viable approach to this argument. My logic chain is as follows: If a law is more burdensome for one service provider (in this case, provider of internet access as a service) than another (say, garbage collection as a service) and both meet the lower, generic retention bar, should the ISP be prosecuted, it could be argued unequal protection under the law as the ISP would in fact be under attack by the law despite meeting retention policies for generic services such as garbage collection.
1) as the first AC mentioned, the patents may be legitimate. In discussions about MS patent litigation, I've noted that Microsoft actually does a good job of leveraging patents over which it has ownership rather than simply letting them sit in a bank, so there's a good chance they're leveraging their options because Microsoft may actually be using these patents in Windows Phone 7.
2) Google needs a foothold in the mobile market. Even if this means OEMs have to pay Microsoft for patents Microsoft owns, I figure Google won't care simply because this means Google still has a foothold as both an advertisement platform and an application platform, which is something Google would be hard-pressed to challenge just for the sake of challenging royalties which manufacturers are willingly paying. After all, these OEMs have their own teams of lawyers, and these lawyers likely see something we don't, suggesting to us on the outside that Microsoft may actually have a valid claim to the patents in question.
They're not network engineers. They just don't get it.
Have you heard most laypeople give theories on how computers and the internet work? They assume it's all magic, which probably explains why things like transparency and oversight end up being an afterthought.
Exactly. There's also another facet to it, though.
People graduating with employable degrees into high-pay positions will immediately find themselves back in that yuppie culture that seems to die off (or at least subside) every decade before being brought back to life with each economic recovery. Part of this includes status symbols, so what better way to justify the purchase of a status element than to buy something that most others in their generation aren't accustomed to seeing? Most in this generation look at mechanical items and think "wow, this is how stuff was done before electronics got involved!" and that's immensely fascinating, so the 4 figure payment suddenly has extra "merit."
(for the uninitiated, yuppie = a young urban professional. The term could be constrewed as derogatory, though I never saw it that way)
You're right, the concept isn't to "mindlessly broadcast the same thing to everyone."
The concept is to network people together and allow for this network to replicate. How is this supposed to happen if the same people are seeing the same things? Broadcasts allow for an extended discussion by parties unfamiliar with each other, introducing people to others they might normally have never met. That's one of the points of social networking, and that's what I'm trying to say. Circles in Google+ discourage this very mentality.
and you see, I have a problem with this implementation.
Specifically, it takes me back to high school. It's fine and dandy, but half the goal of social networks is to keep networking, not to lock oneself to certain groups and isolate those groups from each other. I occasionally have a need to limit something to specific people, but I often want everyone to see my thoughts (as posted) to a) blend everyone's input together and b) give people an opportunity to expand their own social circles.
I just feel like Google's implementation here, while flashy, does nothing but isolate perspectives, ideas, and entire social groups even further. I suppose only time will tell whether Google's approach is better or worse, but I feel it will contribute to one of the few things the web allowed us to move away from: perspective bubbles.
Is this seriously a positive point? I've been able to select and block specific groups on my status messages, images, albums, etc. on Facebook for at least the last two years.
Come to think about it, Circles in Google+ are simply Facebook Lists and Groups merged together in disguise. I get better permission granularity, get all the group chat features I want in Groups... am I simply not seeing the allure Google+ supposedly offers? I'm all for tossing Facebook, but in all honesty, another centralized platform (especially one owned by an advertisement near-deity) just seems like a terrible idea.
I wouldn't mind an update on Diaspora right about now.
Law supersedes contract. Patent laws happen to be precisely that, so if an OEM has to license a patent to use Android code, so be it.
That said, the whole "law supersedes contract" bit is generally known to apply directly to laws as opposed to contracts signed to avoid being sued over laws, but the simple fact that HTC has yet to be sued by any creator of GPL'd code or by Microsoft means the tactic is working. Google can't risk losing its foothold, and they'd rather have Android stick around with an OEM rather than have it fall completely out of favor with that OEM over what is, in the context of current patent laws, an entirely legitimate patent claim.
They legally fulfilled the requirements for protecting their own patents: they implemented them in production systems (i.e. they're making an attempt to use their patents to make legitimate money through sales of products based on said patents) and they see Android as infringing. Unpopular as software patents are here on slashdot, under current patent laws, they're completely justified, which is quite unlike the patent trolls slashdot is typically used to.
The problem here is that Microsoft effectively made Android anything but free, which is exactly the opposite of what Google wanted to achieve with the OEM brand perception of Android as a platform, and that in and of itself is a fantastic business strategy. I can't even remotely justify it as either humiliating or desperate; it's well-played despite being immensely back-handed.
Aside from this, my question is as follows: what's the contingency plan in the event that the currency is undermined, either by means of the PKI being broken or some other vulnerability being uncovered?
It doesn't even matter if it's pasteurized. How many people in the general population even know what pasteurization means? Some food purists only know that the process makes food taste a little different, even if it's healthier as a result.
Microsoft is not a hardware company and would most likely kill nVidia. Out of Microsoft's major hardware projects, the 360 was a complete failure in the hardware department
False. Just because Microsoft didn't design the machine for proper heat dissipation doesn't mean NVIDIA failed. On the contrary, NVIDIA had nothing to do with the 360, and the device still drives sales for Microsoft despite the heating damage. Their Entertainment division will never fade away.
Surface, while neat is hardly a gamechanger
Citation needed.
The first Xbox had a major ergonomics flaw (I mean, were the controllers designed for giants or what) at first, and the internals were pretty much just generic PC hardware.
...using an nvidia GPU.
Tegra 2 is a dual-core ARM-based SoC easily capable of running Windows 8 with all UI acceleration enabled. NVIDIA produces chips already proven to power the NT kernel neatly (the original Tegra powered the Zune HD), so clearly it works. Microsoft just wants to make sure they don't get undermined by an NVIDIA buyout.
My good sir, I merely asked a few questions. I made no statement indicating an expectation of multiple theories, merely a query for any in the event that any happened to exist.
As an aside, it would do you wonders to investigate new methodologies of conveying written information. Your response, most notably the capitalization, the usage of asterisks for emphasis, and the snide remark about political journalism, appeared to have a not-terribly-subtle hint of condescension. As someone who wants to learn more, this is something I most certainly do not deserve after asking a benign question.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny story: most Persians would probably be offended that you fingered them as the dominant Muslim population, thereby suggesting they're both Arab and Sunni.
FYI, the dominant language of believers of Islam is Arabic. Farsi is a distant other-place on that list (if I had to guess, I'd assume Indonesian is the second largest language given that it contains the highest percentage of worldwide Muslims).
When the href is finally added, can we please make sure it's to the debian release rather than the link provided in the submission? Slashvertisements are depressing.
My Envy 15 did that for me this past winter. I shaved 100 bucks off my electric bill by taking the thing with me from room to room and never turning on the heatpump.
Wow, I'm surprised no one's updated the article as of this comment.
http://www.journalofvision.org/content/11/8/11.abstract
Where am I seeing anything about 3D hurting eyes in here? This might just be the worst slashdot heading, summary, and linked article in a while.
The whole study is trying to measure specific angles and distances where 3D is uncomfortable. There's nothing about 3D actually hurting eyes.
Lockheed after the RSA breach.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/security/229700151
A few points your experienced lawyerly self seems to have missed: any massive entity owning a large block of patents on conceptual items will avoid using them against another company of equal or slightly lesser size (or a company with which it has a favorable relationship) in the event that it is unsure of whether those patents will withstand a round in court. However, if said massive entity is certain the patents will withstand claims such as prior art, "obviousness," and so forth, they may pursue royalties from the aforementioned "other company" (such as HTC).
This is why many companies have many magazines of conceptual yet questionable patents under their belts which they generally do not exercise: mutually assured destruction of patents in a war of words is the only way each can protect itself from the other. However, patents which are exercised (either through a royalty agreement or in a patent infringement suit) are almost certainly done either with confidence that said patents will withstand a court challenge or with hopes that the responding corporation will also have its own patent claims nulled, freeing the company that originated litigation to pursue any ideas potentially covered by the opponent's now-voided patents.
Keep up on your studies of IP law. You'll enjoy it, I promise you.
I feel like this analogy is the best shot any ISP would have at combating the law, or rather, unequal treatment under the law.
I honestly wonder, given that corporations are considered "persons" in the eyes of the government, if they can claim that discrimination by the nature of the service provided is unconstitutional. It would be an interesting approach. It seems the use of the first section of the 14th amendment may actually be a viable approach to this argument. My logic chain is as follows: If a law is more burdensome for one service provider (in this case, provider of internet access as a service) than another (say, garbage collection as a service) and both meet the lower, generic retention bar, should the ISP be prosecuted, it could be argued unequal protection under the law as the ISP would in fact be under attack by the law despite meeting retention policies for generic services such as garbage collection.
I'm curious for the opinions of others on this.
I didn't say they need to get a foothold. I simply said they need one. This includes both getFoothold and retainFoothold.
I'm going to leave two points for consideration:
1) as the first AC mentioned, the patents may be legitimate. In discussions about MS patent litigation, I've noted that Microsoft actually does a good job of leveraging patents over which it has ownership rather than simply letting them sit in a bank, so there's a good chance they're leveraging their options because Microsoft may actually be using these patents in Windows Phone 7.
2) Google needs a foothold in the mobile market. Even if this means OEMs have to pay Microsoft for patents Microsoft owns, I figure Google won't care simply because this means Google still has a foothold as both an advertisement platform and an application platform, which is something Google would be hard-pressed to challenge just for the sake of challenging royalties which manufacturers are willingly paying. After all, these OEMs have their own teams of lawyers, and these lawyers likely see something we don't, suggesting to us on the outside that Microsoft may actually have a valid claim to the patents in question.
They're not network engineers. They just don't get it.
Have you heard most laypeople give theories on how computers and the internet work? They assume it's all magic, which probably explains why things like transparency and oversight end up being an afterthought.
Exactly. There's also another facet to it, though.
People graduating with employable degrees into high-pay positions will immediately find themselves back in that yuppie culture that seems to die off (or at least subside) every decade before being brought back to life with each economic recovery. Part of this includes status symbols, so what better way to justify the purchase of a status element than to buy something that most others in their generation aren't accustomed to seeing? Most in this generation look at mechanical items and think "wow, this is how stuff was done before electronics got involved!" and that's immensely fascinating, so the 4 figure payment suddenly has extra "merit."
(for the uninitiated, yuppie = a young urban professional. The term could be constrewed as derogatory, though I never saw it that way)
You're right, the concept isn't to "mindlessly broadcast the same thing to everyone."
The concept is to network people together and allow for this network to replicate. How is this supposed to happen if the same people are seeing the same things? Broadcasts allow for an extended discussion by parties unfamiliar with each other, introducing people to others they might normally have never met. That's one of the points of social networking, and that's what I'm trying to say. Circles in Google+ discourage this very mentality.
See, that's an opt-in procedure.
My point is that the opt-in nature of being able to broadcast isolates thoughts and perspectives, defeating the very point of a social network.
and you see, I have a problem with this implementation.
Specifically, it takes me back to high school. It's fine and dandy, but half the goal of social networks is to keep networking, not to lock oneself to certain groups and isolate those groups from each other. I occasionally have a need to limit something to specific people, but I often want everyone to see my thoughts (as posted) to a) blend everyone's input together and b) give people an opportunity to expand their own social circles.
I just feel like Google's implementation here, while flashy, does nothing but isolate perspectives, ideas, and entire social groups even further. I suppose only time will tell whether Google's approach is better or worse, but I feel it will contribute to one of the few things the web allowed us to move away from: perspective bubbles.
Is this seriously a positive point? I've been able to select and block specific groups on my status messages, images, albums, etc. on Facebook for at least the last two years.
Come to think about it, Circles in Google+ are simply Facebook Lists and Groups merged together in disguise. I get better permission granularity, get all the group chat features I want in Groups... am I simply not seeing the allure Google+ supposedly offers? I'm all for tossing Facebook, but in all honesty, another centralized platform (especially one owned by an advertisement near-deity) just seems like a terrible idea.
I wouldn't mind an update on Diaspora right about now.
is Google, and Microsoft owns part of Facebook and all of skype...
Okay, so this decision makes perfect business sense. I just saved all of you some brain cycles. Move along.
Law supersedes contract. Patent laws happen to be precisely that, so if an OEM has to license a patent to use Android code, so be it.
That said, the whole "law supersedes contract" bit is generally known to apply directly to laws as opposed to contracts signed to avoid being sued over laws, but the simple fact that HTC has yet to be sued by any creator of GPL'd code or by Microsoft means the tactic is working. Google can't risk losing its foothold, and they'd rather have Android stick around with an OEM rather than have it fall completely out of favor with that OEM over what is, in the context of current patent laws, an entirely legitimate patent claim.
They legally fulfilled the requirements for protecting their own patents: they implemented them in production systems (i.e. they're making an attempt to use their patents to make legitimate money through sales of products based on said patents) and they see Android as infringing. Unpopular as software patents are here on slashdot, under current patent laws, they're completely justified, which is quite unlike the patent trolls slashdot is typically used to.
The problem here is that Microsoft effectively made Android anything but free, which is exactly the opposite of what Google wanted to achieve with the OEM brand perception of Android as a platform, and that in and of itself is a fantastic business strategy. I can't even remotely justify it as either humiliating or desperate; it's well-played despite being immensely back-handed.
It's "humiliating desperation" to legally force someone to pay you to do absolutely nothing?
Man, I hope your MBA is still eligible for a refund.
Aside from this, my question is as follows: what's the contingency plan in the event that the currency is undermined, either by means of the PKI being broken or some other vulnerability being uncovered?
It doesn't even matter if it's pasteurized. How many people in the general population even know what pasteurization means? Some food purists only know that the process makes food taste a little different, even if it's healthier as a result.
False. Just because Microsoft didn't design the machine for proper heat dissipation doesn't mean NVIDIA failed. On the contrary, NVIDIA had nothing to do with the 360, and the device still drives sales for Microsoft despite the heating damage. Their Entertainment division will never fade away.
Citation needed.
...using an nvidia GPU.
Tegra 2 is a dual-core ARM-based SoC easily capable of running Windows 8 with all UI acceleration enabled. NVIDIA produces chips already proven to power the NT kernel neatly (the original Tegra powered the Zune HD), so clearly it works. Microsoft just wants to make sure they don't get undermined by an NVIDIA buyout.
My good sir, I merely asked a few questions. I made no statement indicating an expectation of multiple theories, merely a query for any in the event that any happened to exist.
As an aside, it would do you wonders to investigate new methodologies of conveying written information. Your response, most notably the capitalization, the usage of asterisks for emphasis, and the snide remark about political journalism, appeared to have a not-terribly-subtle hint of condescension. As someone who wants to learn more, this is something I most certainly do not deserve after asking a benign question.