Asumming that the computer is plugged in and is running (yes/no?)- a large proportion of the heat in the oil would leave via the corners (the Edge) of the tank. In the same fashion that heat leaves a house through a window. Even in a "modern" window - most of the heat is lost at the edge of the glazing. Hence the EDGE EFFECT. Naturally heat would be lost from the surface of the oil - buy not that much because of the upper half of the tank stops convection currents from cooling the surface of the oil. So most of surface heat lost by conduction - but air is a fairly good insulator and would slow it down.
Happily I live in Canada - where most people are now smart enough to understand the difference between beliefs versus reality. The notion of a big guy running around in the sky controlling the earth - is a stretch to begin with. But when "big guy in the sky" people - start to actually tell us that science doesn't exist - well......
Now a days Canada has reached a point where religious institutions and relgious fanatics have almost zero impact on politicians and on out cultural institutions. Three cheeers.
Hard to tell whether Brand is playing the devils advocate with his "spinning" or is an adscam man for the corporate elite and other neo-con elite (RC church and politicians) in the USA.
First Brand tells us the world population is in drastic decline - but then does a somersault and says a population decline is bad for this planet. Michael Philips who ran Brand's foundation for awhile, did a study - Philips's study showed data from the USA federal government - the more kids - the more resources used - the more pollution created. That the best way to "save" this planet (besides making less money - unlikely!!!) was to not have kids or fewer kids. Simple.
Then Brand says that more food needs to be produced using genetically modified plants because they produce more/faster. Wait a second! First he says the population is drastically declining - then says we need to find out faster ways to make more food. Seriously, Stewart your age is showing... or is it age is bringing closer to the roman catholic church. There is no "scientific" proof that "modern" genetically modified food is "safe".
Yup must be a conversion to Catholicism - that the climate change is being caused by us little "ants" running around on the surface of this planet - that the earth is the center of the universe - you know heaven, hell , every egg gets a sperm - and all that other RC dogma.
Although I am typically opposed to corporal punishment - I'm all in favour of bringing it back for people who spy on me (and others) through the internet. Maybe a hundred lashes a day for a week would smarten these people up;)
Would like to get a list of the companies who are using this data.
Haven't tried game yet (does it work on Mac OS10.2.8?). Does the structure of the game include "how and why people use cities" - from a personal and social pyschological point of view? I am interested in a game that thousands of people could play simultaneously in a specific city - in order to defeat land speculators (often named developers) and their puppets - architects, landscape architects, urban planners, road engineers and politicians.
As mentioned before - info on dis-ease and how to get well and/or keep well is so "immature" in Wikipedia - one should think twice before going to that web site for accurate, complete, up-to-date information . For example there is no listing for "Beers Criteria Revised 2003" - which is tragic if you have an elderly parent!!
As it stands now - if I had a serious dis-ease - the Wikipedia would be the last place I would go to get info on how to get well again. Why freeze a work in progress on a DVD? I am hoping that over time more eloquent people than myself - will radically change what appears in Wikipedia relating to dis-ease and wellness.
Probably a good idea if Wiki was taken over by Britania. Then - perhaps - a less black and white approach to the "truth" - perhaps. The Wiki folks need to take another look at what they present as the "truth". I didn't know that "status quo" viiewpoints = truth. This is especially obvious when it comes to the medical/drug industrial complex or to the environmental green washing industry.
Three cheers for Andrew Tanenbaum - who has the balls to come out and say what needs to be said. Three cheers for outing another organization bent on "truth washing". It is too bad others who have the info on other situations keep their mouths shut - (HIV=AIDS, "Global Waming caused By Us", "Lets Kill Grandparents -Iraq War Is Good", "Most Prescription Drugs Don't Work", "Most MedicalTreatments Don't Work", "Cancer Caused By 100's of Corporations", "Architects, Planners Hate People"...and so on)
It's amazing that anyone who proclaims his or her work to be "scientific" would leave out an important first step before publishing anything. Namely, to prove themsleves wrong first and foremost before publishing. By at least listing other scenarios that might be possible - and then go through the pros and cons of each scenario and so...
Instead the race to be first...common.
Most (all) of what is published proporting to be "Green" - turns out to be instead "Green Washing". The list is endless. Why? - Money, money, money, - tenure, tenure, tenure. For "experts" who cannot get a 90 weather forecast right 50 percent of the time - predicting not only the far future of the earth's weather but dictating the exact causes for the weather change - well as they say - "Garbage In - Garbage Out". Now if someone put together a "program" that looked at all the possible variables for weather change (assuming we aren't on a "normal" pattern) - all 300 or 400 variables - then "we" might be getting somewhere. Most of you should likely be worrying more about what your Dupont Teflon stain repellant pants, ski clothes, carpets and wiper blades are doing to the atmosphere and your health because of PFOA.
The problem with medical doctors (and Wikipedia) is that they both believe in a model of "dis-ease" - born in the 16th century. Today there are other models of "dis-ease". Dr Lewis Mehl Madronna's model indicates that "we make ourselves ill - we can make ourselves better"- if we want to. At the same, "evidence -based" medicine tells us that most screening and diagnostics tests are not valid - most "treatments" that "trained" ("Jump Spot Jump") doctors use (including perscriptions) don't work! So it's not too surprising to find out that the mind/body can heal itself (when it wants to!).
I may be missing something here. Apple releases information on "new" products or "new " services to the executives of MUGs all the time (Macintosh Users Groups) around the world. And yes all these cultists sign non-disclosures. So at any given moment there are tens of thousands of people who know Apple's "secrets". It's all part of the continued BRANDING of Apple's cultist- devotees - to build up a demand (for repackaged 4 year old technology - that looks "Nice"). But at the same time it is alleged Jobs (as explained in the book about Jobs and Apple) screwed his partner Wozniak - so is this all about Jobs wanting to screw anyone who gets in his way? Just to be a fly on the wall.
Here's a few simple "rules". (after 25 years of experience and still not bald..or bankrupt)):
1.) If everyone tells you "it's a great idea - you'll make a million" - forget about it - your business idea is a lost cause. If everyone you tell about your business idea - gives you a funny look - then it's worth looking into and maybe even starting (if you fulfill the other rules below.)
2.) A sure fire way to go bust is to do a fancy business plan complete with columned green accounting paper and then get a bank loan. Bank people know diddley-squat about starting and running a business - but will be more than happy to take your home when you default on the loan. A business plan comes later...much later.
3.) If your reading this or the other comments here - you probably shouldn't be starting a business;) Do you have "tradeskills" - don't know what tradeskills are? - read "Running A One Person Business" (Rasperry & Whitmyer) - or hire Whitmyer.
4.) Time to do market research on your business potential with 12 people from your market niche. If you have competitors - don't even bother with the market research - keep your salaried job.
5. Advertising doesn't work - but publicity and word of mouth does. If you think advertisng works - keep your salaried job. Do know what a "hook" is? If not - keep your salaried job.
6. Figure out your bottom line for personal monthly (or yearly expenses) - don't hire any staff to begin with - and laugh at people who talk to you about venture capitalists.
7.) And in 5 years if you are still in business - you'll know what you did was right.
Is there an online web site to se the "On Paper" contractual relationship between Netscape, The Foundation and Firefox (and Google?). If such a disclosure(s) exist - that would be clarify the what, the why and the when.
Nothing like full disclosure - for an honest and ethical businesses. I wonder when Google will put up a disclosure statement on every page header - about it making $250 million a year profit from advertisers in Google. Just take 35 words to do a good - easy to read disclosure statement.
Since Apple Computer is so compelled to take people to court - it's only fair play that others take Apple Computers into court when laws/regulations are broken (what's good for the goose is good for the gander).
Naturally there are a number of possible scenarios here:
a) Apple Computer knowingly used the property of others - and knew that forcing a "little guy" into the court system would soften them because of the pressure. The 'little guy" would be more willing to settle now than in 3 or 4 or 5 years from now. Microsoft and other billionaires typically drags a court case out to 3 or 4 years - so can Apple.
b) Apple Computer knew nothing about the property of others because they have no money to hire a patent lawyer to check out patents when designing a new product or process.
c) Other scenarios?
http://www.seyboldreports.com/SRDP/dp4/DP04-05b.ht m
Xerox sues Appleon user interface
Are Apple's copyrights invalid?
On December 14, Xerox Corporation filed suit against Apple Computer, alleging that Apple has made unlawful use of copyrighted portions of the Xerox Star user interface. The suit asks the court to declare Apple's own user-interface copyrights invalid. Xerox is further asking $100 million in royalties and licenses fees, plus $50 million for damages. It has also requested a jury trial.
Xerox, in announcing the suit, stated that efforts to reach an amicable settlement with Apple, including a proposal that Apple license the copyrights from Xerox, had been rebuffed. Apple officials, however, said that Xerox had only raised the subject recently and the suit came as something of a surprise.
Apple later released a statement to the press asserting that the Xerox suit is without merit. Apple said that it would vigorously contest Xerox's claims in court.
The Star.There is no question in the computer industry that the work done at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center in the late '70s and early '80s was of seminal importance to all the graphical user interface designs that became popular during the '80s. The PARC researchers created nearly all of the concepts that have become commonplace today: the mouse as a pointing device, multiple windows to show separate processes within the computer, popup and hierarchical menus, representation of files and programs by icons, giving commands to the computer by dragging icons onto other icons, and so forth. We described the Xerox Star, the first commercial product to embody these research concepts, in the April 27, 1981, issue of The Seybold Report, (Vol. 10, No. 16).
The Macintosh designers clearly were heavily influenced by what they saw at PARC. Some of them had been employed earlier at PARC and were quite familiar with the Star's ancestors, the Alto and Bravo computers.
The copyright.Xerox states that it created and copyrighted the Star software in 1981. But Xerox did not actually register a copyright on its user interface until 1986. Since that is five years after the Star had made its public appearance, three years after Apple released the Lisa computer and two years after the Macintosh came out, there is a possibility that Xerox may have blown its chance to secure the copyright. It took no action to protect its copyright until last May, when it announced that it would require licensing fees for all derivative works.
So far, only Metaphor Computer Systems and Sun Microsystems have licensed the Xerox copyrights and patents. Sun announced its license as part of the Open Look user interface announcement, which took place shortly after Apple filed its ``look and feel'' lawsuit against Microsoft and HP. The license was clearly intended to preempt an Apple suit against Sun and Sun's Unix partner, AT&T, which has an even deeper pocket.
However, it would have made no sense for Apple to begin such a suit until the merits of the Microsoft suit had been decided. Most industry observers expected that process to take several years.
Microsoft and Apple buried the hatchet as part of the PostScript/font technology exchange last September, but it was already apparent that Apple's legal grounds for the suit had been greatly narrowed through various preliminary rulings. Besides leaving the validity of user-interface copyrights untested, this also reduced the likelihood that any other computer firms (such as IBM and Microsoft) would feel pressure to license Xerox's copyrights. In effect, Xerox had to sue Apple or give up its claim that it had something to license.
Apple's defense.Apple has always acknowledged that it obtained many of the ideas for the Lisa and Macintosh user interfaces from Xerox's Alto and Bravo computers. It insists, however, that its expression of those general ideas is unique and was developed independently.
Copyright law.Under U.S. copyright law, concepts and ideas cannot be copyrighted. Only a specific expression of ideas that is embodied
http://www.jmusheneaux.com/index10.htm#XEROX
5. 1990 - XEROX Sued APPLE
Someone put this in a search engine to come across this site "how steve jobs stole xerox ideas to include in the macintosh"
XEROX sues Apple in 1990 (XEROX lost) The way I understand it - The GUI have been around since the fifties, and was developed even more by XEROX. Apple devolped it more in the Apple Lisa and Macintosh. XEROX later sued Apple, but XEROX lost in court. Only Apple knows that answer, about what they got from XEROX for a couple days in 1983 for 18 million dollars in Apple stock. (XEROX wanted to buy Apple stock , 1 million dollars in pre IPO stock, ended up being worth 18 million net, for XEROX) and XEROX let Apple tour their lab for a few days. At XEROX the COMPANY SUITS were for it, but the LAB PEOPLE objected. Not exactly a smart thing for XEROX to do. About this time, XEROX also let Bill Gates tour their lab (Gates was writing software for the Apple at that time). It should be noted that Apple hired several XEROX employees a short time after visting XEROX.
The question remains who the pirate?
Matt Drudge (The Drudge Report) was the guest speaker at the USA's National Press Club. Drudge told the attending journalists from all the major news organizations (likely with 20, 30 years experience) that he was just as good/valid a journalist as they were - because he broke the Lewinsky-Clinton story. And he went on to explain how the www enabled him to become an instant (and rich??) journalist. Of course the Republican Party salivated over his story and used it to try to take Clinton down - since they couldn't beat him at the ballot box. That kind of set the pattern for the www. With respect to "justice" - hopefully nobody here actually believes that there is just one justice system. There are at least three - one for the rich, one for the elites, and then one for the rest of the masses. Naturally billionaires can crush anyone they want to by drowning them with lawyer costs.
I hope this issue goes to the USA Supreme courts - it will expose the underbelly of Apple - and I wonder what we will see? Maybe the "apple shuffle" won't look so cute then. Even to people who love Apple's repackaging of 4 year old technology into little boxes - will start to question Apple's integrity. Maybe.
Slashdot Mirror
Asumming that the computer is plugged in and is running (yes/no?)- a large proportion of the heat in the oil would leave via the corners (the Edge) of the tank. In the same fashion that heat leaves a house through a window. Even in a "modern" window - most of the heat is lost at the edge of the glazing. Hence the EDGE EFFECT. Naturally heat would be lost from the surface of the oil - buy not that much because of the upper half of the tank stops convection currents from cooling the surface of the oil. So most of surface heat lost by conduction - but air is a fairly good insulator and would slow it down.
Happily I live in Canada - where most people are now smart enough to understand the difference between beliefs versus reality. The notion of a big guy running around in the sky controlling the earth - is a stretch to begin with. But when "big guy in the sky" people - start to actually tell us that science doesn't exist - well...... Now a days Canada has reached a point where religious institutions and relgious fanatics have almost zero impact on politicians and on out cultural institutions. Three cheeers.
Hard to tell whether Brand is playing the devils advocate with his "spinning" or is an adscam man for the corporate elite and other neo-con elite (RC church and politicians) in the USA. First Brand tells us the world population is in drastic decline - but then does a somersault and says a population decline is bad for this planet. Michael Philips who ran Brand's foundation for awhile, did a study - Philips's study showed data from the USA federal government - the more kids - the more resources used - the more pollution created. That the best way to "save" this planet (besides making less money - unlikely!!!) was to not have kids or fewer kids. Simple. Then Brand says that more food needs to be produced using genetically modified plants because they produce more/faster. Wait a second! First he says the population is drastically declining - then says we need to find out faster ways to make more food. Seriously, Stewart your age is showing ... or is it age is bringing closer to the roman catholic church. There is no "scientific" proof that "modern" genetically modified food is "safe".
Yup must be a conversion to Catholicism - that the climate change is being caused by us little "ants" running around on the surface of this planet - that the earth is the center of the universe - you know heaven, hell , every egg gets a sperm - and all that other RC dogma.
Although I am typically opposed to corporal punishment - I'm all in favour of bringing it back for people who spy on me (and others) through the internet. Maybe a hundred lashes a day for a week would smarten these people up;) Would like to get a list of the companies who are using this data.
Haven't tried game yet (does it work on Mac OS10.2.8?). Does the structure of the game include "how and why people use cities" - from a personal and social pyschological point of view? I am interested in a game that thousands of people could play simultaneously in a specific city - in order to defeat land speculators (often named developers) and their puppets - architects, landscape architects, urban planners, road engineers and politicians.
As mentioned before - info on dis-ease and how to get well and/or keep well is so "immature" in Wikipedia - one should think twice before going to that web site for accurate, complete, up-to-date information . For example there is no listing for "Beers Criteria Revised 2003" - which is tragic if you have an elderly parent!!
As it stands now - if I had a serious dis-ease - the Wikipedia would be the last place I would go to get info on how to get well again. Why freeze a work in progress on a DVD? I am hoping that over time more eloquent people than myself - will radically change what appears in Wikipedia relating to dis-ease and wellness.
Probably a good idea if Wiki was taken over by Britania. Then - perhaps - a less black and white approach to the "truth" - perhaps. The Wiki folks need to take another look at what they present as the "truth". I didn't know that "status quo" viiewpoints = truth. This is especially obvious when it comes to the medical/drug industrial complex or to the environmental green washing industry.
Wiki=Truth Washing
Three cheers for Andrew Tanenbaum - who has the balls to come out and say what needs to be said. Three cheers for outing another organization bent on "truth washing". It is too bad others who have the info on other situations keep their mouths shut - (HIV=AIDS, "Global Waming caused By Us", "Lets Kill Grandparents -Iraq War Is Good", "Most Prescription Drugs Don't Work", "Most MedicalTreatments Don't Work", "Cancer Caused By 100's of Corporations", "Architects, Planners Hate People"...and so on)
It's amazing that anyone who proclaims his or her work to be "scientific" would leave out an important first step before publishing anything. Namely, to prove themsleves wrong first and foremost before publishing. By at least listing other scenarios that might be possible - and then go through the pros and cons of each scenario and so... Instead the race to be first...common.
Most (all) of what is published proporting to be "Green" - turns out to be instead "Green Washing". The list is endless. Why? - Money, money, money, - tenure, tenure, tenure. For "experts" who cannot get a 90 weather forecast right 50 percent of the time - predicting not only the far future of the earth's weather but dictating the exact causes for the weather change - well as they say - "Garbage In - Garbage Out". Now if someone put together a "program" that looked at all the possible variables for weather change (assuming we aren't on a "normal" pattern) - all 300 or 400 variables - then "we" might be getting somewhere. Most of you should likely be worrying more about what your Dupont Teflon stain repellant pants, ski clothes, carpets and wiper blades are doing to the atmosphere and your health because of PFOA.
The problem with medical doctors (and Wikipedia) is that they both believe in a model of "dis-ease" - born in the 16th century. Today there are other models of "dis-ease". Dr Lewis Mehl Madronna's model indicates that "we make ourselves ill - we can make ourselves better"- if we want to. At the same, "evidence -based" medicine tells us that most screening and diagnostics tests are not valid - most "treatments" that "trained" ("Jump Spot Jump") doctors use (including perscriptions) don't work! So it's not too surprising to find out that the mind/body can heal itself (when it wants to!).
I may be missing something here. Apple releases information on "new" products or "new " services to the executives of MUGs all the time (Macintosh Users Groups) around the world. And yes all these cultists sign non-disclosures. So at any given moment there are tens of thousands of people who know Apple's "secrets". It's all part of the continued BRANDING of Apple's cultist- devotees - to build up a demand (for repackaged 4 year old technology - that looks "Nice"). But at the same time it is alleged Jobs (as explained in the book about Jobs and Apple) screwed his partner Wozniak - so is this all about Jobs wanting to screw anyone who gets in his way? Just to be a fly on the wall.
Here's a few simple "rules". (after 25 years of experience and still not bald..or bankrupt)): 1.) If everyone tells you "it's a great idea - you'll make a million" - forget about it - your business idea is a lost cause. If everyone you tell about your business idea - gives you a funny look - then it's worth looking into and maybe even starting (if you fulfill the other rules below.) 2.) A sure fire way to go bust is to do a fancy business plan complete with columned green accounting paper and then get a bank loan. Bank people know diddley-squat about starting and running a business - but will be more than happy to take your home when you default on the loan. A business plan comes later...much later. 3.) If your reading this or the other comments here - you probably shouldn't be starting a business ;) Do you have "tradeskills" - don't know what tradeskills are? - read "Running A One Person Business" (Rasperry & Whitmyer) - or hire Whitmyer.
4.) Time to do market research on your business potential with 12 people from your market niche. If you have competitors - don't even bother with the market research - keep your salaried job.
5. Advertising doesn't work - but publicity and word of mouth does. If you think advertisng works - keep your salaried job. Do know what a "hook" is? If not - keep your salaried job.
6. Figure out your bottom line for personal monthly (or yearly expenses) - don't hire any staff to begin with - and laugh at people who talk to you about venture capitalists.
7.) And in 5 years if you are still in business - you'll know what you did was right.
Is there an online web site to se the "On Paper" contractual relationship between Netscape, The Foundation and Firefox (and Google?). If such a disclosure(s) exist - that would be clarify the what, the why and the when.
Nothing like full disclosure - for an honest and ethical businesses. I wonder when Google will put up a disclosure statement on every page header - about it making $250 million a year profit from advertisers in Google. Just take 35 words to do a good - easy to read disclosure statement.
Since Apple Computer is so compelled to take people to court - it's only fair play that others take Apple Computers into court when laws/regulations are broken (what's good for the goose is good for the gander). Naturally there are a number of possible scenarios here: a) Apple Computer knowingly used the property of others - and knew that forcing a "little guy" into the court system would soften them because of the pressure. The 'little guy" would be more willing to settle now than in 3 or 4 or 5 years from now. Microsoft and other billionaires typically drags a court case out to 3 or 4 years - so can Apple. b) Apple Computer knew nothing about the property of others because they have no money to hire a patent lawyer to check out patents when designing a new product or process. c) Other scenarios?
http://www.seyboldreports.com/SRDP/dp4/DP04-05b.ht m Xerox sues Appleon user interface Are Apple's copyrights invalid? On December 14, Xerox Corporation filed suit against Apple Computer, alleging that Apple has made unlawful use of copyrighted portions of the Xerox Star user interface. The suit asks the court to declare Apple's own user-interface copyrights invalid. Xerox is further asking $100 million in royalties and licenses fees, plus $50 million for damages. It has also requested a jury trial. Xerox, in announcing the suit, stated that efforts to reach an amicable settlement with Apple, including a proposal that Apple license the copyrights from Xerox, had been rebuffed. Apple officials, however, said that Xerox had only raised the subject recently and the suit came as something of a surprise. Apple later released a statement to the press asserting that the Xerox suit is without merit. Apple said that it would vigorously contest Xerox's claims in court. The Star.There is no question in the computer industry that the work done at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center in the late '70s and early '80s was of seminal importance to all the graphical user interface designs that became popular during the '80s. The PARC researchers created nearly all of the concepts that have become commonplace today: the mouse as a pointing device, multiple windows to show separate processes within the computer, popup and hierarchical menus, representation of files and programs by icons, giving commands to the computer by dragging icons onto other icons, and so forth. We described the Xerox Star, the first commercial product to embody these research concepts, in the April 27, 1981, issue of The Seybold Report, (Vol. 10, No. 16). The Macintosh designers clearly were heavily influenced by what they saw at PARC. Some of them had been employed earlier at PARC and were quite familiar with the Star's ancestors, the Alto and Bravo computers. The copyright.Xerox states that it created and copyrighted the Star software in 1981. But Xerox did not actually register a copyright on its user interface until 1986. Since that is five years after the Star had made its public appearance, three years after Apple released the Lisa computer and two years after the Macintosh came out, there is a possibility that Xerox may have blown its chance to secure the copyright. It took no action to protect its copyright until last May, when it announced that it would require licensing fees for all derivative works. So far, only Metaphor Computer Systems and Sun Microsystems have licensed the Xerox copyrights and patents. Sun announced its license as part of the Open Look user interface announcement, which took place shortly after Apple filed its ``look and feel'' lawsuit against Microsoft and HP. The license was clearly intended to preempt an Apple suit against Sun and Sun's Unix partner, AT&T, which has an even deeper pocket. However, it would have made no sense for Apple to begin such a suit until the merits of the Microsoft suit had been decided. Most industry observers expected that process to take several years. Microsoft and Apple buried the hatchet as part of the PostScript/font technology exchange last September, but it was already apparent that Apple's legal grounds for the suit had been greatly narrowed through various preliminary rulings. Besides leaving the validity of user-interface copyrights untested, this also reduced the likelihood that any other computer firms (such as IBM and Microsoft) would feel pressure to license Xerox's copyrights. In effect, Xerox had to sue Apple or give up its claim that it had something to license. Apple's defense.Apple has always acknowledged that it obtained many of the ideas for the Lisa and Macintosh user interfaces from Xerox's Alto and Bravo computers. It insists, however, that its expression of those general ideas is unique and was developed independently. Copyright law.Under U.S. copyright law, concepts and ideas cannot be copyrighted. Only a specific expression of ideas that is embodied
http://www.jmusheneaux.com/index10.htm#XEROX 5. 1990 - XEROX Sued APPLE Someone put this in a search engine to come across this site "how steve jobs stole xerox ideas to include in the macintosh" XEROX sues Apple in 1990 (XEROX lost) The way I understand it - The GUI have been around since the fifties, and was developed even more by XEROX. Apple devolped it more in the Apple Lisa and Macintosh. XEROX later sued Apple, but XEROX lost in court. Only Apple knows that answer, about what they got from XEROX for a couple days in 1983 for 18 million dollars in Apple stock. (XEROX wanted to buy Apple stock , 1 million dollars in pre IPO stock, ended up being worth 18 million net, for XEROX) and XEROX let Apple tour their lab for a few days. At XEROX the COMPANY SUITS were for it, but the LAB PEOPLE objected. Not exactly a smart thing for XEROX to do. About this time, XEROX also let Bill Gates tour their lab (Gates was writing software for the Apple at that time). It should be noted that Apple hired several XEROX employees a short time after visting XEROX. The question remains who the pirate?
As I mentioned above - there is an "allegation" that Xerox took Apple to court over the GUI and won.
Hmm don't see any mention of court case that Zerox ;) brought and won against Apple.
Date Of Licensing Versus Date Of Lifting?
Has Apple Changed - No! Allegation That Jobs Lifted GUI from Zerox - way back when.
Matt Drudge (The Drudge Report) was the guest speaker at the USA's National Press Club. Drudge told the attending journalists from all the major news organizations (likely with 20, 30 years experience) that he was just as good/valid a journalist as they were - because he broke the Lewinsky-Clinton story. And he went on to explain how the www enabled him to become an instant (and rich??) journalist. Of course the Republican Party salivated over his story and used it to try to take Clinton down - since they couldn't beat him at the ballot box. That kind of set the pattern for the www. With respect to "justice" - hopefully nobody here actually believes that there is just one justice system. There are at least three - one for the rich, one for the elites, and then one for the rest of the masses. Naturally billionaires can crush anyone they want to by drowning them with lawyer costs. I hope this issue goes to the USA Supreme courts - it will expose the underbelly of Apple - and I wonder what we will see? Maybe the "apple shuffle" won't look so cute then. Even to people who love Apple's repackaging of 4 year old technology into little boxes - will start to question Apple's integrity. Maybe.