Why not Sir Dieter Rams? I mean, the designs are basically his...
First, what you are saying "the designs ares basically his" is nonsense. Second, there are many more iPods and iPhones sold than Braun radios. Third, he is German and lived and worked in German, so he is way down on the Queen's list. Fourth, he's got the Commanders Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, which Jony Ive has very little chance to get, for about the same reason.
Erm, 8 digit PIN is fine. Routers can limit PIN guesses y'know...
You didn't read the article, did you? The routers tell you that the pin is wrong after four digits. So you need 10,000 tries at most to get the first four digits. The last digit is a checksum, so you need at most another 1000 tries to get the complete number.
Of all the routers tested, only _one_ model limited PIN guesses (you can't turn PIN guesses off obviously because that would just enable a DOS attack) to about one guess every 20 seconds, which means it is cracked within a few days.
A quote from Billy Joel, after being ripped off by his manager (and I think he is one of few people who successfully sued their lawyer): "I know many excellent businessmen who can't sing."
Just because you find it entertaining to know who to admin a router and set up a protected network, most people have a lot better things to do in their lives. Someone who wants a giant "easy button" isn't a retard, but someone who has better things to do in their life.
And guess what, it isn't the people you call "retards" who messed it up. It's the real retards who designed a system where an eight digit PIN number can be cracked in at most 11,000 tries.
Seriously, what non-malicious purpose would this tool have? Anybody who read about the vulnerability knows how it works; there is no need to have a sample attack because it is obvious how this works; having an exploit tool cannot have any legitimate uses.
I just wish the penalty had had more Teeth. As the company with more cash on hand than God, a $1.2M penalty barely a penalty.
$1.2M penalty is a $1.2M penalty. If you were the lawyer whose job it was to check all the legal terms on Apple's Italian website for conformance with Italian laws, and the company just got a $1.2M fine because you didn't do your job competently, then you are in trouble. And you can bet that your successor is making sure it won't happen again.
Didn't buy an AppleCare, so after the first year, when things started to go wrong (and keep in mind that, during the first year, I already had to replace battery...
Well, what Apple told you is just the truth: After more than six months _you_ have to prove that it is their fault. Now the obvious thing would have been since you can buy Apple Care at any time within the first twelve months, you wait 11 months to see if you have any problems, and if you do, _then_ you definitely by Apple Care.
Apart from that, the question will be whether you convince the person making the decision whether they want to keep you as a customer or not, and whether you convince them that they want to help you or not. So maybe that person believed that you treat your computers badly and it would be much better for Apple if you were an HP customer, or Samsung customer, or whatever. Or maybe it was the way you said things; I wasn't there. The only problem I did have so far was a charger where the connector broke after 15 months, and they just replaced it for free. Maybe it depends on who you ask, and how you ask.
Not likely... Apple is a true multinational and would be run and staffed by Italians for the most of it. And it's not bullying - it's a clear case of failing to meet their warranty obligations.
My understanding is that Apple had two problems: The first one, Apple gives one year warranty in Italy as they do everywhere in the world, and whoever fined them believed that Apple should have told customers that they might have rights beyond this warranty. In the UK, you add the magic sentence "your statutory rights are not affected" and you're in the clear; you told the customer whatever you give them voluntarily, and that they can check the laws whether they have more rights, and that you don't claim that they don't have these rights.
The second one has to do with Apple Care: The value of Apple Care to the customer is whatever Apple will pay for, minus whatever Apple had to pay for even if you didn't have Apple Care. So for example if Apple Care pays for repairs for three years, and Apple gives a year warranty anyway, then the value of Apple Care is two years of repairs quite obviously. And if Apple has to do more than its warranty says by law, then Apple Care is worth exactly that amount less. And that is something that Apple should have told customers, so that they could make an eductated decision whether or not to buy Apple Care.
Now there are two problems: First, anywhere in the EU if your device breaks down after more than six months, _you_ have to prove that it is due to some fault that was present when you bought the product; after less than six months the seller has to prove it is _not_ due to such a fault (the terms of the usual one year warranty might improve things). So the seller can say "show us a report from a qualified engineer that says the fault was with our product, and we'll fix it", and you're stuck. The second problem is, well, who pays for it? The customer, obviously. So whenever you hear them moaning about how something costs X dollars in Italy or the UK and only Y dollars in the USA, tell them that (a) you don't pay dollars in Europe, so the statement is nonsense in the first place, that (b) they forgot VAT (the louder they moan, the more likely they forgot about VAT), and that (c) any company needs to charge more money if they have to do more repairs by law.
Back to the start: All Apple has to do is to add some text to their website, and they are fine. What consumers actually get will not change.
Actually, Apple was like other companies asked to report which patents they owned that they believed would cover web standards, and then they told which patents these were. So people working on the standard have the choice of trying to convince Apple to license their patents, or to make sure that the standard can be implemented without infringing any patents. This is exactly the opposite of what Rambus did, which cost memory manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars.
While trying hard to make it impossible to run Mac OS X on any non-Apple device...
Actually, they are not trying very hard at all. They are trying so little that some people are convinced there is no protection at all. What they have done however is _put_ some measures that make it impossible to run MacOS X without working around these measures, and by working around them you fall foul of the DMCA. On the other hand, Apple ignores Hackintosh computers completely.
If I ever buy a tablet device, it'll most likely be Android based because of the Java-based programming core. With an iDevice, I'd have to buy a Mac and Apple software to play with it.
My granddaughter found a much more efficient approach. She just got an iPad as a Christmas present, and she has been using it non-stop ever since, without having a Mac and without worrying about any programming languages. Could it be you are just overthinking these things?
That's just not true. LV's only case would be if their brand were defamed by its use in the movie, like if a character said âoeMan, these Louis Vuitton bags are of surprisingly low quality!â
Their brand is defamed by showing a cheap rip-off handbag and claiming it is a genuine Louis Vuitton bag, because the viewer may very well believe that the cheap, ugly, low quality is indeed a genuine LV bag and conclude that LV sells cheap, ugly, low quality bags at high prices.
- DRM. Download music from iTunes, and you can only play it on a limited number of computers (try it and you'll find out).
Strange enough, I can make unlimited copies of songs downloaded from iTunes, and they play on any number of computers, iPads, iPhones etc. etc. etc. There is obviously the small detail that at some point you are committing copyright infringement, but you can make more copies legally of music that you download from iTunes than from a CD that you buy, and in practice you can make the same number of copies.
And unlike other companies who shut down their DRM servers when they stopped using DRM with the effect that their customers lost their music, Apple let me upgrade all 128 KBit DRM music to 256 KBit AAC as part of iTunes match.
The smoking gun, the one that proves you've been misinformed is simply this: If Intel was only afraid of an incomplete SSE then why did They cripple the Pentium III as well as AMD hmmm?
The correct behaviour would be to check the feature flags and use features if present, except if it was known that using the feature would be slower. It would also be correct for Intel to completely ignore AMD processors. With real AMD processors, this would produce code that works, and is usually fast.
Now _if_ there were AMD processors that set a feature flag without actually implementing the feature properly, then it would be correct for Intel to produce code that misbehaves on these AMD processors; any misbehaviour would be AMD's fault. And _if_ selecting the fastest code using an algorithm that checks just feature flags and known Intel processors were to produce slow code for AMD, that would be just tough for AMD. But intentionally using the slowest code after testing that the processor is an AMD processor, that is wrong.
When K&R first came out, int's could be either 16 bit or 32 bit and long's were 32 always. ANSI C changed this to short is 16, int is 32, and long is "large enough to contain a pointer".
Excuse me, but that is complete rubbish. short is at least 16 bit but can be larger. int is at least 16 bit but can be larger. long is at least 32 bit but can be larger. long long is at least 64 bit but can be larger. There's no guarantee at all that "long" or "long long" can contain a pointer.
intptr_t is an optional typedef for an integer type that is large enough to hold any data pointer. int8_t, int16_t, int32_t, int64_t are optional> typedefs for integer types with exactly 8, 16, 32 and 64 bits.
Well, it was a year or so since I last tried GNUstep on Windows, but back then it didn't even support native exceptions, and I got the impression after asking around that nobody was in the least interested in doing anything about it. Hopefully that has changed since.
According to Apple, whenever an exception is thrown in Objective-C code, it is a bug in your code that needs fixing. This is mostly because ARC (automatic reference counting) will have problems when exceptions are thrown.
The board at Apple was largely irrelevant at least during the tenure of Steve. Things may be changing or different now, but Steve's driving ambition wasn't shareholder value, or profits. He was product driven, and it shows in his work. Companies like HP, Dell, and Asus are profit driven, and it shows in their products.
That's not what "profit driven" means. That's what "profit driven and stupid" means. The problem with "profit driven and stupid" is that you make a lot of tiny decisions that increase profits today a little bit but cost you money in the long run. Apple in the last ten years didn't care about the profits in this quarter and the next quarter, but about the profits in the next ten years.
I tried to read the patent, but after the billionth self-reference, my eyes went cross and I still can't see straight. Maybe I could tolerate more of that junk if it wasn't almost 3 am. Even so, I can't really say I could find anything interesting in the articles that hasn't been done or published before. Of course, I can't believe a patent examiner would think than any implementation of employed to power isn't bloody obvious. Now the or might be unique, but that isn't what they are patenting.
It seems that in the first patent, you don't just connect power source to device, but the power source is capable of producing lots of information about its state and transmitting it to the device, to which the device can react, and the device can tell the power source exactly who much power it wants and control the operation of the power source.
This would be for example different from your usual AA battery, which doesn't give any information about its state, but just produces some voltage until it runs out of power and the voltage drops down.
If someone had purchased barackobama.com they would be...
Here is the difference: _You_ are actually spouting nonsense here, while you are suggesting that people would in a hypothetical situation spout nonsense. So you are like a thief who complains that others would steal even more.
You also seem to be quite obsessed with the fact that the president of the USA is from the black minority of the country. Most people don't care.
Re:Netbooks still have their uses...
on
Dell Ditches Netbooks
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I've had a 13" Macbook pro, got it after a friend upgraded, and while it did seem like a decent laptop, I kept running into problems, such as being able to type umlauts and the Eszett, as swiftly as I can using Windows 7 with the International Keyboard turned on. It's the little things, but they added up quick. Yeah, I'm sure there are workarounds, but I'll stick with PC's
Umlaut = option-u.
Character with umlaut = option-u followed by character.
Accent = option-e, caret = option-i, tilde = option-n.
Eszett = option-s. Who would have thought it. Upside-down question mark = option-question mark. Upside-down exclamation mark = option-exclamation mark. C with cedilla = option-c.
I think a blogger should be treated like any other kind of speech or printing press. If the guy published a newspaper, a judge might order him to stop writing nasty editorials about his ex, but he wouldn't (likely couldn't) order the newspaper to shut down.
I think you're quite an idiot. If he was a journalist writing for a newspaper, he would have been fired and be unemployable. If he published a newspaper, well, the News Of The World _has_ been closed down for that kind of thing. A blogger who publishes things _with the intent to hurt a victim who has a restraining order against him_ cannot have any protection.
If someone's in your front seat, they can see that traffic conditions have changed and know to STFU for a moment, without you having to tell them. Unless they're my ex, then they don't know what STFU means, nor how or when to do so.
And from everyday experience, it is quite obvious that people talking on a mobile phone have no idea what is going on around them. They seem to think that because they can't see the other person talking, they have to shout. I think the problem is that our brains are not built for the totally unnatural situation where we talk to a person that is nowhere to be seen, so the brain instinctively spends all its free energy on trying to find out where that person is.
I think it's even simpler than that - it's shiny, she feels good when she has a shiny, so she tells everyone how wonderful her shiny is and that they should get one too, because that will make her feel even better that everyone is following her lead.
You are misunderstanding Occam's razor. The preferred explanation is the simplest one. The preferred explanation is not the one where you declare everyone else to be simpletons and you to be the only one who actually knows something. That's just the explanation that makes you look like a deluded idiot.
Do you find it odd that Samsung's photo frame design [androidauthority.com] circa 2006, is almost identical to their Tablet design [droidmatters.com] that followed it? Right down to the Samsung logo on the front and the lack of any visible buttons on the front? That's just Samsung's product design.
Look at it sideways and tell us that they look the same. Then show us where the stand for the iPad can be found. A design patent covers the design as a whole. Similarities of parts of the design don't matter. And a logo does not count at all in a design patent. Samsung could have easily got a design patent in 2006 for a device that looks like their photo frame, but is just flat and without a stand. And then Apple could have done nothing about it. But they waited until Apple came out with a successful design, and then Samsung copied it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not Sir Dieter Rams? I mean, the designs are basically his...
First, what you are saying "the designs ares basically his" is nonsense. Second, there are many more iPods and iPhones sold than Braun radios. Third, he is German and lived and worked in German, so he is way down on the Queen's list. Fourth, he's got the Commanders Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, which Jony Ive has very little chance to get, for about the same reason.
Erm, 8 digit PIN is fine. Routers can limit PIN guesses y'know...
You didn't read the article, did you? The routers tell you that the pin is wrong after four digits. So you need 10,000 tries at most to get the first four digits. The last digit is a checksum, so you need at most another 1000 tries to get the complete number.
Of all the routers tested, only _one_ model limited PIN guesses (you can't turn PIN guesses off obviously because that would just enable a DOS attack) to about one guess every 20 seconds, which means it is cracked within a few days.
Oh, I see. It's a tool for retards.
A quote from Billy Joel, after being ripped off by his manager (and I think he is one of few people who successfully sued their lawyer): "I know many excellent businessmen who can't sing."
Just because you find it entertaining to know who to admin a router and set up a protected network, most people have a lot better things to do in their lives. Someone who wants a giant "easy button" isn't a retard, but someone who has better things to do in their life.
And guess what, it isn't the people you call "retards" who messed it up. It's the real retards who designed a system where an eight digit PIN number can be cracked in at most 11,000 tries.
Seriously, what non-malicious purpose would this tool have? Anybody who read about the vulnerability knows how it works; there is no need to have a sample attack because it is obvious how this works; having an exploit tool cannot have any legitimate uses.
I just wish the penalty had had more Teeth. As the company with more cash on hand than God, a $1.2M penalty barely a penalty.
$1.2M penalty is a $1.2M penalty. If you were the lawyer whose job it was to check all the legal terms on Apple's Italian website for conformance with Italian laws, and the company just got a $1.2M fine because you didn't do your job competently, then you are in trouble. And you can bet that your successor is making sure it won't happen again.
Didn't buy an AppleCare, so after the first year, when things started to go wrong (and keep in mind that, during the first year, I already had to replace battery...
Well, what Apple told you is just the truth: After more than six months _you_ have to prove that it is their fault. Now the obvious thing would have been since you can buy Apple Care at any time within the first twelve months, you wait 11 months to see if you have any problems, and if you do, _then_ you definitely by Apple Care.
Apart from that, the question will be whether you convince the person making the decision whether they want to keep you as a customer or not, and whether you convince them that they want to help you or not. So maybe that person believed that you treat your computers badly and it would be much better for Apple if you were an HP customer, or Samsung customer, or whatever. Or maybe it was the way you said things; I wasn't there. The only problem I did have so far was a charger where the connector broke after 15 months, and they just replaced it for free. Maybe it depends on who you ask, and how you ask.
Why on earth would anyone want to help pay down those ass-holes debt?
The man who is owed $63,000 can bid up to $63,000 without it costing him anything, and then put on the website whatever he likes.
Not likely... Apple is a true multinational and would be run and staffed by Italians for the most of it. And it's not bullying - it's a clear case of failing to meet their warranty obligations.
My understanding is that Apple had two problems: The first one, Apple gives one year warranty in Italy as they do everywhere in the world, and whoever fined them believed that Apple should have told customers that they might have rights beyond this warranty. In the UK, you add the magic sentence "your statutory rights are not affected" and you're in the clear; you told the customer whatever you give them voluntarily, and that they can check the laws whether they have more rights, and that you don't claim that they don't have these rights.
The second one has to do with Apple Care: The value of Apple Care to the customer is whatever Apple will pay for, minus whatever Apple had to pay for even if you didn't have Apple Care. So for example if Apple Care pays for repairs for three years, and Apple gives a year warranty anyway, then the value of Apple Care is two years of repairs quite obviously. And if Apple has to do more than its warranty says by law, then Apple Care is worth exactly that amount less. And that is something that Apple should have told customers, so that they could make an eductated decision whether or not to buy Apple Care.
Now there are two problems: First, anywhere in the EU if your device breaks down after more than six months, _you_ have to prove that it is due to some fault that was present when you bought the product; after less than six months the seller has to prove it is _not_ due to such a fault (the terms of the usual one year warranty might improve things). So the seller can say "show us a report from a qualified engineer that says the fault was with our product, and we'll fix it", and you're stuck. The second problem is, well, who pays for it? The customer, obviously. So whenever you hear them moaning about how something costs X dollars in Italy or the UK and only Y dollars in the USA, tell them that (a) you don't pay dollars in Europe, so the statement is nonsense in the first place, that (b) they forgot VAT (the louder they moan, the more likely they forgot about VAT), and that (c) any company needs to charge more money if they have to do more repairs by law.
Back to the start: All Apple has to do is to add some text to their website, and they are fine. What consumers actually get will not change.
Actually, Apple was like other companies asked to report which patents they owned that they believed would cover web standards, and then they told which patents these were. So people working on the standard have the choice of trying to convince Apple to license their patents, or to make sure that the standard can be implemented without infringing any patents. This is exactly the opposite of what Rambus did, which cost memory manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars.
While trying hard to make it impossible to run Mac OS X on any non-Apple device...
Actually, they are not trying very hard at all. They are trying so little that some people are convinced there is no protection at all. What they have done however is _put_ some measures that make it impossible to run MacOS X without working around these measures, and by working around them you fall foul of the DMCA. On the other hand, Apple ignores Hackintosh computers completely.
If I ever buy a tablet device, it'll most likely be Android based because of the Java-based programming core. With an iDevice, I'd have to buy a Mac and Apple software to play with it.
My granddaughter found a much more efficient approach. She just got an iPad as a Christmas present, and she has been using it non-stop ever since, without having a Mac and without worrying about any programming languages. Could it be you are just overthinking these things?
That's just not true. LV's only case would be if their brand were defamed by its use in the movie, like if a character said âoeMan, these Louis Vuitton bags are of surprisingly low quality!â
Their brand is defamed by showing a cheap rip-off handbag and claiming it is a genuine Louis Vuitton bag, because the viewer may very well believe that the cheap, ugly, low quality is indeed a genuine LV bag and conclude that LV sells cheap, ugly, low quality bags at high prices.
- DRM. Download music from iTunes, and you can only play it on a limited number of computers (try it and you'll find out).
Strange enough, I can make unlimited copies of songs downloaded from iTunes, and they play on any number of computers, iPads, iPhones etc. etc. etc. There is obviously the small detail that at some point you are committing copyright infringement, but you can make more copies legally of music that you download from iTunes than from a CD that you buy, and in practice you can make the same number of copies.
And unlike other companies who shut down their DRM servers when they stopped using DRM with the effect that their customers lost their music, Apple let me upgrade all 128 KBit DRM music to 256 KBit AAC as part of iTunes match.
The smoking gun, the one that proves you've been misinformed is simply this: If Intel was only afraid of an incomplete SSE then why did They cripple the Pentium III as well as AMD hmmm?
The correct behaviour would be to check the feature flags and use features if present, except if it was known that using the feature would be slower. It would also be correct for Intel to completely ignore AMD processors. With real AMD processors, this would produce code that works, and is usually fast.
Now _if_ there were AMD processors that set a feature flag without actually implementing the feature properly, then it would be correct for Intel to produce code that misbehaves on these AMD processors; any misbehaviour would be AMD's fault. And _if_ selecting the fastest code using an algorithm that checks just feature flags and known Intel processors were to produce slow code for AMD, that would be just tough for AMD. But intentionally using the slowest code after testing that the processor is an AMD processor, that is wrong.
When K&R first came out, int's could be either 16 bit or 32 bit and long's were 32 always. ANSI C changed this to short is 16, int is 32, and long is "large enough to contain a pointer".
Excuse me, but that is complete rubbish. short is at least 16 bit but can be larger. int is at least 16 bit but can be larger. long is at least 32 bit but can be larger. long long is at least 64 bit but can be larger. There's no guarantee at all that "long" or "long long" can contain a pointer.
intptr_t is an optional typedef for an integer type that is large enough to hold any data pointer. int8_t, int16_t, int32_t, int64_t are optional> typedefs for integer types with exactly 8, 16, 32 and 64 bits.
Well, it was a year or so since I last tried GNUstep on Windows, but back then it didn't even support native exceptions, and I got the impression after asking around that nobody was in the least interested in doing anything about it. Hopefully that has changed since.
According to Apple, whenever an exception is thrown in Objective-C code, it is a bug in your code that needs fixing. This is mostly because ARC (automatic reference counting) will have problems when exceptions are thrown.
The board at Apple was largely irrelevant at least during the tenure of Steve. Things may be changing or different now, but Steve's driving ambition wasn't shareholder value, or profits. He was product driven, and it shows in his work. Companies like HP, Dell, and Asus are profit driven, and it shows in their products.
That's not what "profit driven" means. That's what "profit driven and stupid" means. The problem with "profit driven and stupid" is that you make a lot of tiny decisions that increase profits today a little bit but cost you money in the long run. Apple in the last ten years didn't care about the profits in this quarter and the next quarter, but about the profits in the next ten years.
I tried to read the patent, but after the billionth self-reference, my eyes went cross and I still can't see straight. Maybe I could tolerate more of that junk if it wasn't almost 3 am. Even so, I can't really say I could find anything interesting in the articles that hasn't been done or published before. Of course, I can't believe a patent examiner would think than any implementation of employed to power isn't bloody obvious. Now the or might be unique, but that isn't what they are patenting.
It seems that in the first patent, you don't just connect power source to device, but the power source is capable of producing lots of information about its state and transmitting it to the device, to which the device can react, and the device can tell the power source exactly who much power it wants and control the operation of the power source.
This would be for example different from your usual AA battery, which doesn't give any information about its state, but just produces some voltage until it runs out of power and the voltage drops down.
I think it makes the Democrats look scared.
Ah, there comes the old argument. "It makes them look scared". Now Sarah Palin with a gun, that could scare anyone. But Gingrich?
If someone had purchased barackobama.com they would be...
Here is the difference: _You_ are actually spouting nonsense here, while you are suggesting that people would in a hypothetical situation spout nonsense. So you are like a thief who complains that others would steal even more.
You also seem to be quite obsessed with the fact that the president of the USA is from the black minority of the country. Most people don't care.
I've had a 13" Macbook pro, got it after a friend upgraded, and while it did seem like a decent laptop, I kept running into problems, such as being able to type umlauts and the Eszett, as swiftly as I can using Windows 7 with the International Keyboard turned on. It's the little things, but they added up quick. Yeah, I'm sure there are workarounds, but I'll stick with PC's
Umlaut = option-u.
Character with umlaut = option-u followed by character.
Accent = option-e, caret = option-i, tilde = option-n.
Eszett = option-s. Who would have thought it. Upside-down question mark = option-question mark. Upside-down exclamation mark = option-exclamation mark. C with cedilla = option-c.
Conclusion: Yes, you should stick with a PC.
I think a blogger should be treated like any other kind of speech or printing press. If the guy published a newspaper, a judge might order him to stop writing nasty editorials about his ex, but he wouldn't (likely couldn't) order the newspaper to shut down.
I think you're quite an idiot. If he was a journalist writing for a newspaper, he would have been fired and be unemployable. If he published a newspaper, well, the News Of The World _has_ been closed down for that kind of thing. A blogger who publishes things _with the intent to hurt a victim who has a restraining order against him_ cannot have any protection.
If someone's in your front seat, they can see that traffic conditions have changed and know to STFU for a moment, without you having to tell them. Unless they're my ex, then they don't know what STFU means, nor how or when to do so.
And from everyday experience, it is quite obvious that people talking on a mobile phone have no idea what is going on around them. They seem to think that because they can't see the other person talking, they have to shout. I think the problem is that our brains are not built for the totally unnatural situation where we talk to a person that is nowhere to be seen, so the brain instinctively spends all its free energy on trying to find out where that person is.
I think it's even simpler than that - it's shiny, she feels good when she has a shiny, so she tells everyone how wonderful her shiny is and that they should get one too, because that will make her feel even better that everyone is following her lead.
You are misunderstanding Occam's razor. The preferred explanation is the simplest one. The preferred explanation is not the one where you declare everyone else to be simpletons and you to be the only one who actually knows something. That's just the explanation that makes you look like a deluded idiot.
Do you find it odd that Samsung's photo frame design [androidauthority.com] circa 2006, is almost identical to their Tablet design [droidmatters.com] that followed it? Right down to the Samsung logo on the front and the lack of any visible buttons on the front? That's just Samsung's product design.
Look at it sideways and tell us that they look the same. Then show us where the stand for the iPad can be found. A design patent covers the design as a whole. Similarities of parts of the design don't matter. And a logo does not count at all in a design patent. Samsung could have easily got a design patent in 2006 for a device that looks like their photo frame, but is just flat and without a stand. And then Apple could have done nothing about it. But they waited until Apple came out with a successful design, and then Samsung copied it.