Apple opens up a new plant in Brazil. Production could start as early as November. Perhaps then, we could see the new IPad 3.
Your reading ability seems rather low. The report that you quote says "Apple Part Maker Foxconn to Open Brazil Plant". Foxconn, not Apple. On the other hand, if that is indeed the title of the report, then that is clueless as well. Foxconn doesn't make parts for Apple. Foxconn assembles complete devices.
It does not matter that Ceglia ended up selling wood pellets and not delivering - possibly due to lack of proper management more than a life of crime starting.
This is a civil case, where the judge has to decide which side is more likely to say the truth. Obviously some forensic examination of the e-mail is needed. But if that examination is inconclusive, then it would matter whether a person can be believed or not. And duping customers out of $200,000 doesn't make your testimony more believable.
1. Ceglia has e-mails that can be proven to be genuine. 2. Ceglia has e-mails that can neither be proven to be genuine nor to be forged. 3. Ceglia has e-mails that can be proved to be forged.
According to an article on www.businessinsider.com, "Paul and Iasia Ceglia are charged with 12 counts each of fourth-degree grand larceny and one count each of first-degree scheme to defraud" in what looks like a not very clever scam to get $200,000. That would destroy his credibility and therefore any chance to collect in case (2). And if the emails are forged, then I'd expect them to be provably forged, since Ceglia doesn't seem to be exactly a criminal mastermind.
Geohot can't talk much about why he settled, but his replies on his blog [blogspot.com] suggests a plausible reason: he realized he was unlikely to win the case (suggesting that the judge was biased) and chose to settle to avoid setting a legal precedent.
Can we replace "unlikely to win the case" to "unlikely to leave the court room without being at least bankrupt, if not worse"? As an individual, it's no good if you "win" a case if it costs you money that you cannot afford to spend. And I don't think that he got donations that are enough to pay the cost of a good lawyer. Plus the risk of losing the case, which might have happened whether he was guilty or not.
How so? I haven't seen them actively try to prevent jailbreaking since jailbreaking was declared legal under US law.
Every jailbreak is based on some vulnerability in the OS. Each such vulnerability is an opportunity for some malware to break into your iPhone, and therefore must be removed. By removing a vulnerability, Apple hinders jailbreaking. How far this is intended, I couldn't say.
Manager A: "We got a letter from Apple. They ask is if we could stop distributing our custom themes for jailbroken iPhones".
Manager B: "What is a jailbroken iPhone?"
Manager A: Explains...
Manager B: "And what is a custom theme for a jailbroken iPhone?"
Manager A: Explains...
Manager B: And why do we make this custom theme for a jailbroken iPhone?
Manager A: Dunno.
Manager B: And what did it cost us to make it?
Manager A: Dunno.
Manager B: And how exactly do we benefit from this?
Manager A: Dunno
Manager B: So what I want to know is: Who signed off on this nonsense and how can we stop it right now?
For argument sake, when it comes to battery, a single core may be better, if something is perfectly multi-threaded, there is still overhead of managing the threads, this overhead will translate directly to more power being sucked from the battery. So a single core may take longer, but the overall energy will be lower as there won't be any overhead to manage the threads.
For arguments sake, when it comes to battery, quad core is a lot better, because power grows with the square of speed, so quad core can run at a quarter of the speed for a total power reduction of a factor 4. Overhead for managing multiple threads is negligible.
Give me a laser pointer and a few pieces of glass and I'll show you quantum mechanical tunneling [youtube.com]. Really, advanced science is all around us. You just have to know where to look. And yes, the first post today has everything spot on. End of discussion. Really, who delivers cell phones, planes, and genetically engineered crops? I can tell you it ain't the faith crowd.
There is the well-known experiment "measure the speed of light using a microwave and a bar of chocolate":-)
So, how can a judge find that the original patent is valid (which is also what the jury determined), recognize that Apple used the patented technology (which is also what the jury determined) and then through out the award and close the the case? At a minimum, should it not have been sent back to the lower court to be re-tried?
This all happened in the same court. This isn't an appeal, it is still the same court case.
Apple claimed that the jury was wrong when it said the patents were valid; the judge looked at it and said that Apple didn't give convincing evidence that the patents were invalid. They came up with 100s of pages of supposed prior art, but they should have explained _why_ the that was actual prior art. So that part of the jury decision stands.
Apple also claimed that the jury was wrong when it found that Apple was infringing on those patents. So the judge looked at all the evidence, and he found that the evidence, even if all the evidence against Apple was true and all the evidence for Apple was false, didn't show that Apple was actually infringing. Since it didn't show that Apple was infringing, a reasonable jury could never have made the decision that they made. The judge is not supposed to accept such unreasonable jury decisions, so he decided that Apple did not infringe.
Lastly, not mentioned here, Apple also complained that the damage calculation was wrong, and the judge agreed with that as well. It doesn't matter anymore because Apple doesn't have to pay any damages.
No, their secret weapon is their network of dedicated Apple *users* worldwide. Many (not all, but many) Apple fans have an almost cult-like dedication to Apple products, and are also pretty effective proselytizers for the cause. Motorola, HP, etc. don't have that kind of advantage, no matter how good their product.
If you believe this then you are a bloody idiot. People buy iPads because it is a very useful product, very well executed, at a very reasonable price. And yes, once they buy it, and they like it, they will recommend it to friends. That's what happens with a good product. Motorola, HP etc. don't get this _because their products are not good enough_.
1. I pirate the software
2. I don't use the software at all.
There are of course other possibilities that are quite obvious but wouldn't occur to you, since you have no intent to pay. You could estimate what the software is worth to you, put that money into an envelope and send it to the developer. If you say it is worth nothing to you, then why are you pirating it? Or you could estimate what the software is worth to you, round the number up a bit, and send a cheque for that amount to some charity.
But last, if you didn't pirate any of the software you pirate, then at last you would have to pay for some software.
What? How do you deprive someone of time and effort without ever interacting with them in the least?
Lame excuse #1 and lame excuse #2. Well, making illegal copies is not theft. It doesn't fit the legal definition of theft. There are other offenses, like fraud, or embezzlement, that have effects similar to theft, but don't fall under the definition of theft. But then they fall under the definition of fraud, or embezzlement, and are therefore crimes.
Making illegal copies is copyright infringement, which depending on circumstances can be a crime. When it's a crime, it is crime, and it doesn't matter one bit that it isn't theft. When it is not a crime, it is still something that will open you to liability. Doesn't matter one bit that it isn't theft, you are still liable.
But it's not taking. Taking requires depriving someone of something. It's stealing like breaking into someone's house and taking a photo of their couch is stealing. It might be wrong. It might be illegal. But it's just plain silly to call it stealing.
It depends on the jurisdiction. In US law apparently the intent to deprive the rightful owner is part of the definition of theft. In German law, for example, it is the intent to enrich yourself. Which I think makes more sense, because most thieves don't actually have the intent to deprive the owner, that is just an unfortunate side effect.
Are you saying "Private and research study purposes" means "Copying for private purposes is allowed, and copying for research study purposes is allowed"?
If this Brennan JB7 device is illegal, so is iTunes. Is the ASA now banning any adverts from Apple that mention the software?
The ASA acts if someone complains. Maybe nobody complained about Apple. Maybe someone complained, and Apple changed the adverts. Maybe Apple mentioned in their adverts that you mustn't copy music without permission of the copyright holder.
And the device isn't banned, the advertisement is (in it's current form). The company has been told what they need to do: Add a notice that you need permission before copying CDs.
Indeed, and it is insurance companies that will eventually make automated driving the default option by pricing "manual" driving insurance through the roof.
Why would they? The manual driver wouldn't be any less safe and wouldn't be involved in any more accidents. Quite the contrary. In many accidents, there is one driver making a mistake, but another driver could have compensated for it. If a manual driver goes past a stop sign, a computerised car might be able to get out of the way when a human couldn't.
Problem is, this is more likely to kill pedestrians, OAPs and cyclists. Car drivers currently kill other drivers the most, not vulnerable people. So this would move the balance the other way.
What makes you think that? Don't you think a well-programmed computer would watch for pedestrians and their movements, plan ahead what escape routes there are, and slow down (as each driver should) if that is necessary to be safe? The fact alone that a computer-driven car would stay within the speed limit and have faster reaction time would save many lives.
In Hell when I trust my life and the lives of my loved ones to an algorithm, no matter how well written or secure. Humans may be flawed and dangerous operators, but unless this system can operate under all conditions and in all environments, human intuition will trump predetermined logic every time. I'd love to see how this system handles a one ton moose jumping out in front of your car while you're traveling at 100km/hour.
I'd like to see the human driver who can handle this. Many will be just shocked and do nothing. I would think that a well-programmed system would be continuously watching the road for feasibility of alternative routes (how dangerous is it to leave the road right now ), would also be watching for things off the road (obviously it has to watch for playing children etc. when driving through a town), and might slow down when it notices a heavy animal at a distance, then start emergency break / evasive manoeuvre when the beast starts moving, not when it is in front of the car.
Will computer steered cars be able to dodge other dingbats on the road who are: twittering, spilling their coffee on themselves and putting on makeup? That is the real danger on the road. And those are the types of folks who will refuse a computer chauffeur.
Will computers be able to handle the dingbats better or less good than a human driver? _That_ is the question.
This has a potential to result in claims of contributory infringement, when other students connect to the open AP and upload MP3s to peer to peer networks or perform other infringing activities.
It is more like: It will look as if you _are_ the infringer. It's not true if others did the infringing, but you _look_ like the guilty party and may get into trouble.
The day when a judge, a lawyer, and a person randomly selected off the street can actually understand why de-duplication makes absolutely no logical difference to what happens, is a day I might see a glimmer of hope for the human race.
There are probably a few judges and lawyers who understand this. However, a judge would always go by what the law actually says, and by facts. In case of data de-duplication a judge would also go by what _actually_ happens, not by what _logically_ happens.
Amazon has shown several times now that they're willing to go toe to toe with the RIAA. They had DRM free music before that was the standard, and now they're pushing for cloud storage and streaming. Everything they're doing in regards to the music industry is pro-user and pro-consumer.
Amazon didn't get DRM free music because they were pro-consumer, but because the RIAA gave it to Amazon to have something to blackmail Apple with. Apple wanted DRM free music and same (low) prices for everything. Because the record companies gave DRM-free music to Amazon, but not Apple, Apple was forced to give in which is why you pay lower price for garbage, normal price for anything that is not garbage, and extra high price for everything you actually want to listen to.
Seriously. Amazon on its own has much larger revenue and profits than the entire music industry, but if you add Google and Apple (and let's get MS in there, too) you can field a million-lawyer army to ensure success. This is one case where the American "if you're richer, you'll probably win" court system may work to the benefit of normal people.
Between them they could buy out the complete music industry easily. However, that would be more of interest to Apple and Google, who want to sell devices and advertisements (wouldn't you want an iPod that comes with _all_ music? ). In the courts, there is a point where having more money doesn't make a difference. Look at what SCO got for $50 million. (And if they didn't win, then that is because even $50 million lawyers can't win when you've got nothing, but they can sure keep IBM and Novell in the court system for years. $100 million wouldn't have bought better lawyers).
Personally, I think what Amazon is doing is very, very, very risky. Risk = amount of possible damage times probability of possible damage. If there are two million different songs uploaded, then the maximum possible damage is two million times $150,000 or bankruptcy for Amazon. I don't think the probability of losing is high, but it is not zero.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple opens up a new plant in Brazil. Production could start as early as November. Perhaps then, we could see the new IPad 3.
Your reading ability seems rather low. The report that you quote says "Apple Part Maker Foxconn to Open Brazil Plant". Foxconn, not Apple. On the other hand, if that is indeed the title of the report, then that is clueless as well. Foxconn doesn't make parts for Apple. Foxconn assembles complete devices.
It does not matter that Ceglia ended up selling wood pellets and not delivering - possibly due to lack of proper management more than a life of crime starting.
This is a civil case, where the judge has to decide which side is more likely to say the truth. Obviously some forensic examination of the e-mail is needed. But if that examination is inconclusive, then it would matter whether a person can be believed or not. And duping customers out of $200,000 doesn't make your testimony more believable.
1. Ceglia has e-mails that can be proven to be genuine. 2. Ceglia has e-mails that can neither be proven to be genuine nor to be forged. 3. Ceglia has e-mails that can be proved to be forged.
According to an article on www.businessinsider.com, "Paul and Iasia Ceglia are charged with 12 counts each of fourth-degree grand larceny and one count each of first-degree scheme to defraud" in what looks like a not very clever scam to get $200,000. That would destroy his credibility and therefore any chance to collect in case (2). And if the emails are forged, then I'd expect them to be provably forged, since Ceglia doesn't seem to be exactly a criminal mastermind.
Geohot can't talk much about why he settled, but his replies on his blog [blogspot.com] suggests a plausible reason: he realized he was unlikely to win the case (suggesting that the judge was biased) and chose to settle to avoid setting a legal precedent.
Can we replace "unlikely to win the case" to "unlikely to leave the court room without being at least bankrupt, if not worse"? As an individual, it's no good if you "win" a case if it costs you money that you cannot afford to spend. And I don't think that he got donations that are enough to pay the cost of a good lawyer. Plus the risk of losing the case, which might have happened whether he was guilty or not.
How so? I haven't seen them actively try to prevent jailbreaking since jailbreaking was declared legal under US law.
Every jailbreak is based on some vulnerability in the OS. Each such vulnerability is an opportunity for some malware to break into your iPhone, and therefore must be removed. By removing a vulnerability, Apple hinders jailbreaking. How far this is intended, I couldn't say.
Manager A: "We got a letter from Apple. They ask is if we could stop distributing our custom themes for jailbroken iPhones".
Manager B: "What is a jailbroken iPhone?"
Manager A: Explains...
Manager B: "And what is a custom theme for a jailbroken iPhone?"
Manager A: Explains...
Manager B: And why do we make this custom theme for a jailbroken iPhone?
Manager A: Dunno.
Manager B: And what did it cost us to make it?
Manager A: Dunno.
Manager B: And how exactly do we benefit from this?
Manager A: Dunno
Manager B: So what I want to know is: Who signed off on this nonsense and how can we stop it right now?
For argument sake, when it comes to battery, a single core may be better, if something is perfectly multi-threaded, there is still overhead of managing the threads, this overhead will translate directly to more power being sucked from the battery. So a single core may take longer, but the overall energy will be lower as there won't be any overhead to manage the threads.
For arguments sake, when it comes to battery, quad core is a lot better, because power grows with the square of speed, so quad core can run at a quarter of the speed for a total power reduction of a factor 4. Overhead for managing multiple threads is negligible.
Give me a laser pointer and a few pieces of glass and I'll show you quantum mechanical tunneling [youtube.com]. Really, advanced science is all around us. You just have to know where to look. And yes, the first post today has everything spot on. End of discussion. Really, who delivers cell phones, planes, and genetically engineered crops? I can tell you it ain't the faith crowd.
There is the well-known experiment "measure the speed of light using a microwave and a bar of chocolate" :-)
So, how can a judge find that the original patent is valid (which is also what the jury determined), recognize that Apple used the patented technology (which is also what the jury determined) and then through out the award and close the the case? At a minimum, should it not have been sent back to the lower court to be re-tried?
This all happened in the same court. This isn't an appeal, it is still the same court case.
Apple claimed that the jury was wrong when it said the patents were valid; the judge looked at it and said that Apple didn't give convincing evidence that the patents were invalid. They came up with 100s of pages of supposed prior art, but they should have explained _why_ the that was actual prior art. So that part of the jury decision stands.
Apple also claimed that the jury was wrong when it found that Apple was infringing on those patents. So the judge looked at all the evidence, and he found that the evidence, even if all the evidence against Apple was true and all the evidence for Apple was false, didn't show that Apple was actually infringing. Since it didn't show that Apple was infringing, a reasonable jury could never have made the decision that they made. The judge is not supposed to accept such unreasonable jury decisions, so he decided that Apple did not infringe.
Lastly, not mentioned here, Apple also complained that the damage calculation was wrong, and the judge agreed with that as well. It doesn't matter anymore because Apple doesn't have to pay any damages.
The WebOS tablets from HP and the Playbook from Blackberry certainly look promising. I think both are supposed to ship this month.
Google for "Playbook dead on arrival" :-(
No, their secret weapon is their network of dedicated Apple *users* worldwide. Many (not all, but many) Apple fans have an almost cult-like dedication to Apple products, and are also pretty effective proselytizers for the cause. Motorola, HP, etc. don't have that kind of advantage, no matter how good their product.
If you believe this then you are a bloody idiot. People buy iPads because it is a very useful product, very well executed, at a very reasonable price. And yes, once they buy it, and they like it, they will recommend it to friends. That's what happens with a good product. Motorola, HP etc. don't get this _because their products are not good enough_.
There are two cases:
1. I pirate the software
2. I don't use the software at all.
There are of course other possibilities that are quite obvious but wouldn't occur to you, since you have no intent to pay. You could estimate what the software is worth to you, put that money into an envelope and send it to the developer. If you say it is worth nothing to you, then why are you pirating it? Or you could estimate what the software is worth to you, round the number up a bit, and send a cheque for that amount to some charity.
But last, if you didn't pirate any of the software you pirate, then at last you would have to pay for some software.
This isn't the fault of the file sharer.
What? How do you deprive someone of time and effort without ever interacting with them in the least?
Lame excuse #1 and lame excuse #2. Well, making illegal copies is not theft. It doesn't fit the legal definition of theft. There are other offenses, like fraud, or embezzlement, that have effects similar to theft, but don't fall under the definition of theft. But then they fall under the definition of fraud, or embezzlement, and are therefore crimes.
Making illegal copies is copyright infringement, which depending on circumstances can be a crime. When it's a crime, it is crime, and it doesn't matter one bit that it isn't theft. When it is not a crime, it is still something that will open you to liability. Doesn't matter one bit that it isn't theft, you are still liable.
But it's not taking. Taking requires depriving someone of something. It's stealing like breaking into someone's house and taking a photo of their couch is stealing. It might be wrong. It might be illegal. But it's just plain silly to call it stealing.
It depends on the jurisdiction. In US law apparently the intent to deprive the rightful owner is part of the definition of theft. In German law, for example, it is the intent to enrich yourself. Which I think makes more sense, because most thieves don't actually have the intent to deprive the owner, that is just an unfortunate side effect.
Private and research study purposes.
Are you saying "Private and research study purposes" means "Copying for private purposes is allowed, and copying for research study purposes is allowed"?
If this Brennan JB7 device is illegal, so is iTunes. Is the ASA now banning any adverts from Apple that mention the software?
The ASA acts if someone complains. Maybe nobody complained about Apple. Maybe someone complained, and Apple changed the adverts. Maybe Apple mentioned in their adverts that you mustn't copy music without permission of the copyright holder.
And the device isn't banned, the advertisement is (in it's current form). The company has been told what they need to do: Add a notice that you need permission before copying CDs.
Indeed, and it is insurance companies that will eventually make automated driving the default option by pricing "manual" driving insurance through the roof.
Why would they? The manual driver wouldn't be any less safe and wouldn't be involved in any more accidents. Quite the contrary. In many accidents, there is one driver making a mistake, but another driver could have compensated for it. If a manual driver goes past a stop sign, a computerised car might be able to get out of the way when a human couldn't.
Problem is, this is more likely to kill pedestrians, OAPs and cyclists. Car drivers currently kill other drivers the most, not vulnerable people. So this would move the balance the other way.
What makes you think that? Don't you think a well-programmed computer would watch for pedestrians and their movements, plan ahead what escape routes there are, and slow down (as each driver should) if that is necessary to be safe? The fact alone that a computer-driven car would stay within the speed limit and have faster reaction time would save many lives.
In Hell when I trust my life and the lives of my loved ones to an algorithm, no matter how well written or secure. Humans may be flawed and dangerous operators, but unless this system can operate under all conditions and in all environments, human intuition will trump predetermined logic every time. I'd love to see how this system handles a one ton moose jumping out in front of your car while you're traveling at 100km/hour.
I'd like to see the human driver who can handle this. Many will be just shocked and do nothing. I would think that a well-programmed system would be continuously watching the road for feasibility of alternative routes (how dangerous is it to leave the road right now ), would also be watching for things off the road (obviously it has to watch for playing children etc. when driving through a town), and might slow down when it notices a heavy animal at a distance, then start emergency break / evasive manoeuvre when the beast starts moving, not when it is in front of the car.
Will computer steered cars be able to dodge other dingbats on the road who are: twittering, spilling their coffee on themselves and putting on makeup? That is the real danger on the road. And those are the types of folks who will refuse a computer chauffeur.
Will computers be able to handle the dingbats better or less good than a human driver? _That_ is the question.
Sad part is trying to live without Flush [sic] and MS, is darned near impossible.
100 million iPhone users and 20 million iPad users disagree.
This has a potential to result in claims of contributory infringement, when other students connect to the open AP and upload MP3s to peer to peer networks or perform other infringing activities.
It is more like: It will look as if you _are_ the infringer. It's not true if others did the infringing, but you _look_ like the guilty party and may get into trouble.
The day when a judge, a lawyer, and a person randomly selected off the street can actually understand why de-duplication makes absolutely no logical difference to what happens, is a day I might see a glimmer of hope for the human race.
There are probably a few judges and lawyers who understand this. However, a judge would always go by what the law actually says, and by facts. In case of data de-duplication a judge would also go by what _actually_ happens, not by what _logically_ happens.
Amazon has shown several times now that they're willing to go toe to toe with the RIAA. They had DRM free music before that was the standard, and now they're pushing for cloud storage and streaming. Everything they're doing in regards to the music industry is pro-user and pro-consumer.
Amazon didn't get DRM free music because they were pro-consumer, but because the RIAA gave it to Amazon to have something to blackmail Apple with. Apple wanted DRM free music and same (low) prices for everything. Because the record companies gave DRM-free music to Amazon, but not Apple, Apple was forced to give in which is why you pay lower price for garbage, normal price for anything that is not garbage, and extra high price for everything you actually want to listen to.
Seriously. Amazon on its own has much larger revenue and profits than the entire music industry, but if you add Google and Apple (and let's get MS in there, too) you can field a million-lawyer army to ensure success. This is one case where the American "if you're richer, you'll probably win" court system may work to the benefit of normal people.
Between them they could buy out the complete music industry easily. However, that would be more of interest to Apple and Google, who want to sell devices and advertisements (wouldn't you want an iPod that comes with _all_ music? ). In the courts, there is a point where having more money doesn't make a difference. Look at what SCO got for $50 million. (And if they didn't win, then that is because even $50 million lawyers can't win when you've got nothing, but they can sure keep IBM and Novell in the court system for years. $100 million wouldn't have bought better lawyers).
Personally, I think what Amazon is doing is very, very, very risky. Risk = amount of possible damage times probability of possible damage. If there are two million different songs uploaded, then the maximum possible damage is two million times $150,000 or bankruptcy for Amazon. I don't think the probability of losing is high, but it is not zero.