Not to mention the Brothers Gibb, whose extensive research led them to develop a way of using ones walk to demonstrate the fact that you were a woman's man, no time to talk...
Personally I go with Bill Cosby's policy of "No-No-Yes". Turn the first two outfits down and approve the third, regardless of what they are. She'll get a decision and you'll give the impression that you actually care, thus getting you off the hook.
GGP's post shows what gravity is doing to the brackets.
OK, it'd be a real shame to let what was a mediocre joke to begin with get in the way of some serious Slashdot pedantry. So, once more, with the brackets, the actual gravitational field, and the adjusted frame of reference:
( >*< )
Happy now? Never let it be said this is not a collaborative community...
Where are the servers reachable by IPv6 that are not reachable by IPv4?
Personally, I don't know, but all we need is a single one to prove both you and Apple wrong.
The argument used by the ASA -- that Java and Flash are parts of the Internet -- proves nothing about Apple's claims because the argument used by the ASA is erroneous.
That much is true.
That's what my post said, and you had to pull other examples from outside the argument to support the conclusion, likely because you recognized that the conclusion could not be reasonably reached based on the premise.
No, that might be what you meant, but it sure as hell wasn't what you said. To quote your earlier post:
What Apple is being accused of is making a false statement. The statement is not false. Ergo, the claim against them is false.
That is a logical fallacy. I agree that the evidence supplied by the ASA in this instance is dubious. Even so, that does not ipso facto prove Apple's statement to be true.
Now, if you want to debate starting from another premise...
Sure, any single premise will do
... that IPv6, BitTorrent, and IAX are necessary to say something can access the entire Internet in any meaningful sense, then that's another debate.
I contend that sending and receiving IPv4 from any port to any port from and to any IPv4 address and supporting application development with an accessible TCP/IP stack and a socket library fulfills the requirements of delivering the whole Internet. Everything else is up to an application and not the device or operating system.
And I contend you are not able to see the forest for the trees. The entirety of the World Wide Web is a subset of the internet, albeit technically one layer up in the OSI model. Apple monopolize access to all those layers in the device. So until someone else can write a P2P app or Flash plugin for the iPhone, they're lying.
Once you're done playing your game of shift-the-goalposts, take a step back and realize that John Q Public (the target of the ads) now considers the Internet and the World Wide Web to be one and the same concept, even if that is technically not correct. You can guarantee that there will be one website somewhere that will refuse to work in the iPhone browser, and that someone will eventually find it. Maybe it needs ActiveX, or some other obscure proprietary third-party plugin not supported on the iPhone(anyone else had trouble getting certain internet banking websites working on certain browsers?). Maybe the webmaster just flat out denies any user-agent that identifies as an iPhone. Even for reasons entirely outside Apple's control, it still only takes one counterexample to prove them wrong, and it is technically not feasible (and probably intractable) for them to prove themselves right. They still cannot claim to be able to access 'all parts of the internet' and they were stupid to do so.
What regulation? Is the ASA suddenly a government body that sets regulations for the definitions of technical terms?
No, but Ofcom is, and advertisers usually play along with the ASA to avoid having to deal with formal punishment.
What Apple is being accused of is making a false statement. The statement is not false. Ergo, the claim against them is false.
Rubbish. It is trivial to prove it false by providing one or more counterexamples. You want to get down to technical details? Does the iPhone support IPv6? P2P? VoIP? Any number of other obscure-but-relevant internet standards? Remember the 'internet' is more than just the 'world wide web'...
People misunderstand technical topics all the time. That misunderstanding doesn't make a true statement false.
Nor does it make a false statement true. Quod errat demonstrator.
Does anyone know if UK law has puffery defined in its trade laws, and if so, the extent (if any) allowed?
I presume that puffery protected Apple from similar problems here in the States.
Why would that apply, in any jurisdiction? As defined by the very same link you provided, for any claim to be legitimately considered as "puffery" it must meet the criteria that "the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined."
In this case it is trivial to disprove the claim, by finding a single counterexample (or more). I'm sure there are many aspects of the internet that the iPhone does not support. Java & Flash websites are valid examples, but remember also that the WorldWideWeb is only a subset of the Internet... do they also support IM apps? VoIP? Any number of obscure-but-relevant standard protocols (IPv6 anyone)?
Their claim is pure bull**** and they deserved to be called out on it.
Obvious application: wireless Taser. Of course the first prototype will probably be the size of a howitzer and lose out a bit on portability, but hey...
given that most of these events are run in qualifying heats, consistency between separate races is often not a factor.
I disagree. Frequently the final is comprised of the three fastest from semifinal A, the three fastest from semifinal B, and then the two fastest remaining competitors from either race. Consistency between races is extremely important to these people.
The only thing preventing it from being full-blown bait-and-switch fraud is the excuse that they tell you up-front that it's not really unlimited (at the bottom of section 475, paragraph q3 sub-paragraph MLCXVIII clause 1111!!eleventy-one).
I say if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...
Absolutely not true. Money CAN buy you love. It just turns out to be a love that never lasts:) No, I think you'll find that you're dealing with a subscription-based rental rather than a traditional purchase.
Another possibility - you could bury landmines near your cubicle to thwart any potential thieves. (You want the sort of landmine that you can deactivate during the day, though - I think you can purchase them on eBay. Alternatively just install a battery from Dell or Sony. Of course, YMMV if you leave it on 24/7...
No, patents can be subject to laches and acquiescenceas well...
One thing to consider if you become aware that someone is infringing your patent is the doctrine of laches. Under this doctrine, if you wait too long to sue for infringement after becoming aware of the infringement, and the accused infringer suffered material prejudice due to your delay, then the accused infringer may have a defense to the charges of infringement. (Pienkos, JT. The Patent Guidebook p. 86)
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the currently-preferred HR euphemism is "leaving to pursue opportunities outside the company".
I couldn't guess how soon it'll happen, but I'll tell you what sound it'll make when it does: "PUF"
Not to mention the Brothers Gibb, whose extensive research led them to develop a way of using ones walk to demonstrate the fact that you were a woman's man, no time to talk...
Personally I go with Bill Cosby's policy of "No-No-Yes". Turn the first two outfits down and approve the third, regardless of what they are. She'll get a decision and you'll give the impression that you actually care, thus getting you off the hook.
GGP's post shows what gravity is doing to the brackets.
OK, it'd be a real shame to let what was a mediocre joke to begin with get in the way of some serious Slashdot pedantry. So, once more, with the brackets, the actual gravitational field, and the adjusted frame of reference:
( >*< )
Happy now? Never let it be said this is not a collaborative community...
Technically I think the gravitational field would be more accurately represented as:
( o )
...but I think Goatse has that trademarked.
Where are the servers reachable by IPv6 that are not reachable by IPv4?
Personally, I don't know, but all we need is a single one to prove both you and Apple wrong.
The argument used by the ASA -- that Java and Flash are parts of the Internet -- proves nothing about Apple's claims because the argument used by the ASA is erroneous.
That much is true.
That's what my post said, and you had to pull other examples from outside the argument to support the conclusion, likely because you recognized that the conclusion could not be reasonably reached based on the premise.
No, that might be what you meant, but it sure as hell wasn't what you said. To quote your earlier post:
What Apple is being accused of is making a false statement. The statement is not false. Ergo, the claim against them is false.
That is a logical fallacy. I agree that the evidence supplied by the ASA in this instance is dubious. Even so, that does not ipso facto prove Apple's statement to be true.
Now, if you want to debate starting from another premise...
Sure, any single premise will do
... that IPv6, BitTorrent, and IAX are necessary to say something can access the entire Internet in any meaningful sense, then that's another debate.
I contend that sending and receiving IPv4 from any port to any port from and to any IPv4 address and supporting application development with an accessible TCP/IP stack and a socket library fulfills the requirements of delivering the whole Internet. Everything else is up to an application and not the device or operating system.
And I contend you are not able to see the forest for the trees. The entirety of the World Wide Web is a subset of the internet, albeit technically one layer up in the OSI model. Apple monopolize access to all those layers in the device. So until someone else can write a P2P app or Flash plugin for the iPhone, they're lying.
Once you're done playing your game of shift-the-goalposts, take a step back and realize that John Q Public (the target of the ads) now considers the Internet and the World Wide Web to be one and the same concept, even if that is technically not correct. You can guarantee that there will be one website somewhere that will refuse to work in the iPhone browser, and that someone will eventually find it. Maybe it needs ActiveX, or some other obscure proprietary third-party plugin not supported on the iPhone(anyone else had trouble getting certain internet banking websites working on certain browsers?). Maybe the webmaster just flat out denies any user-agent that identifies as an iPhone. Even for reasons entirely outside Apple's control, it still only takes one counterexample to prove them wrong, and it is technically not feasible (and probably intractable) for them to prove themselves right. They still cannot claim to be able to access 'all parts of the internet' and they were stupid to do so.
What regulation? Is the ASA suddenly a government body that sets regulations for the definitions of technical terms?
No, but Ofcom is, and advertisers usually play along with the ASA to avoid having to deal with formal punishment.
What Apple is being accused of is making a false statement. The statement is not false. Ergo, the claim against them is false.
Rubbish. It is trivial to prove it false by providing one or more counterexamples. You want to get down to technical details? Does the iPhone support IPv6? P2P? VoIP? Any number of other obscure-but-relevant internet standards? Remember the 'internet' is more than just the 'world wide web'...
People misunderstand technical topics all the time. That misunderstanding doesn't make a true statement false.
Nor does it make a false statement true. Quod errat demonstrator.
Surprised this hasn't been brought up yet...
Does anyone know if UK law has puffery defined in its trade laws, and if so, the extent (if any) allowed?
I presume that puffery protected Apple from similar problems here in the States.
Why would that apply, in any jurisdiction? As defined by the very same link you provided, for any claim to be legitimately considered as "puffery" it must meet the criteria that "the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined."
In this case it is trivial to disprove the claim, by finding a single counterexample (or more).
I'm sure there are many aspects of the internet that the iPhone does not support. Java & Flash websites are valid examples, but remember also that the WorldWideWeb is only a subset of the Internet... do they also support IM apps? VoIP? Any number of obscure-but-relevant standard protocols (IPv6 anyone)?
Their claim is pure bull**** and they deserved to be called out on it.
That's great and all if you are an internet mechanic. But what if you just want to drive the damn car?
Why should you be allowed to drive the damn car if you don't know how to drive it safely?
The cure for user stupidity is education, not giving them Nerf-ed tools.
Pretty much... gives the term "Faraday Cage" a whole new meaning.
Obvious application: wireless Taser. Of course the first prototype will probably be the size of a howitzer and lose out a bit on portability, but hey...
given that most of these events are run in qualifying heats, consistency between separate races is often not a factor.
I disagree. Frequently the final is comprised of the three fastest from semifinal A, the three fastest from semifinal B, and then the two fastest remaining competitors from either race. Consistency between races is extremely important to these people.
Ye've obviously nae been tae Scotland the noo...
Even better, just truncate (or tweak) the image metadata.
If it was a JPG it would be a good idea to do this to protect user privacy anyway - I'm not familiar with the GIF metadata though.
Wait until they start bottling it. You think the stuff imported from Fiji is horrendously overpriced?
Neither did the URL for the Italian branch of a multinational energy company: "PowerGen Italia"...
The only thing preventing it from being full-blown bait-and-switch fraud is the excuse that they tell you up-front that it's not really unlimited (at the bottom of section 475, paragraph q3 sub-paragraph MLCXVIII clause 1111!!eleventy-one).
I say if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...
Perhaps you should be drinking "Data-ade" then...
Suit yourself. Personally, I just filled my cup...
Yeah, but the Rules of Engagement probably have a larger bearing on safety than the nature of the weapons...