It depends on the distinctiveness of the mark. Even unregistered trademarks can be protected if they are fanciful. So if you want to ensure your trademarks are safe, the best thing to do is make them fanciful. Adding an "i" on every word is neither original or destinctive so it's no wonder Apple has trouble defending iThings.
Note-taking is an archaic remnant from when there were no textbooks or other easily accessible material to study from. Taking notes was the only way to ensure that stuff sticked. Having the freedom to fully concentrate on the presentation is always more effective than taking notes, which will likely be less useful than reading the relative parts of the textbook or the professor's material (if he provides them of course) If the course is slow-paced then it may not make much difference however. Plus some people say they need to take notes to stay awake.
Meh. I've had classes that were so incoherent that students had no choice but to switch off when the professor proceeded to write obscure things on the board at lightning speed purely for self-satisfaction.
Good for you. I've had lecturers that were boring and drab, and did nothing other than copy a textbook to the board. And ones who were apparently highy respected and certainly had insightful things to say, but they were things that were irrelevant to the subject matter and totally inapropriate for a freshman course who had yet to learn the basics. After all, that's what most lectures are intended for, at least the mass-attended ones. If you can't convey the subject in an interesting manner any better than a textbook, you lecture is entirely superfluous.
It's not exactly as if the professor considers students as clients either. He is employed by the university, and as part of that he is also required to do some lectures. He may get rewarded if he gives a lot of effort, but a worrying amount of professors seem to be totally disinterested in the quality of their classes, especially considering that there are hardly any consequences for not giving a shit.
Plus a number of lectures and courses are just plain bad that it truly does become a waste of ressources to try to concentrate on a lecture. I bet you that most of them are just there to get an idea of where the curriculum was headed and prefer to study the subject with better materials. Lectures that are well-conceived and presented properly are usually rewarded with higher levels of attention.
That's probably wrong actually. You see, the report first said that the child was playing with a black Wii controller that resembled a gun. The guys at Kotaku saw this as suspicios and went to see if one could actually purchase such a thing and this is the only one they came up with that seems to match. Thing is, unless the father went to a lot of trouble to specifically buy a hard-to-find type of controller, it's unlikely this is what was used. There are a variety of peripherals which would seem to be potential candidates, But I'd guess it to be more likely it was on of these with a little creativity from the parents.
That's what I used to think but you'd be surprised how undescribably clumsy and respectless a certain percentage of the adult population really are. Like they're little kids who start to overreact when they're frustrated.
With the overwhelming presence of guns in all kinds of media and culture, it's probably impossible to install a deterring reflex into a kids mind. Going back centuries kids have always played with toy weapons and even if they don't have a realistic replica the nearest stick or even their hand will do. And if you were to stop them playing with toys, you might as well extend it to video games and movies, even for sci-fi type weapons. I don't think toys actually harm people's accordance to gun safety. Rather I think that gun safety is something that has to tought to everyone before they can get their hands near one. Guns are inherently unsafe, and if you give one to anbody who hasn't leant the basics then shit happens. And despite being bombarded with gun images and toys from a very early age, I feel a sense of awe whenever I see one. That's just not going to happen when people have loaded firearms lying on their coffee tables all the time.
Although the article says she was playing with a black gun-controller, I suspect this was just the creative imagination of two very guilty parents. They probably just had a standard black Wii-remote (they only used to sell them in white). In any case it doesn't really resemble a gun, and even if it did I don't think it makes a difference. I played with realistic guns as a three-year old, granted I do live in a country with strict firearms regulations. The parentents were just looking for an explanation to sooth their guilty consience. It's a normal psychological reaction. But I definitely think the press has been too accomodating to their side of the story.
Following which senior politicians strive to change the constitution. That's right, conservative german politicians have absolutely no respect for the constitution and won't take no for an answer.
I'll be damned if I'm going to pay €30 a month for WiFi. Heck, you can get 3G sticks that will only cost half that and can be used anywhere. Speed might be worse, but it's by no means bad, especially in the areas you're likely to find a T-mobile hotspot.
That would be trivial to weed out as your IP will be completely wrong. Also, under the assumption that most visitors will provide correct information, they can simply exclude unrealistic samples.
Which, obviously, means they don't need to be competitive. It's not like their customers have a choice.
A situation where there is truly only one seller is exceedingly rare. The term monopoly is used mostly for situations where one seller controls the vast majority of the market. Usually there are competitors or alternatives. Even just the potential of someone setting up business is enough.
But the nature of the market often means that these alternatives are an unreasonable choice.
I don't. I do think it's pretty much impossible for them to not be perceived as "acting like a dick", but that's a different thing.
Your argument is basically "Monopolists charge high prices and sell and never develop products. Microsoft improved Windows. Therfore Microsoft is not a monopoly." Apart from being a logical fallacy (Affirming a disjunct), your proposition is simply wrong.
Why ? Their customers don't have any alternatives. That's what a monopoly is.
Because otherwise someone will come along with a product that is better and people will buy it, or the unreasonable alternatives suddenly become more reasonable.
Has nothing to do with it.
doesn't need to [...] improve their product, drop their prices sat on their asses for the last 15 years charging $99 for every copy of Windows 95
Yeah, Nothing at all/sarcasm
I don't think there's another reason. That's _exactly_ why I think Windows has improved - to stay competitive. It's the premise that Windows is/was monopoly I disagree with.
Well that helps a lot, it's the first time you've clarified your position. Thing is, if you've been paying attention for last, say, thirty years, you'd know that the term has come to describe extremely dominant businesses which use anti-competitive 'monopolistic' practices to expand their share and supress rivals. And that certainly applies to Microsoft.
You can use air as you reaction mass. That's the reason why air-burning jet-packs can fly for around 30-40 minutes as opposed to the 2 minutes or so that can be achieved with a rocket pack. The distinction here being that a jet-engine sucks in air to burn fuel while a rocket-engine carries self-burning or component fuel and doesn't need air. This device isn't actually either, as it uses a combustion engine to drive fans. The engine exhaust is simply exhumed and doesn't deliver any thrust. So if you had a small but powerful engine you wouldn't need to carry reaction mass in an atmousphere. That's why battery powered helicopters work.
Not really. Flying, when done properly will be -a lot- more safe than driving.
So at the moment, this is pure speculation.
With flying, unlike driving you go not just left and right but also up and down. Mix this with the fact that there are no roads (meaning to get to the same place two people can easily take routes miles apart) and you have the ability to reduce, eliminate traffic problems that exist in traditional traffic.
First of all, this is under the assumption that these will be useful for transportation. But even for the wealthy the fuel bills for one of these things will be staggering. And considering the maintainence it would require it's probably unlikely that anybody but a scarce few would use it regularly. But you seem to think the biggest risk is a aerial collision. That's simply wrong. The most dangerous parts of air travel are taking off and landing. This is where air travel is inevitably much more dangerous than road traffic because of the huge heights and speeds involved mean that in the event of an accident death is extremely likely. The reason why accidents are rare today is only because of the huge amount of caution and regulation that we have. There is an extensive network of Radio communication so that pilots and traffic controllers can negotiate landing slots. The Pilot must be trained to deal with these situations and also has to have regular checks. You must have a permit to fly and airports are located far from residential buildings (at least for operating riskier small aircraft). With jetpacks people will want to be hovering round buildings and landing somewhere other than an open airfield. They can't wait around in the air for permission to land either. And while bumping you car when you're parking is just going to scratch the paint, bumping into the side of a building while landing a jetpack is probably one the worst kinds of accidents and could result in your body being splattered all over the ground.
A state of the market which dictates that the monopolist doesn't need to behave as they would in a competitive market - ie: improve their product, drop their prices, listen to customers, etc.
Bzzz. Wrong answer. A Monopoly simply means that there's effectively one seller to all buyers. You're simply jumping to false conclusions if you think that means every monopolist is obliged to act like a dick. Is it too much to ask to read my second sentence? Even Monopolists have to offer a product that people think is worth buying.
Of course not. Where did I even suggest such a thing?
The first sentence in your reply:
the monopolist doesn't need to behave as they would in a competitive market - ie: improve their product, drop their prices, listen to customers, etc.
So I'm going to borrow one of your methods of argumentation: Come up with a reason why Windows has improved if not to prevent people jumping ship to something else.
Then you have learnt some fucked-up definition. A Monopoly is simply a state of the market. A monopolist doesn't always keep their position, that would require infinite entry barriers. They have to work hard to stifle and eliminate competition.
Or do you really believe Microsoft gave us all those "freebies" out of the goodness of their heart and could have sat on their asses for the last 15 years charging $99 for every copy of Windows 95?
A $60 board with integrated graphics will do the trick. Add a $50 processor, $30 for RAM, $40 for a hard drive, $20 for a CPU cooler and a computer case for $50. You then have a machine which is much much quieter than either console (seriously, they're loud), cheaper, more versatile, and much more capable in the media department.
And while the consoles are restricted in certain ways, thos restrictions are what make them "no muss no fuss" gaming platforms.
Meh. If you're only interested in one specific game then there's no fuss involved on the PC either. But the restrictions do seriously affect its functionality as a media player.
It's no contest really. Only Buy a console if you want to play lots of console games.
You obviously have no idea of anticompetitive business. First off, a monopoly doesn't necessitate any kind of behavior, especially not price gouging. In fact price dumping to undercut competitors is a classic monopolistic practice. When netbook manufacturers started selling machines with Linux on a fairly large scale, they effectively decided to dump XP.
I needn't eleborate any further on Microsofts anti-competitive practices, this is Slashdot after all. But the fact that Windows has improved over the years is simply down to technological progress, the kind that any other business needs to stay competitive. Reminds me of the response from an Intel guy after being fined. "Well actually, our chips have got cheaper and faster over the years". Well DUH! That's how the tech market works. What does it have to do with you being total dicks?
Generally I don't consider a new product to be news. They're released on schedules and always offer improvement. But when building a machine, there is a lot more practical knowledge unless you want to throw your money at the newest and greatest hardware. News sites generally only cover the high end and many technologies simply never become economical or price-worthy. Integrated graphics have eliminated the need for GPU cards for everything but high-end gaming.
You drew a fallacious conclusion. Just because it hasn't been tried doesn't mean there would be no market. The entire netbook boom is proof that this is a flawed assumption.
One that reflects the observed facts.
Not in the slightest.
What's that got to do with anything? Do any games on those need the capabilities of a high-end graphics card?
Um, yes. They use some of the latest in graphics architecture. If you mean a 200 Watt PCI-e card with active cooling, then no, that's ridiculous.
No, it's a perfectly valid one - that a system is only as good as its weakest link.
Another tired saying. A small screen is not a "weak link" and hardware is still a far way from the screen being the weakest link.
What use is something that can't be seen?
If you can't see a nine-inch screen I think you should get your eyes checked out.
It's like playing a thousand dollar amplifier through twenty buck speakers.
A strange analogy, but that's probably about the parts cost for standard speakers. Audiophiles who spend tens of grand on a speaker will probably disagree, but a thousand-dollar amplifier isn't exactly high-end either.
Or the number of people who would buy such a device is so small it wouldn't be commercially viable.
Possibly, but that's a very rash and generalized comment. Both screen size or even screen resolution are no limit for games or fun. Even devices like the iPhone or PSP always like to push the borders. This is an old and tired argument BTW. Like the people shouting "FullHD is too much", "FullHD is too much for screens smaller than 40''" or "60fps in enough for anyone" or "SNES graphics are enough for any handheld". Technology will continue to progress and people will continue to buy it.
You're missing the point of netbooks. Obligatory car analogy; do you buy a motorcycle (because it's portable) and then bemoan the fact that you can't carry four people on it?
Better car analogy: Despite common conceptions, an SUV isn't the best choice if you want space, you're better off with something like a Minivan. To the point, there is no reason why a Laptop with reasonable gaming power should have to be huge. That's the whole point about the recent investment in mobile graphics chips. If we can use them to make 3D Desktops why shouldn't we use them for games.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on the distinctiveness of the mark. Even unregistered trademarks can be protected if they are fanciful. So if you want to ensure your trademarks are safe, the best thing to do is make them fanciful.
Adding an "i" on every word is neither original or destinctive so it's no wonder Apple has trouble defending iThings.
Note-taking is an archaic remnant from when there were no textbooks or other easily accessible material to study from. Taking notes was the only way to ensure that stuff sticked. Having the freedom to fully concentrate on the presentation is always more effective than taking notes, which will likely be less useful than reading the relative parts of the textbook or the professor's material (if he provides them of course)
If the course is slow-paced then it may not make much difference however. Plus some people say they need to take notes to stay awake.
Meh. I've had classes that were so incoherent that students had no choice but to switch off when the professor proceeded to write obscure things on the board at lightning speed purely for self-satisfaction.
Good for you. I've had lecturers that were boring and drab, and did nothing other than copy a textbook to the board. And ones who were apparently highy respected and certainly had insightful things to say, but they were things that were irrelevant to the subject matter and totally inapropriate for a freshman course who had yet to learn the basics.
After all, that's what most lectures are intended for, at least the mass-attended ones. If you can't convey the subject in an interesting manner any better than a textbook, you lecture is entirely superfluous.
It's not exactly as if the professor considers students as clients either. He is employed by the university, and as part of that he is also required to do some lectures. He may get rewarded if he gives a lot of effort, but a worrying amount of professors seem to be totally disinterested in the quality of their classes, especially considering that there are hardly any consequences for not giving a shit.
Plus a number of lectures and courses are just plain bad that it truly does become a waste of ressources to try to concentrate on a lecture. I bet you that most of them are just there to get an idea of where the curriculum was headed and prefer to study the subject with better materials. Lectures that are well-conceived and presented properly are usually rewarded with higher levels of attention.
That's probably wrong actually. You see, the report first said that the child was playing with a black Wii controller that resembled a gun. The guys at Kotaku saw this as suspicios and went to see if one could actually purchase such a thing and this is the only one they came up with that seems to match. Thing is, unless the father went to a lot of trouble to specifically buy a hard-to-find type of controller, it's unlikely this is what was used.
There are a variety of peripherals which would seem to be potential candidates, But I'd guess it to be more likely it was on of these with a little creativity from the parents.
Realistic looking light guns used to be quite common, like this one http://www.amazon.de/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B00008P02A/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0
That's what I used to think but you'd be surprised how undescribably clumsy and respectless a certain percentage of the adult population really are. Like they're little kids who start to overreact when they're frustrated.
With the overwhelming presence of guns in all kinds of media and culture, it's probably impossible to install a deterring reflex into a kids mind. Going back centuries kids have always played with toy weapons and even if they don't have a realistic replica the nearest stick or even their hand will do. And if you were to stop them playing with toys, you might as well extend it to video games and movies, even for sci-fi type weapons.
I don't think toys actually harm people's accordance to gun safety. Rather I think that gun safety is something that has to tought to everyone before they can get their hands near one. Guns are inherently unsafe, and if you give one to anbody who hasn't leant the basics then shit happens.
And despite being bombarded with gun images and toys from a very early age, I feel a sense of awe whenever I see one. That's just not going to happen when people have loaded firearms lying on their coffee tables all the time.
Although the article says she was playing with a black gun-controller, I suspect this was just the creative imagination of two very guilty parents. They probably just had a standard black Wii-remote (they only used to sell them in white). In any case it doesn't really resemble a gun, and even if it did I don't think it makes a difference. I played with realistic guns as a three-year old, granted I do live in a country with strict firearms regulations.
The parentents were just looking for an explanation to sooth their guilty consience. It's a normal psychological reaction. But I definitely think the press has been too accomodating to their side of the story.
Following which senior politicians strive to change the constitution. That's right, conservative german politicians have absolutely no respect for the constitution and won't take no for an answer.
I'll be damned if I'm going to pay €30 a month for WiFi. Heck, you can get 3G sticks that will only cost half that and can be used anywhere. Speed might be worse, but it's by no means bad, especially in the areas you're likely to find a T-mobile hotspot.
http://www.medionmobile.de/index3.htm
That would be trivial to weed out as your IP will be completely wrong. Also, under the assumption that most visitors will provide correct information, they can simply exclude unrealistic samples.
Which, obviously, means they don't need to be competitive. It's not like their customers have a choice.
A situation where there is truly only one seller is exceedingly rare. The term monopoly is used mostly for situations where one seller controls the vast majority of the market. Usually there are competitors or alternatives. Even just the potential of someone setting up business is enough.
But the nature of the market often means that these alternatives are an unreasonable choice.
I don't. I do think it's pretty much impossible for them to not be perceived as "acting like a dick", but that's a different thing.
Your argument is basically
"Monopolists charge high prices and sell and never develop products. Microsoft improved Windows. Therfore Microsoft is not a monopoly."
Apart from being a logical fallacy (Affirming a disjunct), your proposition is simply wrong.
Why ? Their customers don't have any alternatives. That's what a monopoly is.
Because otherwise someone will come along with a product that is better and people will buy it, or the unreasonable alternatives suddenly become more reasonable.
Has nothing to do with it.
doesn't need to [...] improve their product, drop their prices
sat on their asses for the last 15 years charging $99 for every copy of Windows 95
Yeah, Nothing at all /sarcasm
I don't think there's another reason. That's _exactly_ why I think Windows has improved - to stay competitive. It's the premise that Windows is/was monopoly I disagree with.
Well that helps a lot, it's the first time you've clarified your position.
Thing is, if you've been paying attention for last, say, thirty years, you'd know that the term has come to describe extremely dominant businesses which use anti-competitive 'monopolistic' practices to expand their share and supress rivals. And that certainly applies to Microsoft.
You can use air as you reaction mass. That's the reason why air-burning jet-packs can fly for around 30-40 minutes as opposed to the 2 minutes or so that can be achieved with a rocket pack. The distinction here being that a jet-engine sucks in air to burn fuel while a rocket-engine carries self-burning or component fuel and doesn't need air. This device isn't actually either, as it uses a combustion engine to drive fans. The engine exhaust is simply exhumed and doesn't deliver any thrust.
So if you had a small but powerful engine you wouldn't need to carry reaction mass in an atmousphere. That's why battery powered helicopters work.
Not really. Flying, when done properly will be -a lot- more safe than driving.
So at the moment, this is pure speculation.
With flying, unlike driving you go not just left and right but also up and down. Mix this with the fact that there are no roads (meaning to get to the same place two people can easily take routes miles apart) and you have the ability to reduce, eliminate traffic problems that exist in traditional traffic.
First of all, this is under the assumption that these will be useful for transportation. But even for the wealthy the fuel bills for one of these things will be staggering. And considering the maintainence it would require it's probably unlikely that anybody but a scarce few would use it regularly.
But you seem to think the biggest risk is a aerial collision. That's simply wrong. The most dangerous parts of air travel are taking off and landing. This is where air travel is inevitably much more dangerous than road traffic because of the huge heights and speeds involved mean that in the event of an accident death is extremely likely.
The reason why accidents are rare today is only because of the huge amount of caution and regulation that we have. There is an extensive network of Radio communication so that pilots and traffic controllers can negotiate landing slots. The Pilot must be trained to deal with these situations and also has to have regular checks. You must have a permit to fly and airports are located far from residential buildings (at least for operating riskier small aircraft).
With jetpacks people will want to be hovering round buildings and landing somewhere other than an open airfield. They can't wait around in the air for permission to land either. And while bumping you car when you're parking is just going to scratch the paint, bumping into the side of a building while landing a jetpack is probably one the worst kinds of accidents and could result in your body being splattered all over the ground.
A state of the market which dictates that the monopolist doesn't need to behave as they would in a competitive market - ie: improve their product, drop their prices, listen to customers, etc.
Bzzz. Wrong answer. A Monopoly simply means that there's effectively one seller to all buyers.
You're simply jumping to false conclusions if you think that means every monopolist is obliged to act like a dick.
Is it too much to ask to read my second sentence? Even Monopolists have to offer a product that people think is worth buying.
Of course not. Where did I even suggest such a thing?
The first sentence in your reply:
the monopolist doesn't need to behave as they would in a competitive market - ie: improve their product, drop their prices, listen to customers, etc.
So I'm going to borrow one of your methods of argumentation: Come up with a reason why Windows has improved if not to prevent people jumping ship to something else.
Then you have learnt some fucked-up definition. A Monopoly is simply a state of the market.
A monopolist doesn't always keep their position, that would require infinite entry barriers.
They have to work hard to stifle and eliminate competition.
Or do you really believe Microsoft gave us all those "freebies" out of the goodness of their heart and could have sat on their asses for the last 15 years charging $99 for every copy of Windows 95?
A $60 board with integrated graphics will do the trick. Add a $50 processor, $30 for RAM, $40 for a hard drive, $20 for a CPU cooler and a computer case for $50.
You then have a machine which is much much quieter than either console (seriously, they're loud), cheaper, more versatile, and much more capable in the media department.
And while the consoles are restricted in certain ways, thos restrictions are what make them "no muss no fuss" gaming platforms.
Meh. If you're only interested in one specific game then there's no fuss involved on the PC either.
But the restrictions do seriously affect its functionality as a media player.
It's no contest really. Only Buy a console if you want to play lots of console games.
You obviously have no idea of anticompetitive business. First off, a monopoly doesn't necessitate any kind of behavior, especially not price gouging. In fact price dumping to undercut competitors is a classic monopolistic practice.
When netbook manufacturers started selling machines with Linux on a fairly large scale, they effectively decided to dump XP.
I needn't eleborate any further on Microsofts anti-competitive practices, this is Slashdot after all. But the fact that Windows has improved over the years is simply down to technological progress, the kind that any other business needs to stay competitive. Reminds me of the response from an Intel guy after being fined. "Well actually, our chips have got cheaper and faster over the years". Well DUH! That's how the tech market works. What does it have to do with you being total dicks?
Generally I don't consider a new product to be news. They're released on schedules and always offer improvement. But when building a machine, there is a lot more practical knowledge unless you want to throw your money at the newest and greatest hardware. News sites generally only cover the high end and many technologies simply never become economical or price-worthy. Integrated graphics have eliminated the need for GPU cards for everything but high-end gaming.
Too expensive, too loud and too restricted. Avoid.
If I'm wrong then where are they all?
You drew a fallacious conclusion. Just because it hasn't been tried doesn't mean there would be no market. The entire netbook boom is proof that this is a flawed assumption.
One that reflects the observed facts.
Not in the slightest.
What's that got to do with anything? Do any games on those need the capabilities of a high-end graphics card?
Um, yes. They use some of the latest in graphics architecture.
If you mean a 200 Watt PCI-e card with active cooling, then no, that's ridiculous.
No, it's a perfectly valid one - that a system is only as good as its weakest link.
Another tired saying. A small screen is not a "weak link" and hardware is still a far way from the screen being the weakest link.
What use is something that can't be seen?
If you can't see a nine-inch screen I think you should get your eyes checked out.
It's like playing a thousand dollar amplifier through twenty buck speakers.
A strange analogy, but that's probably about the parts cost for standard speakers. Audiophiles who spend tens of grand on a speaker will probably disagree, but a thousand-dollar amplifier isn't exactly high-end either.
Or the number of people who would buy such a device is so small it wouldn't be commercially viable.
Possibly, but that's a very rash and generalized comment. Both screen size or even screen resolution are no limit for games or fun. Even devices like the iPhone or PSP always like to push the borders.
This is an old and tired argument BTW. Like the people shouting "FullHD is too much", "FullHD is too much for screens smaller than 40''" or "60fps in enough for anyone" or "SNES graphics are enough for any handheld".
Technology will continue to progress and people will continue to buy it.
You're missing the point of netbooks. Obligatory car analogy; do you buy a motorcycle (because it's portable) and then bemoan the fact that you can't carry four people on it?
Better car analogy: Despite common conceptions, an SUV isn't the best choice if you want space, you're better off with something like a Minivan.
To the point, there is no reason why a Laptop with reasonable gaming power should have to be huge. That's the whole point about the recent investment in mobile graphics chips. If we can use them to make 3D Desktops why shouldn't we use them for games.