You're trying to imply that Samsung had inside information about the design before it was publicly unveiled. That's manipulative and as far as we can tell it is wrong. Otherwise we would expect Apple to have accused them by now. As far as I know Samsung merely produced electronic components such as the chips. The external design cannot be deduced from this and the very fact that they were making the own components eventually used by Apple tends to suggest that they had their own ideas about how technology would progress.
The iPhone was unveiled in 2007. Even if the designs had leaked before then, it would take many months to develop and market an imitation. The whole point of the evidence they presented is to demonstrate that Samsung and others had for years been working on and marketing remarkably similar devices with large touchscreens. The Apple narrative is of course that they brought out the iPhone and everybody else copied them with even the devices that came out before the iPhone retroactively became copies (or, as with the F700, quietly dropping it from their accusation when they realized their folly). I think it's sad that so many fans believe them. Back in 2006 everybody was wondering when Apple would finally release a video iPod, and fans made mockups that looked exactly like the iPhone. http://guides.macrumors.com/Gallery_of_Video_iPod_Mockups Back in 2006 this was considered natural design evolution.
It's confusing because there are so many different technologies involved in the modern Internet. But one side which rarely receives the credit it deserves is the development of optical fibers. Before Charles Kao the concept of optical telecommunication was considered a pipe dream. When we realized the huge capacity of such fibers this kickstarted major investment by telecom companies and erbium-doped fiber amplifiers created a truly global network.
Of course one could correctly point out that the internet is independant of the medium, but what would it look like without fiber optics? We would of course have LANs, but beyond that people would be using city-wide networks and a small selection of text-based sites. You might be able to get a slow crawl of an international connection if you didn't mind burning your savings for astronomical fees.
On the other hand, without the "rest" of the internet, we would have a number of services which superficially resemble some internet services. Video streaming and sharing was used to promote optical networks before we realized we'd be doing this within a browser on a PC with an IP connection. And cheap international calls and videophones were also anticipated long before Skype.
And unlike the protocols and transit agreements, there is no physical alternative to the optical fiber which could satisfy demands.
You're committing another form of fallacy: Proof by intimidation. Looking up definitions of the "No true Scotsman" will neither explain your argument or weaken mine in any way. Your behaviour and attitude are starting to work against you. Maybe you should try living up to the advice from the honorable man you quote in your signature.
You clearly think you're being clever with such hollow and ambiguous tripe, but you need to elaborate your whole argument, not expect readers to interpret meaning from wayward conditional sentences.
"Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus" Large portions of the internet have become inaccessible from my "netbook" Dell mini because of the explosion of JavaScript websites in recent years. A simple text-based website will freeze and crash a computer which will happily run beefy IDEs and other fairly resource-draining programs.
The problem is that the web developers who sit at their 8-processors 16GB RAM machines all day will never know and the majority of people will continue walking the upgrade treadmill simply to use Facebook and gossip sites. I thought new web standards would bring us new functionality and smoother experiences, now I wish they'd have just stuck with IE6 and Flash.
The sentence was contrived to illustrate the analogy. You asked for help understanding the concept and I thought the sentences might help. It doesn't necessitate sentence patterns, but it's still fairly straightforward. All you're doing is questioning my understanding combine with empty denial. Instead, why don't you get to the point and say why you think that the above situation was not a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, maybe you can enlighten us.
Design decisions need to be balanced. I'm sure there are plenty of engineers at Apple who would have preferred a more elegant solution (excessive use of glue is kinda a characteristic of cheap electronics, not the high end stuff)
Wow, your evidence that stuff can be recycled is that you went to a recycling center and dumped your stuff there? You do realize that most the stuff ends up as conventional waste?
Profit really isn't the priority unless you're a financial investor, and that kind of mentality can run a company into the ground.
In fact, high profits in light of the fact that they're losing their technological edge and market share is a bad omen. Maybe they could do with a little price drop to keep customers, even if it means surrendering a little profit here and there.
Then you must have been one of those people who were so displeased about Apple's policy that you resorted to Jailbreaking. Hackers were having fun with Nintendo emulators and accelerometer games long before Apple sanctioned 3rd party apps.
You can't assume ill-informed people and malevolent shop clerks to set any standard. Imagine someone walking into a store a wanting a Walkman, but leaving with a Panasonic rather than a Sony gadget. People who don't know what an iPhone looks like don't need judges to ban competitors, especially when there's still plenty of products out there that look like generic tablets/smartphones.
Office functions used to be a plethora of inappropriately named text lines scattered across a jungle of menus, sub-menus and sub-sub-menus. People who've had a specific task and routine for years will always be stubborn. Personally I dislike all office-suites anyway. Sure, there are good and bad UI choices, but if a change to a better UI is confusing it's probably a sign that the software functionality is maybe a little too advanced for their needs.
Most of the services mentioned are kinda passé. GPS (I presume they mean car navigators) have become obsolete due to the "mobile phone location-based services". Text messages and mobile phone voice usage are just expensive versions of Skype and Facebook for people who haven't caught on yet. Internet adoption is such an all-encompassing term to be virtually meaningless. The only real novelty here are e-readers, which I suppose is because women read a lot more than men do.
Go to a university library and you'll notice how the annuals from the mid nineties onward are all in pristine condition. Nobody uses them anymore and all they do is take up valuable library space, so many institutions have cancelled paper subscriptions Preserving paper archives is much more difficult and costly than digital archives, but there's a catch: Current copyright laws make it illegal for institutions to maintain their own archives, so they need to perpetually pay the journal subscription to access archives.
Open access alleviates the problem because there's no single rights holder who can tell anyone what to do with published papers.
Panasonic and Sony profited from selling tapes as well. It's the same old argument recycled. This will of course simply move more well-intended people to torrenting, sans ads. Media companies should finally realize that the days of dictating when people enjoy content are over.
So far SSD's have been having more trouble with their lifetime. Modern HDDs are incredibly durable and are more likely to be replaced because of increased storage demands (which is considerably later than equivalently priced SSDs)
Modern electronics require a range of low-voltage DC to power the solid state components. High-voltage mains electricity still needs to be converted to the voltages required by the individual components, and this is hardly any easier than with AC.
I always tend to stretch my use of electronics. Avoiding "Windows rot" a PC will last many years for most applications. My cell phones also last many years, whilst other people keep updating theirs because their provider gave it them for "free". But I'm appalled by how shockingly bad my iPhone 3g performs with the newest system. And because they don't have legacy versions of apps in the app store you're screwed.
That's only the raw material. Paper has to be refined, bleached processed. Add to that the inks and the transportation. Until recently the paper industry was one of the dirtiest businesses out there. It's not surprising that the footprint is bad if all you use it for is a throwaway news article that 90% of readers skip anyway.
Not really. Patents are worded to maximize the breadth of interpretation. Design patents are something separate. It's entirely likely this patent will cover what was described in the engadget post. The sad thing is that even if this guy thought his idea was truly innovative and patentable, he'd have had to invest a fortune to even get it granted, and even then it would have been practically worthless as he has zero manufacturing power and no industry influence. Tech patents are only really effective in bulk as bargaining tools. The romanticized ideal of the lone inventor protecting his invention from a greedy corporation is very far from the truth, and those who have tried have failed and been burnt.
Slashdot Mirror
You're trying to imply that Samsung had inside information about the design before it was publicly unveiled. That's manipulative and as far as we can tell it is wrong. Otherwise we would expect Apple to have accused them by now.
As far as I know Samsung merely produced electronic components such as the chips. The external design cannot be deduced from this and the very fact that they were making the own components eventually used by Apple tends to suggest that they had their own ideas about how technology would progress.
The iPhone was unveiled in 2007. Even if the designs had leaked before then, it would take many months to develop and market an imitation.
The whole point of the evidence they presented is to demonstrate that Samsung and others had for years been working on and marketing remarkably similar devices with large touchscreens.
The Apple narrative is of course that they brought out the iPhone and everybody else copied them with even the devices that came out before the iPhone retroactively became copies (or, as with the F700, quietly dropping it from their accusation when they realized their folly).
I think it's sad that so many fans believe them. Back in 2006 everybody was wondering when Apple would finally release a video iPod, and fans made mockups that looked exactly like the iPhone. http://guides.macrumors.com/Gallery_of_Video_iPod_Mockups
Back in 2006 this was considered natural design evolution.
It's confusing because there are so many different technologies involved in the modern Internet. But one side which rarely receives the credit it deserves is the development of optical fibers.
Before Charles Kao the concept of optical telecommunication was considered a pipe dream. When we realized the huge capacity of such fibers this kickstarted major investment by telecom companies and erbium-doped fiber amplifiers created a truly global network.
Of course one could correctly point out that the internet is independant of the medium, but what would it look like without fiber optics? We would of course have LANs, but beyond that people would be using city-wide networks and a small selection of text-based sites. You might be able to get a slow crawl of an international connection if you didn't mind burning your savings for astronomical fees.
On the other hand, without the "rest" of the internet, we would have a number of services which superficially resemble some internet services. Video streaming and sharing was used to promote optical networks before we realized we'd be doing this within a browser on a PC with an IP connection. And cheap international calls and videophones were also anticipated long before Skype.
And unlike the protocols and transit agreements, there is no physical alternative to the optical fiber which could satisfy demands.
You're committing another form of fallacy: Proof by intimidation.
Looking up definitions of the "No true Scotsman" will neither explain your argument or weaken mine in any way. Your behaviour and attitude are starting to work against you. Maybe you should try living up to the advice from the honorable man you quote in your signature.
You clearly think you're being clever with such hollow and ambiguous tripe, but you need to elaborate your whole argument, not expect readers to interpret meaning from wayward conditional sentences.
"Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus"
Large portions of the internet have become inaccessible from my "netbook" Dell mini because of the explosion of JavaScript websites in recent years. A simple text-based website will freeze and crash a computer which will happily run beefy IDEs and other fairly resource-draining programs.
The problem is that the web developers who sit at their 8-processors 16GB RAM machines all day will never know and the majority of people will continue walking the upgrade treadmill simply to use Facebook and gossip sites.
I thought new web standards would bring us new functionality and smoother experiences, now I wish they'd have just stuck with IE6 and Flash.
Facebook is horrible. I find myself googling instructions for the simplest functionality. "Geeky" programming is simpler.
The sentence was contrived to illustrate the analogy. You asked for help understanding the concept and I thought the sentences might help. It doesn't necessitate sentence patterns, but it's still fairly straightforward.
All you're doing is questioning my understanding combine with empty denial. Instead, why don't you get to the point and say why you think that the above situation was not a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, maybe you can enlighten us.
As the AC below points out, it's a drop-in example, it couldn't be any clearer. We might as well call it the "No true Anarchist Fallacy".
"I haven't met a Scotsman who likes Haggis"
"Well you haven't met a Scotsman then"
"I haven't met an Anarchist who wasn't fucked up by drugs"
"Well you haven't met an Anarchist then.
Design decisions need to be balanced. I'm sure there are plenty of engineers at Apple who would have preferred a more elegant solution (excessive use of glue is kinda a characteristic of cheap electronics, not the high end stuff)
Wow, your evidence that stuff can be recycled is that you went to a recycling center and dumped your stuff there? You do realize that most the stuff ends up as conventional waste?
But the suggestion was that the people the OP had met couldn't be real anarchists because they were "drug-fucked high school dropouts."
Profit really isn't the priority unless you're a financial investor, and that kind of mentality can run a company into the ground.
In fact, high profits in light of the fact that they're losing their technological edge and market share is a bad omen. Maybe they could do with a little price drop to keep customers, even if it means surrendering a little profit here and there.
Then you must have been one of those people who were so displeased about Apple's policy that you resorted to Jailbreaking. Hackers were having fun with Nintendo emulators and accelerometer games long before Apple sanctioned 3rd party apps.
You can't assume ill-informed people and malevolent shop clerks to set any standard. Imagine someone walking into a store a wanting a Walkman, but leaving with a Panasonic rather than a Sony gadget. People who don't know what an iPhone looks like don't need judges to ban competitors, especially when there's still plenty of products out there that look like generic tablets/smartphones.
Office functions used to be a plethora of inappropriately named text lines scattered across a jungle of menus, sub-menus and sub-sub-menus.
People who've had a specific task and routine for years will always be stubborn. Personally I dislike all office-suites anyway.
Sure, there are good and bad UI choices, but if a change to a better UI is confusing it's probably a sign that the software functionality is maybe a little too advanced for their needs.
Most of the services mentioned are kinda passé. GPS (I presume they mean car navigators) have become obsolete due to the "mobile phone location-based services". Text messages and mobile phone voice usage are just expensive versions of Skype and Facebook for people who haven't caught on yet. Internet adoption is such an all-encompassing term to be virtually meaningless.
The only real novelty here are e-readers, which I suppose is because women read a lot more than men do.
Go to a university library and you'll notice how the annuals from the mid nineties onward are all in pristine condition. Nobody uses them anymore and all they do is take up valuable library space, so many institutions have cancelled paper subscriptions
Preserving paper archives is much more difficult and costly than digital archives, but there's a catch: Current copyright laws make it illegal for institutions to maintain their own archives, so they need to perpetually pay the journal subscription to access archives.
Open access alleviates the problem because there's no single rights holder who can tell anyone what to do with published papers.
Panasonic and Sony profited from selling tapes as well. It's the same old argument recycled.
This will of course simply move more well-intended people to torrenting, sans ads. Media companies should finally realize that the days of dictating when people enjoy content are over.
So far SSD's have been having more trouble with their lifetime. Modern HDDs are incredibly durable and are more likely to be replaced because of increased storage demands (which is considerably later than equivalently priced SSDs)
Modern electronics require a range of low-voltage DC to power the solid state components. High-voltage mains electricity still needs to be converted to the voltages required by the individual components, and this is hardly any easier than with AC.
I always tend to stretch my use of electronics. Avoiding "Windows rot" a PC will last many years for most applications. My cell phones also last many years, whilst other people keep updating theirs because their provider gave it them for "free".
But I'm appalled by how shockingly bad my iPhone 3g performs with the newest system. And because they don't have legacy versions of apps in the app store you're screwed.
That's only the raw material. Paper has to be refined, bleached processed. Add to that the inks and the transportation. Until recently the paper industry was one of the dirtiest businesses out there. It's not surprising that the footprint is bad if all you use it for is a throwaway news article that 90% of readers skip anyway.
Actually the hypothesis dates back to at least the 1940s, before we went to the moon.
Not really. Patents are worded to maximize the breadth of interpretation. Design patents are something separate. It's entirely likely this patent will cover what was described in the engadget post.
The sad thing is that even if this guy thought his idea was truly innovative and patentable, he'd have had to invest a fortune to even get it granted, and even then it would have been practically worthless as he has zero manufacturing power and no industry influence. Tech patents are only really effective in bulk as bargaining tools.
The romanticized ideal of the lone inventor protecting his invention from a greedy corporation is very far from the truth, and those who have tried have failed and been burnt.