This assumes that they will actually store any of it on their servers. It wouldn't surprise me if the information stayed only on the device or your computer if you wanted to sync with it. If it were Google making this device one would probably assume that, yes, they would be collecting the data and analyzing it in order to sell advertisements, but Apple generally seems content to no bother with your data as they seem content to make their money selling people $100 worth of parts and components for $300.
The problem with an association is once you get a group of established players forming an association they'll have little incentive to let new streaming companies join since it can only hurt the existing players, at which point we're back to square one with having multiple entities to deal with in order to get the music out. The other potential problem is that having a single association to deal with creates a monopsony which hurts the artists ability to get fair value for their work. Any new bands are probably going to get really bad deals as they can either put up with breadcrumbs or not have any of their music available on any of the member streaming services. Even established acts might have problems if there's no competitive pressure.
Personally I don't think it's an issue. There aren't that many different streaming sites out there right now and you'd think that most would want to make it as easy as possible to get new groups signed up. If an artist's manager can't handle dealing with this, what value are they actually providing to earn their pay? Smaller acts are probably used to dealing with dozens of different people when setting up gigs at various venues so I would imagine that anyone with half a brain could come to terms with a streaming site if they wanted to put a bit of effort in to do so.
Impact of dredging at the new berth will be very limited as the volume to be dredged is very small, and the duration of work (two weeks) is minimal. Studies at the
proposed offshore disposal site also reveal that past disposal has had no discernible long term effects. No significant level of contaminants has been found in the
dredging areas, from coal or other material spillage, and dredge spoil is therefore considered suitable for unconfined ocean disposal. Coastal processes do not contribute to silting of the berths or the approach channel.
It sounds like this isn't the first time they've dumped there and that those prior events have not had any noticeable negative effects and that they've tested what's going to be dumped there to ensure that there aren't any contaminants. It's starting to appear as though this is just a lot of environmentalists throwing a fit for no good reason.
You should also include the ~$1B loss that Google incurred as operating expenses while owning the company. It's still worth taking a loss on the sale in my opinion and that patents that they acquired may well be worth even more than the loss. Motorola was going to continue bleeding money and placed Google in an uncomfortable position with the other hardware manufacturers.
They were used to file a suit against Apple, not against claims made in an Apple filed suit. Defensively would be showing that they now had patents which covered their method for accomplishing those things which Apple accused them of infringing. Don't mistake deflecting a blow from throwing one of your own.
The composition of the milks are different. Cow milk contains more protein in general, and some proteins that are not found in human milk. Some people are unable to process those proteins. Also, intolerance to milk of any kind generally occurs later in life. If an individual were not able to digest it in infancy they would die and their genes would not be passed on. Perhaps with modern medical science, they would live, but this would not have been the case thousands of years ago.
They haven't done it directly as far as I'm aware, but they've essentially done so by proxy. I think they're the only company that's figured out that they won't make any money even if they do successfully sue someone as the lawyers will eat away most of whatever award they would receive and the case would still be tied up in appeals for years and years to eat away whatever's left.
Speaking of things which lack substance, your post is a prime offender. You make claims without support, which in this case turn out to be false as I was able to do some quick searching and found some the patents in question: # 6,557,054 and # 6,658,464. I was also able to locate the actual document filed with the court that lists the other four patents.
You're certainly entitled to your own opinions about the patent system, and while I'm sure I probably would agree with you on several points, your post is nothing more than a lazy attempt at preaching to the crowd that is wrought with inaccuracies or outright falsehoods. The OP is right that the linked article isn't very good and leaves out a lot of important information that would be useful to readers. It didn't take more than 10 minutes to dig up this information, so I question why the author of the actual article couldn't be bothered to find out this information.
Personally I doubt that these will hold up. I haven't specifically gone over all of the claims, but the abstracts make it appear as though there's likely prior art. One of the patents in question seems like little more than a description of a screen.
I'd tell him to pound sand until he can provide some answers about privacy protections and safeguards preventing the government from illegally spying on its citizens.
It seems as though there are some differences in the brain for transgendered individuals in that areas of their brain are more similar to the gender that they think they are rather than the brain of the gender that typically corresponds with their biological sex. It also appears (at least from these studies) that hormone therapy is not responsible for those changes. There isn't anything to suggest what causes this to occur, so it could be biological or social, but I doubt it would be largely due to social causes as that would seem to imply that people could become far more intelligent simply by acting like a genius. At the same time, I don't think it's genetic (or entirely so) either as it intuitively seems as though being transgendered probably produces a less fit individual as I can't imagine having to cope with your brain telling you that you're in the wrong body for your whole life making life easier, especially if everyone else treats you as though you're insane.
Simon LeVay also published some similar research about 20 years ago that examined differences in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, so some of that research might also provide some insight into what might cause the observed differences.
They're not, but when there are an ever increasing number of patents to comb through, it becomes impossible to determine if there are any out there that you violate. Add in a number of inane patents like "X, but on a computer!" and it just becomes cheaper to deal with the legal consequences after the fact. Whether a person thinks software should be able to be patented at all, I think everyone can agree that the system as it is needs an overall.
Although a sample size of one doesn't make for a good study, some of the results that this person has seen can help us gain a better understanding about the product. For example, is it typical that a person consuming 2400 calories will lose weight, even though their body only needs about 75% of that to maintain its weight? That might indicate that the Soylent is not being digested well or that it's have some other effects on the body.
At least this person took the time to document their experience. It's certainly added more to human knowledge than a snarky internet comment.
A high dose of anything will cause negative effects, if not death. You can even kill yourself from drinking too much water. The problem with some drugs is that the lethal dose isn't too far off from the common dose to experience the effect. Things like alcohol and GHB fall into that category, where the lethal dose is less than an order of magnitude than the effective dose, which make them somewhat dangerous.
Seriously though, the system needs to be changed. When the only way to play the game involves suing everyone else, there's obviously something wrong that needs fixing. Unfortunately, there're so many other things in this country that are screwed up, that it's hard to put patent reform before fixing health care, ending spying on citizens, stopping discrimination based on orientation, reducing our involvement in foreign conflicts, and a long list of other issues. Then again, perhaps the patent system isn't something that's become so heavily partisan that there's no way to pass legislation related to it.
If a company wanted to provide this information without actually explicitly stating it, couldn't they release a more detailed report of their finances, including business expenses incurred as a part of dealing with these requests. If they accounted for each request as a flat rate, it would be possible to glean the information without breaking any laws about publishing how many requests they received.
Similarly, they could be taking an interesting approach with regards to Section 215 requests. Legally they're not allowed to even state that they've received any, so the claim that they've given could be a lie. However, if it isn't, if any future reports omit any mention of the number of Section 215 requests, it would be safe to assume that they have received one.
They're already all really good at finding tax loopholes and dodging around other legal requirements, so I would imagine that even if the government wants to keep this information under wraps that some of these companies will find a way to get that information out.
You have the library of games published by Sony and Nintendo licensees. It's historically been far less expensive for an indie developer to get a game onto Google Play Store than onto Sony's and Nintendo's store. For instance, Nintendo wouldn't let Robert Pelloni develop Bob's Game for the DS because his business was home-based.
Most people who would buy a Shield already own a smartphone where they can get that game if they really want it.
In what sense do you mean "not anywhere near the level"? Please clarify.
Here's an example 3DS game that will be out for the platform soon. There's nothing on Android that's going to compete with that. Not even iOS gets much in the way of larger games, and most of the ones that they do get are ports of old console games. Most of what's available for phones are $.99 apps that are designed to be an easy way to kill ten minutes. There's nothing wrong with that, but we haven't seen very many games that are more sophisticated than that, and most of the ones that have come out are console ports.
Because your good gaming PC is a desktop PC stuck on a desk in a different room of your home, and a Shield thin client is cheaper than a gaming laptop.
And a 50 ft. HDMI cable and wireless mouse/keyboard are even cheaper. Besides, the people who want to game on their TV in the living room likely already have a console. Would they really want to drop another $300 just to be able to stream from their PC assuming that they even have a good gaming PC or an NV graphics card?
I'm not sure what you meant by "most". What would a mouse do for a platformer like Mega Man or Castlevania series or a fighting game like Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat series? And if player 1 is using a mouse and keyboard, what do players 2-4 use?
There are certainly genres of games where a controller works better, but those types of games usually aren't the popular PC titles that most people play and many of those games aren't released for PC. Of the PC titles listed as supported by Shield, it looks like almost all of them are also available for console and many are FPS games where a keyboard/mouse combination works better. The types of games that would work best on Shield usually aren't ported to the PC and even the Android games for the device are either ports of old console games or available for other Android devices.
The Nvidia Shield is a solution looking for a problem. To use half of the features requires a gaming PC with Nvidia hardware that's already going to provide a better experience for the titles available for it than using a controller. The Android game library is nowhere near large enough to justify a $300 purchase price, especially when most of those games can already be played on your phone. It does a lot of things, but it does them all worse than other solutions making the market for the device rather limited.
I don't understand the hate for SHIELD, yes it's expensive and doesn't do any except gaming. But people buy 3DS/2DS and Vita. This is the same but you get to play your existing Android library of games plus stream gaming. How much are 3DS games vs Android games? You'll make back the difference after about 5-10 games.
With the portable handhelds from Sony and Nintendo you get a much wider library of games that you can take anywhere. Shield's best games require you to have a powerful PC with NVidia hardware and be at home. If you go anywhere with it you're stuck with a handful of Android games which aren't anywhere near the level of what you'll find available on the other handhelds, and if you have an Android phone, you already have something that can play them. Also, if I have a good gaming PC why would I want to stream it to the Shield? Usually mouse and keyboard controls are better than a controller for most games and if I really wanted to use a controller for some reason, I can just buy a USB controller and plug it in. I think you can even use an Xbox 360 or PS3 controller with a PC with a little bit of setup.
The only thing that Shield makes sense for is being able to play on my TV if my PC is really far away from my TV or hooking them up would be inconvenient. That's not worth the cost of entry and the rest of the use cases leave it as an inferior choice. I really can't see many people buying this with the idea that they'll get a lot of value out of it. I think most sales have probably been to gadget lovers who have plenty of disposable income to pick up something that they might not use all that much.
I know that you're using hyperbole for the purpose of humor, but there's no way that they sold as many as five. You need to be at least somewhat reasonable for it to be believable.
It's really as easy as that. If the government funds your research, a minimum requirement should be that it's freely available to anyone who wants it regardless of where else it might be published. It's probably incredibly sad, but I think I probably have more pirated research papers than I do music, movies, or other content. I find it surprising that "free open source" hasn't been widely applied to education in the same way that it has software.
That doesn't matter. Nintendo needs to defend their trademarks, even if it's against some no name developer. If that developer wants to avoid the problem, all he needs to do is not use Nintendo's graphics. There are an endless number of games that are similar to Mario in terms of game play that use their own graphics and other assets. Nintendo doesn't bother with them at all. No one is stopping anyone from making a game that's like Super Mario Bros. just like no one can stop someone else from making accounting software. There's an important difference there that you're missing.
The reason that there's less overclocking headroom has little to do with the architecture design and a lot to do with the crappy thermal solution Intel started using on their IB and Haswell chips. Basically they started using some really crappy thermal paste instead of soldering the IHS like they did with Sandy Bridge. People who delid their chips and use better thermal interface material get far better results. Some people can get upwards of an extra GHz in speed when over-clocking and see some fairly substantial temperature drops as well.
Slashdot Mirror
This assumes that they will actually store any of it on their servers. It wouldn't surprise me if the information stayed only on the device or your computer if you wanted to sync with it. If it were Google making this device one would probably assume that, yes, they would be collecting the data and analyzing it in order to sell advertisements, but Apple generally seems content to no bother with your data as they seem content to make their money selling people $100 worth of parts and components for $300.
The problem with an association is once you get a group of established players forming an association they'll have little incentive to let new streaming companies join since it can only hurt the existing players, at which point we're back to square one with having multiple entities to deal with in order to get the music out. The other potential problem is that having a single association to deal with creates a monopsony which hurts the artists ability to get fair value for their work. Any new bands are probably going to get really bad deals as they can either put up with breadcrumbs or not have any of their music available on any of the member streaming services. Even established acts might have problems if there's no competitive pressure.
Personally I don't think it's an issue. There aren't that many different streaming sites out there right now and you'd think that most would want to make it as easy as possible to get new groups signed up. If an artist's manager can't handle dealing with this, what value are they actually providing to earn their pay? Smaller acts are probably used to dealing with dozens of different people when setting up gigs at various venues so I would imagine that anyone with half a brain could come to terms with a streaming site if they wanted to put a bit of effort in to do so.
Impact of dredging at the new berth will be very limited as the volume to be dredged is very small, and the duration of work (two weeks) is minimal. Studies at the proposed offshore disposal site also reveal that past disposal has had no discernible long term effects. No significant level of contaminants has been found in the dredging areas, from coal or other material spillage, and dredge spoil is therefore considered suitable for unconfined ocean disposal. Coastal processes do not contribute to silting of the berths or the approach channel.
It sounds like this isn't the first time they've dumped there and that those prior events have not had any noticeable negative effects and that they've tested what's going to be dumped there to ensure that there aren't any contaminants. It's starting to appear as though this is just a lot of environmentalists throwing a fit for no good reason.
You should also include the ~$1B loss that Google incurred as operating expenses while owning the company. It's still worth taking a loss on the sale in my opinion and that patents that they acquired may well be worth even more than the loss. Motorola was going to continue bleeding money and placed Google in an uncomfortable position with the other hardware manufacturers.
It could be 40 kg, which converts to ~88.18 lbs. However, the author of the article may have just rounded it to down.
Or the more likely explanation is that it's just some arbitrary weight that happens to be close to 88 lbs. or 40 kg.
They were used to file a suit against Apple, not against claims made in an Apple filed suit. Defensively would be showing that they now had patents which covered their method for accomplishing those things which Apple accused them of infringing. Don't mistake deflecting a blow from throwing one of your own.
The composition of the milks are different. Cow milk contains more protein in general, and some proteins that are not found in human milk. Some people are unable to process those proteins. Also, intolerance to milk of any kind generally occurs later in life. If an individual were not able to digest it in infancy they would die and their genes would not be passed on. Perhaps with modern medical science, they would live, but this would not have been the case thousands of years ago.
They haven't done it directly as far as I'm aware, but they've essentially done so by proxy. I think they're the only company that's figured out that they won't make any money even if they do successfully sue someone as the lawyers will eat away most of whatever award they would receive and the case would still be tied up in appeals for years and years to eat away whatever's left.
Speaking of things which lack substance, your post is a prime offender. You make claims without support, which in this case turn out to be false as I was able to do some quick searching and found some the patents in question: # 6,557,054 and # 6,658,464. I was also able to locate the actual document filed with the court that lists the other four patents.
You're certainly entitled to your own opinions about the patent system, and while I'm sure I probably would agree with you on several points, your post is nothing more than a lazy attempt at preaching to the crowd that is wrought with inaccuracies or outright falsehoods. The OP is right that the linked article isn't very good and leaves out a lot of important information that would be useful to readers. It didn't take more than 10 minutes to dig up this information, so I question why the author of the actual article couldn't be bothered to find out this information.
Personally I doubt that these will hold up. I haven't specifically gone over all of the claims, but the abstracts make it appear as though there's likely prior art. One of the patents in question seems like little more than a description of a screen.
I'd tell him to pound sand until he can provide some answers about privacy protections and safeguards preventing the government from illegally spying on its citizens.
I was also interested and did a quick Google search and found a few different results:
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus
White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study.
It seems as though there are some differences in the brain for transgendered individuals in that areas of their brain are more similar to the gender that they think they are rather than the brain of the gender that typically corresponds with their biological sex. It also appears (at least from these studies) that hormone therapy is not responsible for those changes. There isn't anything to suggest what causes this to occur, so it could be biological or social, but I doubt it would be largely due to social causes as that would seem to imply that people could become far more intelligent simply by acting like a genius. At the same time, I don't think it's genetic (or entirely so) either as it intuitively seems as though being transgendered probably produces a less fit individual as I can't imagine having to cope with your brain telling you that you're in the wrong body for your whole life making life easier, especially if everyone else treats you as though you're insane.
Simon LeVay also published some similar research about 20 years ago that examined differences in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, so some of that research might also provide some insight into what might cause the observed differences.
Replying to fix mod. This is a fairly spot on assessment. If 4K weren't 2 syllables I imagine that they would be using something else as well.
Funny you say that, but there was a story from a week or so back that just about amounts to that.
They're not, but when there are an ever increasing number of patents to comb through, it becomes impossible to determine if there are any out there that you violate. Add in a number of inane patents like "X, but on a computer!" and it just becomes cheaper to deal with the legal consequences after the fact. Whether a person thinks software should be able to be patented at all, I think everyone can agree that the system as it is needs an overall.
Although a sample size of one doesn't make for a good study, some of the results that this person has seen can help us gain a better understanding about the product. For example, is it typical that a person consuming 2400 calories will lose weight, even though their body only needs about 75% of that to maintain its weight? That might indicate that the Soylent is not being digested well or that it's have some other effects on the body.
At least this person took the time to document their experience. It's certainly added more to human knowledge than a snarky internet comment.
A high dose of anything will cause negative effects, if not death. You can even kill yourself from drinking too much water. The problem with some drugs is that the lethal dose isn't too far off from the common dose to experience the effect. Things like alcohol and GHB fall into that category, where the lethal dose is less than an order of magnitude than the effective dose, which make them somewhat dangerous.
Hey, if you can't beat 'em, joi^H^H^H sue 'em.
Seriously though, the system needs to be changed. When the only way to play the game involves suing everyone else, there's obviously something wrong that needs fixing. Unfortunately, there're so many other things in this country that are screwed up, that it's hard to put patent reform before fixing health care, ending spying on citizens, stopping discrimination based on orientation, reducing our involvement in foreign conflicts, and a long list of other issues. Then again, perhaps the patent system isn't something that's become so heavily partisan that there's no way to pass legislation related to it.
Also if the surface is curved, the glass won't be pressed up against the surface when set down, which should reduce scratching.
If a company wanted to provide this information without actually explicitly stating it, couldn't they release a more detailed report of their finances, including business expenses incurred as a part of dealing with these requests. If they accounted for each request as a flat rate, it would be possible to glean the information without breaking any laws about publishing how many requests they received.
Similarly, they could be taking an interesting approach with regards to Section 215 requests. Legally they're not allowed to even state that they've received any, so the claim that they've given could be a lie. However, if it isn't, if any future reports omit any mention of the number of Section 215 requests, it would be safe to assume that they have received one.
They're already all really good at finding tax loopholes and dodging around other legal requirements, so I would imagine that even if the government wants to keep this information under wraps that some of these companies will find a way to get that information out.
You have the library of games published by Sony and Nintendo licensees. It's historically been far less expensive for an indie developer to get a game onto Google Play Store than onto Sony's and Nintendo's store. For instance, Nintendo wouldn't let Robert Pelloni develop Bob's Game for the DS because his business was home-based.
Most people who would buy a Shield already own a smartphone where they can get that game if they really want it.
In what sense do you mean "not anywhere near the level"? Please clarify.
Here's an example 3DS game that will be out for the platform soon. There's nothing on Android that's going to compete with that. Not even iOS gets much in the way of larger games, and most of the ones that they do get are ports of old console games. Most of what's available for phones are $.99 apps that are designed to be an easy way to kill ten minutes. There's nothing wrong with that, but we haven't seen very many games that are more sophisticated than that, and most of the ones that have come out are console ports.
Because your good gaming PC is a desktop PC stuck on a desk in a different room of your home, and a Shield thin client is cheaper than a gaming laptop.
And a 50 ft. HDMI cable and wireless mouse/keyboard are even cheaper. Besides, the people who want to game on their TV in the living room likely already have a console. Would they really want to drop another $300 just to be able to stream from their PC assuming that they even have a good gaming PC or an NV graphics card?
I'm not sure what you meant by "most". What would a mouse do for a platformer like Mega Man or Castlevania series or a fighting game like Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat series? And if player 1 is using a mouse and keyboard, what do players 2-4 use?
There are certainly genres of games where a controller works better, but those types of games usually aren't the popular PC titles that most people play and many of those games aren't released for PC. Of the PC titles listed as supported by Shield, it looks like almost all of them are also available for console and many are FPS games where a keyboard/mouse combination works better. The types of games that would work best on Shield usually aren't ported to the PC and even the Android games for the device are either ports of old console games or available for other Android devices.
The Nvidia Shield is a solution looking for a problem. To use half of the features requires a gaming PC with Nvidia hardware that's already going to provide a better experience for the titles available for it than using a controller. The Android game library is nowhere near large enough to justify a $300 purchase price, especially when most of those games can already be played on your phone. It does a lot of things, but it does them all worse than other solutions making the market for the device rather limited.
I don't understand the hate for SHIELD, yes it's expensive and doesn't do any except gaming. But people buy 3DS/2DS and Vita. This is the same but you get to play your existing Android library of games plus stream gaming. How much are 3DS games vs Android games? You'll make back the difference after about 5-10 games.
With the portable handhelds from Sony and Nintendo you get a much wider library of games that you can take anywhere. Shield's best games require you to have a powerful PC with NVidia hardware and be at home. If you go anywhere with it you're stuck with a handful of Android games which aren't anywhere near the level of what you'll find available on the other handhelds, and if you have an Android phone, you already have something that can play them. Also, if I have a good gaming PC why would I want to stream it to the Shield? Usually mouse and keyboard controls are better than a controller for most games and if I really wanted to use a controller for some reason, I can just buy a USB controller and plug it in. I think you can even use an Xbox 360 or PS3 controller with a PC with a little bit of setup.
The only thing that Shield makes sense for is being able to play on my TV if my PC is really far away from my TV or hooking them up would be inconvenient. That's not worth the cost of entry and the rest of the use cases leave it as an inferior choice. I really can't see many people buying this with the idea that they'll get a lot of value out of it. I think most sales have probably been to gadget lovers who have plenty of disposable income to pick up something that they might not use all that much.
I know that you're using hyperbole for the purpose of humor, but there's no way that they sold as many as five. You need to be at least somewhat reasonable for it to be believable.
It's really as easy as that. If the government funds your research, a minimum requirement should be that it's freely available to anyone who wants it regardless of where else it might be published. It's probably incredibly sad, but I think I probably have more pirated research papers than I do music, movies, or other content. I find it surprising that "free open source" hasn't been widely applied to education in the same way that it has software.
That doesn't matter. Nintendo needs to defend their trademarks, even if it's against some no name developer. If that developer wants to avoid the problem, all he needs to do is not use Nintendo's graphics. There are an endless number of games that are similar to Mario in terms of game play that use their own graphics and other assets. Nintendo doesn't bother with them at all. No one is stopping anyone from making a game that's like Super Mario Bros. just like no one can stop someone else from making accounting software. There's an important difference there that you're missing.
The reason that there's less overclocking headroom has little to do with the architecture design and a lot to do with the crappy thermal solution Intel started using on their IB and Haswell chips. Basically they started using some really crappy thermal paste instead of soldering the IHS like they did with Sandy Bridge. People who delid their chips and use better thermal interface material get far better results. Some people can get upwards of an extra GHz in speed when over-clocking and see some fairly substantial temperature drops as well.