"In December 2006, Palm, Inc. paid $44 million to ACCESS for the rights to the source code for Palm OS Garnet. With this arrangement, a single company is again developing Palm hardware and software. Palm can modify the licensed software as needed and it need not pay royalties to ACCESS over future years."
--Wikipedia, no citation given.
So it sounds like palm did decide to pull the plug, the new agreement gave Palm rights to the source code (again).
Assuming it's true, how much money was involved in splitting palm up, only to reunite (sort of) later?
It's not the 1st time Apple does something like this. Years ago after "borrowing" Xerox's GUI they copyrighted the "use and feel" of the Lisa and Mac GUI.
Apple paid xerox in apple stock, to let their engineers see what was going on - so I don't think stealing is the right thing here.
Apple's copyright was invalidated by the time Windows 3.0 was released.:)
Apple's copyright wasn't invalidated, there was a contractual agreement between microsoft and apple that allowed microsoft to copy some elements of apples design. My understanding is that the contract was supposed to be for developing apps for the mac (apple's side of things), but microsoft claimed that it protected them in windows too. The judge agreed with microsoft in some places, threw out claims in others. The original lawsuit's copyright claim wasn't even considered, as it all became a contract dispute.
My understanding is that the modern water bed wasn't patentable because Heinlein had described such a bed in enough detail in some of his sci-fi books (stranger in a strange land and Double Star) to be considered prior art. So there is some precedent for using sci-fi concepts as prior art.
see wikipedia entry on waterbeds
Not to pick on you. I'm sure that you're just making an observation. But, it's good that it failed. You're comment about not knowing unfortunately illustrates the state of American politics and the direction that the country is headed. It's about the ends justifying the means. As long as you get what you want, it doesn't matter if we're gaming the system.
eh, go ahead and pick on me, I don't mind. It's an interesting discussion. To me the whole plan seems like a legitimate strategy, though it does border on gaming the system, but not horribly so. As for not knowing the whig platform indicating a state of American Politics. I agree that the current state of average voter is poor, but the whig party hasn't existed for around 150 years, and has little to do with current american politics, so I would hope that at least that detail doesn't make it seem like I'm the usual apathetic american.
t doesn't matter which party. They've got us neatly divided in 2. So, it's easy for them to keep us conquered. Thus, they keep any real alternatives off the ballot.
Right on brother! Anything that can be done to mix it up a little, bring in an influx of fresh ideas, people, and parties should be actively discussed and encouraged.
So you don't vote for a presidential candidate? You vote for someone else, who votes on your behalf?
The US citizens I know (expats) have Obama and McCain on their postal vote ticket. (And the other guy).
The person you want to be president shows up on your ballot (McCain, Obama, and anybody else who meets the qualification for showing up on the presidential ballot, green party, libertarian, what have you).
But your vote doesn't end up in a big national count for your guy, it ends up voting for an elector (you don't necessarily know who, but your candidates party does) who has pledged to vote for your guy in the electoral college.
It also doesn't explain why the EC votes against the popular vote every now and again.
The article does kind of explain it. But if you win enough of the low population states, and some of the high population states, you can beat out somebody who wins most of the high population states.
It's not a majority rules situation, it was all based on compromises 200 years ago. Small states didn't want large states to get all of the influence. Slave states wanted to be able to count slaves as population for vote counting and representation purposes, but not to let slaves vote, or have any rights.
And now we have the system defined in the constitution that's (intentionally) hard to change. Though the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an interesting way around having to do a constitutional amendment to
bring a majority vote to the US Presidential election.
"It was the only race in which a major political party intentionally ran several presidential candidates. The Whigs ran three different candidates in different regions of the country, hoping that each would be popular enough to defeat Democratic standard-bearer Martin Van Buren in their respective areas. The House of Representatives could then decide between the competing Whig candidates. This strategy failed: Van Buren won a majority of the electoral vote and became President."
So, not trying to win, but make your opponent lose, and force the tie-breaker where the rules are in your favor. Very interesting strategy, I don't know if it was good or bad that it failed. I don't remember the Whig platform.
Apple should never have allowed it to get this bad.
I'm not advocating congressional intervention, or lawsuits. Apple needs to get this settled, and never should have allowed this bad idea to get this far. They still haven't said anything publicly about this either.
Now when that happens, the person who stole it can answer and say "thanks for unlocking your phone!"
...if the parent's claim were actually true. It's not.
Well, that's good to hear.
(as an aside: I shall no longer consider Brilthor a reliable source. Do you hear that Brilthor? Your credibility has been attacked by cduffy! cduffy has a 3 digit slashdot ID, yours is 6. I implicitly trust cduffy over Brilthor - unless new evidence is presented. Or a lower ID backs Brilthor. Then I'm going to be confused.)
Actually all you need to do is call the iphone, then when the call ends you are back at the home screen unrestricted. On a slightly unrelated note most security articles seem to point out the obvious flaws instead of the clever ones (clearly the iphone lock function is only a slight deterrent)
That's interesting.
typical behavior when you realize you've lost your phone: Call it, and see if you can hear the ring.
Now when that happens, the person who stole it can answer and say "thanks for unlocking your phone!"
yea, but mccormick was the only one who taught using Ada, practically every other class was c++ (well, except for Wallingford). Of course I was there 10 years ago, I guess I have no idea what goes on there now.
Apple have never promised 64-bit Carbon. They did promise 64bit carbon, during the 2006 WWDC. It wasn't until the 2007 WWDC that they rescinded the promise.
Before the 2007 WWDC, they backed up the promise with seeds with 64bit carbon support in. They removed that 64bit carbon support in the 2007 WWDC seed.
Of course they also slightly redefined what carbon meant. It now means the GUI portions of what used to be called carbon. So there are parts of "carbon" that are 64bit. They just aren't called carbon anymore.
I know you probably can't go too deeply into it, but are there any questions about the story you had as a fan that you will make sure get answered in this final novel?
Yeah. Who the flip killed Asmodean? And, beyond that, what's up with Moiraine? Is she alive or not?
Slashdot Mirror
Apple Remote would cost you $20 extra.
--Wikipedia, no citation given.
So it sounds like palm did decide to pull the plug, the new agreement gave Palm rights to the source code (again).
Assuming it's true, how much money was involved in splitting palm up, only to reunite (sort of) later?
It's not the 1st time Apple does something like this. Years ago after "borrowing" Xerox's GUI they copyrighted the "use and feel" of the Lisa and Mac GUI.
Apple paid xerox in apple stock, to let their engineers see what was going on - so I don't think stealing is the right thing here.
Apple's copyright was invalidated by the time Windows 3.0 was released. :)
Apple's copyright wasn't invalidated, there was a contractual agreement between microsoft and apple that allowed microsoft to copy some elements of apples design. My understanding is that the contract was supposed to be for developing apps for the mac (apple's side of things), but microsoft claimed that it protected them in windows too. The judge agreed with microsoft in some places, threw out claims in others. The original lawsuit's copyright claim wasn't even considered, as it all became a contract dispute.
My understanding is that the modern water bed wasn't patentable because Heinlein had described such a bed in enough detail in some of his sci-fi books (stranger in a strange land and Double Star) to be considered prior art. So there is some precedent for using sci-fi concepts as prior art. see wikipedia entry on waterbeds
Microsoft uses the point system so you can pay for things over multiple platforms xbox, zune etc.
You know, Cash works for that too.
It's usually styrofoam and shaped like a bald head.
Are you sure it isn't: "It's usually a bald head and shaped like styrofoam"
Not to pick on you. I'm sure that you're just making an observation. But, it's good that it failed. You're comment about not knowing unfortunately illustrates the state of American politics and the direction that the country is headed. It's about the ends justifying the means. As long as you get what you want, it doesn't matter if we're gaming the system.
eh, go ahead and pick on me, I don't mind. It's an interesting discussion. To me the whole plan seems like a legitimate strategy, though it does border on gaming the system, but not horribly so. As for not knowing the whig platform indicating a state of American Politics. I agree that the current state of average voter is poor, but the whig party hasn't existed for around 150 years, and has little to do with current american politics, so I would hope that at least that detail doesn't make it seem like I'm the usual apathetic american.
t doesn't matter which party. They've got us neatly divided in 2. So, it's easy for them to keep us conquered. Thus, they keep any real alternatives off the ballot.
Right on brother! Anything that can be done to mix it up a little, bring in an influx of fresh ideas, people, and parties should be actively discussed and encouraged.
Now that's a good comment.
So you don't vote for a presidential candidate? You vote for someone else, who votes on your behalf? The US citizens I know (expats) have Obama and McCain on their postal vote ticket. (And the other guy).
The person you want to be president shows up on your ballot (McCain, Obama, and anybody else who meets the qualification for showing up on the presidential ballot, green party, libertarian, what have you).
But your vote doesn't end up in a big national count for your guy, it ends up voting for an elector (you don't necessarily know who, but your candidates party does) who has pledged to vote for your guy in the electoral college.
It also doesn't explain why the EC votes against the popular vote every now and again.
The article does kind of explain it. But if you win enough of the low population states, and some of the high population states, you can beat out somebody who wins most of the high population states. It's not a majority rules situation, it was all based on compromises 200 years ago. Small states didn't want large states to get all of the influence. Slave states wanted to be able to count slaves as population for vote counting and representation purposes, but not to let slaves vote, or have any rights. And now we have the system defined in the constitution that's (intentionally) hard to change. Though the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an interesting way around having to do a constitutional amendment to bring a majority vote to the US Presidential election.
What are you doing on Slashdot, Senator McCain?
Slashdot? I thought I was this was was the potty.
You could just look it up on Wikipedia It's a pretty interesting article. If your into that sort of thing.
So, not trying to win, but make your opponent lose, and force the tie-breaker where the rules are in your favor. Very interesting strategy, I don't know if it was good or bad that it failed. I don't remember the Whig platform.
Apple should never have allowed it to get this bad. I'm not advocating congressional intervention, or lawsuits. Apple needs to get this settled, and never should have allowed this bad idea to get this far. They still haven't said anything publicly about this either.
Apple needs to fix this. It should never have been allowed to get this bad.
Well, that's good to hear.
(as an aside: I shall no longer consider Brilthor a reliable source. Do you hear that Brilthor? Your credibility has been attacked by cduffy! cduffy has a 3 digit slashdot ID, yours is 6. I implicitly trust cduffy over Brilthor - unless new evidence is presented. Or a lower ID backs Brilthor. Then I'm going to be confused.)
Actually all you need to do is call the iphone, then when the call ends you are back at the home screen unrestricted. On a slightly unrelated note most security articles seem to point out the obvious flaws instead of the clever ones (clearly the iphone lock function is only a slight deterrent)
That's interesting.
typical behavior when you realize you've lost your phone: Call it, and see if you can hear the ring.
Now when that happens, the person who stole it can answer and say "thanks for unlocking your phone!"
For those who are curios
I think the minifigs themselves would be more accurately labeled as curios, not the people wondering about them
Dagnabbit! I blame firefox's lack of sophisticated spell checking. Check the word I mean, not the word I typed!
For those who are curios about the arcane technical jargon in this post.
You'd think they'd euthanize the squid first.
yea, but mccormick was the only one who taught using Ada, practically every other class was c++ (well, except for Wallingford). Of course I was there 10 years ago, I guess I have no idea what goes on there now.
Low Level Virtual Machine
Don't you have work todo on your own vaporware?
Super is a relative term, what was a super computer is now a computer that I hand-me-downed to my mom so she could check her email and browse the web.