The problem is most of these "inventions" are only small part of an actual invention and specified so vaguely in the patent that the documented "invention" or useful machine could not be recreated just using said documentation and has no function without being connected in just the right way to other "inventions". The whole point is to preserve, propagate and allow the use of inventions and devices while still allowing the "inventor" to make a reasonable income on said invention. Most of these patents are on the equivalent of bolts and screws for the electronics industry.
It really depends on how they implemented the emulation. There is more to emulating a processor than just re-implementing the instruction set. If they took the instruction set and re-implemented it from scratch, adding new implementations of caches, memory management etc and didn't copy the actual internal processes of the chip there shouldn't be a problem with patents however there may be issues with compatibility as there will likely be issues where the emulation differs from the hardware (for example on undocumented register side effects, memory timing etc). If they looked at the chip and how the various features, extensions, caches etc operate and copied that into a code version then they likely might have a problem. While AMD64 was an AMD creation (as the name implies) and while they were competing with Intel, there was still a level of patent cross-licensing between the two companies and both Intel and AMD likely have non-expired patents that are relevant.
Only because you went to the cheapest, crappiest, dodgiest repair person operating out of the back of his van you will never be able to find again. Go to a good established and internet reviewed repair shop that will offer a warranty on their work your repair experience will be much better.
Testing with this machine, a process that takes 15 minutes isn't necessary. There are simpler, faster, more practical ways to test a touchscreen... like turning on the phone and seeing if it responds to touch.
Or at least, you can't replace it without a full factory worth of equipment
Yes you can. Easily with a little practice and care. It only takes a screwdriver and a heat lamp. "unauthorised" repair shops do it many times daily. There are "unqualified" (according to Apple) people managing to replace them day in day out around the world. The only issue is as they are unable to source the screens direct from Apple they can have issues finding quality screens to use. The machine Apple is touting so much is only used for QA testing and isn't needed to actually replace a screen, just test that it is working correctly, which is should given the stores using it will have fitted a new genuine part from Apple...
No they wouldn't. They are only doing this now due to the number of States considering right to repair in a PR attempt to fend it off. Apple if left to themselves would have quite happily continued to take two weeks to replace a screen (sending it to HQ for fixing) or when they think they can get away with it, declaring your phone "unfixable" and exchanging your phone (with paying 50% of its value new) for a refurb unit that was previously "unfixable" until they fixed and repackaged it.
Yes its screen replacement rather than repair as such. The button/fingerprint sensor, with care, if not broken (and it rarely is) can be detached from the old screen and attached to the new, as can the touch digitiser if it is undamaged, reducing new components needed and cost. If Apple are replacing these otherwise working components every time it's wasteful, costing the consumer more than needed, and makes me sad.
Depends on which state you are in... Farming States, its the Tractors. States with high density urban areas such as NY its more the phones. Different cases for the same general problem.
Given that all they have done is given three authorised repair centres replacement screens (and stated it will do more if the pilot works) and the device they use in AppleHQ to test the screens after fitting (something that isn't really needed... new genuine screen, if touch works it should work!) so that those three authorised apple service centres can actually repair a phone as opposed to being required by Apple to send it back to AppleHQ. This is basicly Apple allowing their authorised stores to do something that (good) unauthorised stores manage to do day in, day out without the special "tool". The need for the tool is Apple saying they can't trust the authorised repair centre to fit the screens properly first time.
This is a meaningless gesture for true right to repair. For it to count for anything it would also need "unauthorsied" repair stores to be able to purchase screens, and if they really want, the test rig, from Apple.
You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
The problem is once you are inside the wall you constantly being brainwashed and despite being free to walk through the exit any time you have to give up all the apps you have paid for along with icloud for backups of your precious memories and your dependency on itunes to easily manage your music (yes you can use itunes with other devices but it is a lot more manual work) and even simple things like moving contacts and browser bookmarks etc are far from quick and painless.
Even more so when the person doesn't have your name but some nickname for you... for all you know it could be showing something along the lines of "snookums", "sexy ass" or "dad" or if for instance the number was harvested from the phone from an Ex "evil nasty {insert combinations of various 4 letter words here}"
A private individual having your contact details is one thing. A company harvesting and using your personal details for commercial gain without your consent or even an option to opt out, just because a private individual had them, is not allowed in a large number of countries. If nothing else they have no idea if any of those contacts are children and even the USA where everything goes if you are big and have the money to bribe the government have laws against gathering personal information of minors.
These videos mostly either deliberately mis-state or overstate the issues - try some fact checking for once. They are made by someone who makes money by stirring controversy to push up his video views and make money and "debunking" hyperloop is a massive cash cow for him. He started off with fairly reputable science analysis but over the years moved to more emotive/controversial topics as these made him money.
A lot of the arguments in the video are based on the "alpha document". The document itself points out it is about ideas and not detailed either in engineering or physics analysis - just a starting point for detail to be added later and ideas to be used or discarded with further analysis. It is not a fixed blueprint for the final design.
SpaceX/Hyperloop themselves say "low pressure" and not "vacuum" - the pressure in the tubes is expected to be around the same as a jet plane experiences which is easy to maintain compared to a hard vacuum. The 99.9% vacuum that is often stated did not offically come from Hyperloop but is a figure that was mentioned as a "possible/maybe" very early on by latched onto by the media after one person gave an off the cuff remark. Low pressure will be less force on the walls compared to what is stated in the videos. The crossbraces shown in images of the pipes are for transport/lifting support where there will be uneven forces (not the same as the even pressure forces once sealed) and once the pipes are joined and mounted are not needed. The mythbusters experiments showed that they had to do *significant damage* for the tanker to collapse and tankers have much thinner skins than the hyperloop track does. Sudden shock point pressure on a surface/material/tube is not the same as constant or slowly changing uniform pressure. Sealed expansion joints are a many times solved thing for low pressure systems and long pipelines even on the scale we are talking about for hyperloop. As are station "airlocks" and emergency air for passengers The crash/failure would not be as stated because 1) low pressure not vacuum and 2) vehicles will not be tight to the walls as in the youtube glass tube experiments. Cars being pushed then released on a surface lose speed due to friction once not being pushed - surprise! Physics working as expected. The competition was about an effective shape of the pod in low pressure in the tube and not about propulsion/drive/levitation/wheel friction for the final system. Also is it a surprise that a very short test track can't reach the speed in 10 seconds AND THEN STOP safely before hitting the end where the speed of a full scale system could over several minutes of acceleration over several dozen miles?.
He didn't access his own account. He set up a "fake" account for a 'fake' employee that didn't exist which could be done even using the HR link if he he had access to add records to that database. Or he could have set up additional access on some other employee (say a driver) who rarely used the wider computer systems and wouldn't notice the extra access.
But HR links like that don't really work in the real world anyway. It doesn't allow for most large corporate set-ups where mainframe needs to talk to linux box that needs to talk to an oracleDB that needs to be accessible by a java batch job that needs to write output to the windows domain server file system so a human can check it before uploading it to an SFTP gateway box for an external customer to collect.
You don't just have accounts that are pure user accounts. You need mechanisms and accounts to allow system to system communications and logins for moving data between automated systems and for a large company it would be easy for an admin with sufficient privileges to hide a back-door amongst all these inter-system communication accounts (or even just hijack one or two legitimate ones, having copied passwords and other keys).
They tend to hunt down the pirate radio broadcasters not because of copyright, rather becuase of the radio broadcast part, causing interference with legitimate broadcasters as well as (on poor setups) wider interference with TV, cellphone, wifi, emergency service comms etc. Even if a pirate radio station broadcast nothing but public domain and self produced works the are shut down. The copyright stuff is just a bonus to the prosecutors.
London taxi (black cab) drivers are different from private hire (usually "normal" cars with a meter fitted as well as slightly more exotic things like limo and minibus hire).
Black cabs have privileges that private hire don't with regards to road access, taxi ranks and other similar things and have the requirement of the Knowledge in addition to the checks required for private hire. Private hire cars (which normally need to be "pre-booked" by phone) or have a limited number of allowed pick up locations, have licences that require a less stringent check, focused more around basic suitability for driving with passengers, correct fare calculations, knowledge of a smaller area of London around where the taxi operates from, criminal checks etc.
What's more, most of the manufacturers (from phones to consoles to laptops) don't give a crap about your data and will likely replace your unit with a refurb rather than trying a direct repair. Your game saves? Gone. The photos of your kid? Gone. Your dissertation? Gone. Your accounts? Gone. Most independent repairers will care. Dead IPhone because you got caught in the rain? Your headphone jack broke? The charge connector broke? Apple (or any other manufacturer) don't care and will likely charge you 80%of the purchase price for a refurb with 3 months warranty and unrepaired issues that mean it will fail in 4. However there is a good chance a good independent will be able to either repair the damage directly or at least get you all your data back - even though Apple (or any other manufacturer) make this hard for them by not providing them with the parts and schematics needed. If they had the parts and information recovery would even be more likely.
The manufacturers claim safety issues - for example that if they made batteries available they might explode because someone fitted them wrong. The truth of the matter is anyone willing to do their own repair can already get hold of cheap, usually knockoff or QA failure batteries on the internet to do their repair anyway. If the manufacturers provided genuine batteries then there would be LESS chance of explosion.
Also they make out that the majority of self repairs in electronics would be attempted at home, where in reality most people would not try themselves but take the device to a local independent shop for repair where the staff (mostly - cant account for some idiots in any field, including current authorised repair shops) know what they are doing.
No seems Microsoft is asking OEMs to make cheap gimmicky underpowered laptop variants with power efficient processors that also have the processing power and expandability of a top end gaming system...
.. they already have "a version of Windows [x] that can only install apps from the [Microsoft] Store" or Microsoft blessed disks and its called the XBOX [insert any version here].
"Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" is not equivalent to "cheap". Just because its part of a standard it doesn't mean they don't deserve to get a reasonable payment for licensing the patents.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is most of these "inventions" are only small part of an actual invention and specified so vaguely in the patent that the documented "invention" or useful machine could not be recreated just using said documentation and has no function without being connected in just the right way to other "inventions". The whole point is to preserve, propagate and allow the use of inventions and devices while still allowing the "inventor" to make a reasonable income on said invention. Most of these patents are on the equivalent of bolts and screws for the electronics industry.
It really depends on how they implemented the emulation. There is more to emulating a processor than just re-implementing the instruction set. If they took the instruction set and re-implemented it from scratch, adding new implementations of caches, memory management etc and didn't copy the actual internal processes of the chip there shouldn't be a problem with patents however there may be issues with compatibility as there will likely be issues where the emulation differs from the hardware (for example on undocumented register side effects, memory timing etc). If they looked at the chip and how the various features, extensions, caches etc operate and copied that into a code version then they likely might have a problem. While AMD64 was an AMD creation (as the name implies) and while they were competing with Intel, there was still a level of patent cross-licensing between the two companies and both Intel and AMD likely have non-expired patents that are relevant.
Only because you went to the cheapest, crappiest, dodgiest repair person operating out of the back of his van you will never be able to find again. Go to a good established and internet reviewed repair shop that will offer a warranty on their work your repair experience will be much better.
Testing with this machine, a process that takes 15 minutes isn't necessary. There are simpler, faster, more practical ways to test a touchscreen... like turning on the phone and seeing if it responds to touch.
Or at least, you can't replace it without a full factory worth of equipment
Yes you can. Easily with a little practice and care. It only takes a screwdriver and a heat lamp. "unauthorised" repair shops do it many times daily. There are "unqualified" (according to Apple) people managing to replace them day in day out around the world. The only issue is as they are unable to source the screens direct from Apple they can have issues finding quality screens to use. The machine Apple is touting so much is only used for QA testing and isn't needed to actually replace a screen, just test that it is working correctly, which is should given the stores using it will have fitted a new genuine part from Apple...
No they wouldn't. They are only doing this now due to the number of States considering right to repair in a PR attempt to fend it off. Apple if left to themselves would have quite happily continued to take two weeks to replace a screen (sending it to HQ for fixing) or when they think they can get away with it, declaring your phone "unfixable" and exchanging your phone (with paying 50% of its value new) for a refurb unit that was previously "unfixable" until they fixed and repackaged it.
Yes its screen replacement rather than repair as such. The button/fingerprint sensor, with care, if not broken (and it rarely is) can be detached from the old screen and attached to the new, as can the touch digitiser if it is undamaged, reducing new components needed and cost. If Apple are replacing these otherwise working components every time it's wasteful, costing the consumer more than needed, and makes me sad.
Depends on which state you are in... Farming States, its the Tractors. States with high density urban areas such as NY its more the phones. Different cases for the same general problem.
Given that all they have done is given three authorised repair centres replacement screens (and stated it will do more if the pilot works) and the device they use in AppleHQ to test the screens after fitting (something that isn't really needed... new genuine screen, if touch works it should work!) so that those three authorised apple service centres can actually repair a phone as opposed to being required by Apple to send it back to AppleHQ. This is basicly Apple allowing their authorised stores to do something that (good) unauthorised stores manage to do day in, day out without the special "tool". The need for the tool is Apple saying they can't trust the authorised repair centre to fit the screens properly first time.
This is a meaningless gesture for true right to repair. For it to count for anything it would also need "unauthorsied" repair stores to be able to purchase screens, and if they really want, the test rig, from Apple.
You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
The problem is once you are inside the wall you constantly being brainwashed and despite being free to walk through the exit any time you have to give up all the apps you have paid for along with icloud for backups of your precious memories and your dependency on itunes to easily manage your music (yes you can use itunes with other devices but it is a lot more manual work) and even simple things like moving contacts and browser bookmarks etc are far from quick and painless.
Even more so when the person doesn't have your name but some nickname for you... for all you know it could be showing something along the lines of "snookums", "sexy ass" or "dad" or if for instance the number was harvested from the phone from an Ex "evil nasty {insert combinations of various 4 letter words here}"
A private individual having your contact details is one thing. A company harvesting and using your personal details for commercial gain without your consent or even an option to opt out, just because a private individual had them, is not allowed in a large number of countries. If nothing else they have no idea if any of those contacts are children and even the USA where everything goes if you are big and have the money to bribe the government have laws against gathering personal information of minors.
These videos mostly either deliberately mis-state or overstate the issues - try some fact checking for once. They are made by someone who makes money by stirring controversy to push up his video views and make money and "debunking" hyperloop is a massive cash cow for him. He started off with fairly reputable science analysis but over the years moved to more emotive/controversial topics as these made him money.
A lot of the arguments in the video are based on the "alpha document". The document itself points out it is about ideas and not detailed either in engineering or physics analysis - just a starting point for detail to be added later and ideas to be used or discarded with further analysis. It is not a fixed blueprint for the final design.
SpaceX/Hyperloop themselves say "low pressure" and not "vacuum" - the pressure in the tubes is expected to be around the same as a jet plane experiences which is easy to maintain compared to a hard vacuum. The 99.9% vacuum that is often stated did not offically come from Hyperloop but is a figure that was mentioned as a "possible/maybe" very early on by latched onto by the media after one person gave an off the cuff remark.
Low pressure will be less force on the walls compared to what is stated in the videos.
The crossbraces shown in images of the pipes are for transport/lifting support where there will be uneven forces (not the same as the even pressure forces once sealed) and once the pipes are joined and mounted are not needed.
The mythbusters experiments showed that they had to do *significant damage* for the tanker to collapse and tankers have much thinner skins than the hyperloop track does.
Sudden shock point pressure on a surface/material/tube is not the same as constant or slowly changing uniform pressure.
Sealed expansion joints are a many times solved thing for low pressure systems and long pipelines even on the scale we are talking about for hyperloop.
As are station "airlocks" and emergency air for passengers
The crash/failure would not be as stated because 1) low pressure not vacuum and 2) vehicles will not be tight to the walls as in the youtube glass tube experiments.
Cars being pushed then released on a surface lose speed due to friction once not being pushed - surprise! Physics working as expected. The competition was about an effective shape of the pod in low pressure in the tube and not about propulsion/drive/levitation/wheel friction for the final system. Also is it a surprise that a very short test track can't reach the speed in 10 seconds AND THEN STOP safely before hitting the end where the speed of a full scale system could over several minutes of acceleration over several dozen miles?.
Apple's next big thing is basically a white walled garden rehash of Google's old things? (Google Glass/Phone VR)
He didn't access his own account. He set up a "fake" account for a 'fake' employee that didn't exist which could be done even using the HR link if he he had access to add records to that database. Or he could have set up additional access on some other employee (say a driver) who rarely used the wider computer systems and wouldn't notice the extra access.
But HR links like that don't really work in the real world anyway. It doesn't allow for most large corporate set-ups where mainframe needs to talk to linux box that needs to talk to an oracleDB that needs to be accessible by a java batch job that needs to write output to the windows domain server file system so a human can check it before uploading it to an SFTP gateway box for an external customer to collect.
You don't just have accounts that are pure user accounts. You need mechanisms and accounts to allow system to system communications and logins for moving data between automated systems and for a large company it would be easy for an admin with sufficient privileges to hide a back-door amongst all these inter-system communication accounts (or even just hijack one or two legitimate ones, having copied passwords and other keys).
They tend to hunt down the pirate radio broadcasters not because of copyright, rather becuase of the radio broadcast part, causing interference with legitimate broadcasters as well as (on poor setups) wider interference with TV, cellphone, wifi, emergency service comms etc. Even if a pirate radio station broadcast nothing but public domain and self produced works the are shut down. The copyright stuff is just a bonus to the prosecutors.
not equivalent code - it may have been already interesting before the truth of story was checked...
interesting = story || interesting;
would work tho
no... you passed by spotting the deliberate error ;)
you fail.. the answer is
if (story) { interesting = true }
London taxi (black cab) drivers are different from private hire (usually "normal" cars with a meter fitted as well as slightly more exotic things like limo and minibus hire).
Black cabs have privileges that private hire don't with regards to road access, taxi ranks and other similar things and have the requirement of the Knowledge in addition to the checks required for private hire. Private hire cars (which normally need to be "pre-booked" by phone) or have a limited number of allowed pick up locations, have licences that require a less stringent check, focused more around basic suitability for driving with passengers, correct fare calculations, knowledge of a smaller area of London around where the taxi operates from, criminal checks etc.
What's more, most of the manufacturers (from phones to consoles to laptops) don't give a crap about your data and will likely replace your unit with a refurb rather than trying a direct repair. Your game saves? Gone. The photos of your kid? Gone. Your dissertation? Gone. Your accounts? Gone. Most independent repairers will care. Dead IPhone because you got caught in the rain? Your headphone jack broke? The charge connector broke? Apple (or any other manufacturer) don't care and will likely charge you 80%of the purchase price for a refurb with 3 months warranty and unrepaired issues that mean it will fail in 4. However there is a good chance a good independent will be able to either repair the damage directly or at least get you all your data back - even though Apple (or any other manufacturer) make this hard for them by not providing them with the parts and schematics needed. If they had the parts and information recovery would even be more likely.
The manufacturers claim safety issues - for example that if they made batteries available they might explode because someone fitted them wrong. The truth of the matter is anyone willing to do their own repair can already get hold of cheap, usually knockoff or QA failure batteries on the internet to do their repair anyway. If the manufacturers provided genuine batteries then there would be LESS chance of explosion.
Also they make out that the majority of self repairs in electronics would be attempted at home, where in reality most people would not try themselves but take the device to a local independent shop for repair where the staff (mostly - cant account for some idiots in any field, including current authorised repair shops) know what they are doing.
No seems Microsoft is asking OEMs to make cheap gimmicky underpowered laptop variants with power efficient processors that also have the processing power and expandability of a top end gaming system...
If any of them pull that off i'll be impressed
.. they already have "a version of Windows [x] that can only install apps from the [Microsoft] Store" or Microsoft blessed disks and its called the XBOX [insert any version here].
its not just about them.
"Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" is not equivalent to "cheap". Just because its part of a standard it doesn't mean they don't deserve to get a reasonable payment for licensing the patents.
Maybe he just wants to build a security wall but can't while he still has to allow border con.. i mean access to those plots