They sold the rights to the trademark to Apple. There is no problem manufacturing the product in China, as long as it's not sold in mainland China under that name. Apple does have rights to use the trademark elsewhere. This is purely a money grab by Proview.
Yes, I did. Repeatedly. And it wasn't as ugly in person as in ads, but it was still an ugly device. You're welcome to your opinion about it, but I definitely don't share that opinion.
Not necessarily, this is the US, it's not a loser pays system. Had they lost the EFF Rule 11 claim, they could have been forced to pay legal fees, but we don't have automatic loser pays here.
I'm going to take what might be an unpopular position here and congratulate Astrolabe for admitting they made a mistake. That's something we see far too infrequently in such cases. Yes, the suit should never have been filed, but when presented with the evidence that they were wrong, they didn't argue and try another tactic, they owned up to it, admitted they were wrong, dismissed the suit, and apologized. About the only thing more they could have done is pay all the legal costs, and without knowing anything about their financial status, I won't presume that they could/should have offered.
Ah, but his proof was incorrect. Correctable, but incorrect. Of course, it took a notable team months to find the error, and months to correct it, but it doesn't change the fact that he was only "mostly correct". All that time and he still couldn't get it right.;)
I haven't seen anything that specified the length of the cable, but at C, 60ns is ~ 18m. @.6C (typical fiber optic) ~11m. If it's a lengthy cable, small percentage differences in the length and/or index of refraction can easy amount to 60ns.
The cable transmitted the signal 60ns faster than the time used in their compensation. I wouldn't call that defective.
Either the cable is shorter than they thought, or it's propagation factor is higher than specified, or they simply used the wrong number in their original calculations.
Way too early to blame anything on the cable manufacturer.
Get serious. The UN can't agree on anything stronger than a strongly worded letter. Putting the UN in charge of the Internet would virtually assure there are no rules except those imposed by your own country.
Well, start with the definition of stealing. No property was taken, and the documents were willingly sent by Heartland. You might make a case for fraud, but it's not theft.
As to the CA statute, "...for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person...", so you would have to prove that he did so for one of those purposes.
And as I said in my first post, "Whether a crime was committed requires more details than given."
Santorum couldn't recognize a phony study if you handed one to him and went over the methodology in detail. His understanding of science, and the scientific method makes most 5th graders look like Einstein. I'm pretty sure his definition of "phony study" means "a report that I don't understand, but the results disagree with my beliefs."
Heartland claimsEarlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.
In fact, he made no such confession. What he said is: At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy.
Then, he went to the effort of attempting to verify the authenticity and accuracy of the documents by pretending to be someone else and asking for information directly from Heartland: The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget.
So, he did pretend to be someone else, but he stole nothing. If the original documents were stolen (which is pure speculation), it was by someone other than Gleick. Impersonating someone else is certainly nothing to be taken lightly, but it's a well established technique used by reporter and investigators when using your real name may impede or alter your access to the information. Whether a crime was committed requires more details than given. But there is no evidence that he stole anything, and as such, he may have a slander or libel claim against Heartland for their statement. IANAL.
Splash screens were originally designed to let you know the program was launching, so you weren't sitting there wondering "is it opening or not". Now, some splash screens are unnecessarily intrusive, particularly those that require you to click (or press enter) before they disappear and allow you to use the software.
The real problem is lack of responsiveness. The author points to that in his proposed alternatives, but he's misplaced the blame. For interactive processes, response time is more important than speed. 0.1 seconds is essentially instantaneous for most tasks, that is, the user won't notice that little delay. Games are an exception to that. 0.25 seconds starts to become noticeable, but it it's only occasionally that long, user's will barely notice. 0.5 seconds or longeer is noticeable in almost all instances. Any process that takes over 0.25 seconds should display some form of busy indicator or a progress indicator.
No, did you miss the part where I said these would only be useful where they're running at idle most of the time? That's an idle speed, and yes, it's extremely low voltage, and presumably ultra low power. But 3MHz is fast enough to do much work these day, so it'll have to ramp up the speed and voltage to do any useful work.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly you're still not comprehending. That might be FRAUD, but no property was taken, it's NOT THEFT.
Did you know that you're incorrect? Capsicum is the genus of the plants, capsaicin is the chemical.
Forgot the usual IANAL
They sold the rights to the trademark to Apple. There is no problem manufacturing the product in China, as long as it's not sold in mainland China under that name. Apple does have rights to use the trademark elsewhere. This is purely a money grab by Proview.
Yes, I did. Repeatedly. And it wasn't as ugly in person as in ads, but it was still an ugly device. You're welcome to your opinion about it, but I definitely don't share that opinion.
Whatever meds you're taking seem to be working. Keep taking them.
Try opening an old MS Works file in anything other than MS Works.
Not necessarily, this is the US, it's not a loser pays system. Had they lost the EFF Rule 11 claim, they could have been forced to pay legal fees, but we don't have automatic loser pays here.
I'm going to take what might be an unpopular position here and congratulate Astrolabe for admitting they made a mistake. That's something we see far too infrequently in such cases. Yes, the suit should never have been filed, but when presented with the evidence that they were wrong, they didn't argue and try another tactic, they owned up to it, admitted they were wrong, dismissed the suit, and apologized. About the only thing more they could have done is pay all the legal costs, and without knowing anything about their financial status, I won't presume that they could/should have offered.
As always, thank you EFF. Great job.
Ah, but his proof was incorrect. Correctable, but incorrect. Of course, it took a notable team months to find the error, and months to correct it, but it doesn't change the fact that he was only "mostly correct". All that time and he still couldn't get it right. ;)
Pedantic, and it changes nothing about my point, but you caught me. :D
Would be funny, except:
1. It's a fiber optic cable, it's photons, not electrons.
2. Neither photons nor electrons travel near C in a cable, they travel around 0.6C-0.7C, so they don't have to exceed C to arrive 60ns early.
Nice try though, I did get a brief chuckle out of it.
...the Y chromosome is already rotten.
I haven't seen anything that specified the length of the cable, but at C, 60ns is ~ 18m. @.6C (typical fiber optic) ~11m. If it's a lengthy cable, small percentage differences in the length and/or index of refraction can easy amount to 60ns.
The cable transmitted the signal 60ns faster than the time used in their compensation. I wouldn't call that defective.
Either the cable is shorter than they thought, or it's propagation factor is higher than specified, or they simply used the wrong number in their original calculations.
Way too early to blame anything on the cable manufacturer.
Get serious. The UN can't agree on anything stronger than a strongly worded letter. Putting the UN in charge of the Internet would virtually assure there are no rules except those imposed by your own country.
No, they posted it a week early because they know it often takes several days for it to appear on slashdot.
Of course, slashdot readers will make sure that as many people as possible know about it.
According to Santorum's office, that was "an act of God".
Well, start with the definition of stealing. No property was taken, and the documents were willingly sent by Heartland. You might make a case for fraud, but it's not theft.
As to the CA statute, "...for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person...", so you would have to prove that he did so for one of those purposes.
And as I said in my first post, "Whether a crime was committed requires more details than given."
Next time, read before responding.
Santorum couldn't recognize a phony study if you handed one to him and went over the methodology in detail. His understanding of science, and the scientific method makes most 5th graders look like Einstein. I'm pretty sure his definition of "phony study" means "a report that I don't understand, but the results disagree with my beliefs."
Still doesn't make it theft. Deceptive, but not theft. Unethical? Illegal? Like I said in my first post, that requires more details than given.
Heartland claims Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.
In fact, he made no such confession. What he said is: At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy.
Then, he went to the effort of attempting to verify the authenticity and accuracy of the documents by pretending to be someone else and asking for information directly from Heartland: The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget.
So, he did pretend to be someone else, but he stole nothing. If the original documents were stolen (which is pure speculation), it was by someone other than Gleick. Impersonating someone else is certainly nothing to be taken lightly, but it's a well established technique used by reporter and investigators when using your real name may impede or alter your access to the information. Whether a crime was committed requires more details than given. But there is no evidence that he stole anything, and as such, he may have a slander or libel claim against Heartland for their statement. IANAL.
Splash screens were originally designed to let you know the program was launching, so you weren't sitting there wondering "is it opening or not". Now, some splash screens are unnecessarily intrusive, particularly those that require you to click (or press enter) before they disappear and allow you to use the software.
The real problem is lack of responsiveness. The author points to that in his proposed alternatives, but he's misplaced the blame. For interactive processes, response time is more important than speed. 0.1 seconds is essentially instantaneous for most tasks, that is, the user won't notice that little delay. Games are an exception to that. 0.25 seconds starts to become noticeable, but it it's only occasionally that long, user's will barely notice. 0.5 seconds or longeer is noticeable in almost all instances. Any process that takes over 0.25 seconds should display some form of busy indicator or a progress indicator.
No, did you miss the part where I said these would only be useful where they're running at idle most of the time? That's an idle speed, and yes, it's extremely low voltage, and presumably ultra low power. But 3MHz is fast enough to do much work these day, so it'll have to ramp up the speed and voltage to do any useful work.
Of course, I meant P= V^2/R.