Well considering that Sadam killed over a million iraqis, I would say the casualty rate went down the 1/10th of what it was, and only 1/12th of that 1/10th was caused by the US military.
First collateral damage in a warfront is usually not considered murder. Also, 86% of the civilian casualties were from those same "innocent" civilians killing each other. Considering that only 14% were actually from Americans -- in a warfront -- I would say the American military did an outstanding job of limiting civilian casualties. Terrorist/Extremists planting pressure trigger bombs in the road, and along comes a civilian does not make the US Military responsible, sorry. Go troll and FUD elsewhere.
That's nice. I haven't been called Junior in a very long time. Let's see, 1989. I remember when being able to load your entire program into RAM was an absurd idea, no one had that much RAM memory. We had to swap portions out or load different phases of it at time. By 1989, I had already mastered most of the popular programming languages (6502, 8088, IBM 360 Assember, C, a multitude of basics, pascal, rpg, forth, pilot, a few others that didn't make it very far), twice earned two honors in state wide programming contests as being the best programmer in the state, started my own consulting business, did consulting work with Robert Bosch, US Robotics, and Motorola. I'd written widely distributed and widely used software for the Atari 800 line and the Atari ST line, created multiuser software for the Apple 8-bit series, had grown up through 75,110,300,1200,2400,9600,19200bps modems, had built and modified by own computer systems, written my own fully multitasking operating system for the IBM PC, created disk defraggers, terminal software, wrote the most popular BBS software in the state on the Atari 8-bit line, ran the largest BBS system in the midwest for any computer system that I am/was aware of, remember when the first disk drives first started to show up for home use -- the 90K drives, then 180K, then 360K drives, had 4 computers of my own, played with the very first "portable" computers (if you consider a 20 pound box "portable"), had been accepted to MIT without having to take a single additional test based on my prior demonstrated experience, had been repairing computers for extra cash (Atari ST/800/Amiga/PCs), had my work published in numerous magazines, had software I had written available in computer stores, etc etc. I saw Windows 1.0 come and go, play with the first multitasking (not preemptive yet) that didn't come from me, played with OS/2. Worked with some of the early telecomminication systems like tel-net (No, not the protocol), talked to and consulted with some of the very biggest names in cutting edge software at the time, like Michtron. I had submitted patches to numerous software houses... Worked with the very first harddrives (A 5MB ST-506), lived through the whole is it MFM or RLL encoding controllers debacle. Saw and praised the first IDE connectors and controllers finally standardize things. Hell by 1989 I already had computers on the internet.
After 1989 you can include everything you had listed, and add working on mini's like the AS/400, mainframes like the PDP series from DEC, and the System/360 series, built datacenters, designed and built probably a couple hundred PC's, setup and configured a half dozen networks ranging from Banyan Vines, Netware 286, Netware 386, Windows for Workgroups (YUCK! But it was awesome at the time), Windows NT, yadda yadda... Written FTP servers and clients, wrote remote control software (like PC Anywhere) for DOS. I saw Microsoft basically rip my off my multitasking OS code and use it as their new task scheduler in the Windows 3+ kernel. I could continue this list, but I think I've already made my point.
I didn't start this. It started with someone said they hated people "who didn't know the difference between memory and hard drive". I just pointed out that technically a hard drive is a type of memory. You can continue to try and argue the opposite in the face of fact, if you wish, but you are just making yourself look silly.
In short, I'm sure some people out there might be able to get away with calling me Junior, but it definitely isn't you. Now get off my lawn.
As for android being in the final stages, well, I guess that would be valid if you assume that the iPhone was developed on Mars and nothing was leaked. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Google could have had advance knowledge of the iPhone before it was released, either through tech demos, partners, ex-employees, etc. Not to mention that the a year is a very long time to fit features in, especially the finishing touches that quite often are what is considered to have been copied.
As for the rest of your post, nothing in there points to android being open as a factor. Free, however is, and even the later part of your post eludes to it through Microsoft forcing device manufacturers to pay for their use of android through it's infringing patents. If being "open" was such a driving force for manufacturers, the fact that they now have to pay $15 per handset for android shouldn't make a difference, but of course, it does. If WP7 becomes less expensive than android, but closed, and the features are on parity, then manufacturers will switch so they can make a larger profit. This is exactly what Microsoft, Apple, and the market analysts that are far more knowledgeable on this topic than you are I are saying. Barring anything that actually points to "open" being more than an insignificant driving force, I'll agree with them.
you do realize that Android development started in 2005 and was nearing final stages(*) when iPhone debuted in 2007, don't you?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say by comparing when development started on one platform to when another platform was released. Are you trying to say that Android development started before iPhone development started? Or that developing android took longer than iPhone development? Sorry, what was your point?
that more open everything, including the source, was the whole freaking point, the major selling point, the single reason it got adopted so widely?
Silly me, I thought it was Android being superior to the custom crap phone makers were trying to push out, and it was FREE were the reasons it got so adopted so widely. I don't think open had much of anything to do with it, and it definitely wasn't a major selling point to the masses. Sure, maybe.8% of those who bought it cared, but statistically insignificant.
And if you are too lazy to go look it up, here's the first two paragraphs:
In computing, memory refers to the physical devices used to store programs (sequences of instructions) or data (e.g. program state information) on a temporary or permanent basis for use in a computer or other digital electronic device. The term primary memory is used for the information in physical systems which are fast (i.e. RAM), as a distinction from secondary memory, which are physical devices for program and data storage which are slow to access but offer higher memory capacity. Primary memory stored on secondary memory is called "virtual memory".
The term "storage" is often (but not always) used in separate computers of traditional secondary memory such as tape, magnetic disks and optical discs (CD-ROM and DVD-ROM). The term "memory" is often (but not always) associated with addressable semiconductor memory, i.e. integrated circuits consisting of silicon-based transistors, used for example as primary memory but also other purposes in computers and other digital electronic devices.
You can complain all you want, but when someone goes on a rant about how someone doesn't know the difference between memory and hard drives, when he himself obviously doesn't is quite silly. Even sillier for you calling me out on pointing it out to him.
Feel free to PM me if you wish, I can get you more references that point very specifically that hard drives are a type of memory in well published books if you want to continue being ignorant.
You should/would/will be taught this in your first year in college, but here's a reference (Yes, I know, wikipedia and all that, but I'm too lazy to look up references from my computer books from 20 years ago): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_memory
And if you are too lazy to go look it up, here's the first two paragraphs:
In computing, memory refers to the physical devices used to store programs (sequences of instructions) or data (e.g. program state information) on a temporary or permanent basis for use in a computer or other digital electronic device. The term primary memory is used for the information in physical systems which are fast (i.e. RAM), as a distinction from secondary memory, which are physical devices for program and data storage which are slow to access but offer higher memory capacity. Primary memory stored on secondary memory is called "virtual memory".
The term "storage" is often (but not always) used in separate computers of traditional secondary memory such as tape, magnetic disks and optical discs (CD-ROM and DVD-ROM). The term "memory" is often (but not always) associated with addressable semiconductor memory, i.e. integrated circuits consisting of silicon-based transistors, used for example as primary memory but also other purposes in computers and other digital electronic devices.
I don't know how many times i've dealt with extremely smart people, people that hold very complex jobs, that simply don't understand the difference between memory and hard drive or CPU and GPU
Unfortunately, you obviously aren't one of them, because the hard drive IS memory. Perhaps you meant RAM and hard drive memories?
No, but if the states refuse to enact such a law, then they don't get any federal funding for the roads. This is the same way that the federal government got the speed limits reduced, and the legal drinking age raised.
The answer is simple. No, Java is not free. There can be no other interpretation. It is more free than some things, less than others, but it is not completely free. It is not free of all restrictions (the GPL does have some, even if you agree with them).
That is why we have two words that mean two different things. Threat and legal. You can threaten to do something legal. Threatening to do something to sway the outcome of a case (whether legal or not) is itself illegal.
I suppose that depends on what definition of broadcast you are using. Of course, you must pick one that would make Aereo liable for broadcasting, but one that doesn't also include how a TV antenna works, or how your TV retransmits the signal using light rays. I find that hard to do.
The reason for punishment would be contempt of court.
The reason for the court to have ruled to say Motorola may not file for an injunction would be one of the following: Bribery, Extortion, and/or Blackmail. There is another term that could be used, but it slips my mind at the moment that basically means standing in the way of or blocking justice.
But the same patent might be valid in one jurisdiction and invalid in another one. So essentially it is necessary to argue seperately in both jurisdictions.
Sorry, my bad, it's not the exact same patents, but it's part of the deal Motorola is trying to negotiate. Yes, but using threats (even a threat of filing in another court system) to basically blackmail/extort a company into dropping suit out of another one while it is in progress, is against US law.
Yeah, and by that time the injunction in Germany will be denied because Motorola did not take immediate action. Injunctions must be filed within a certain timeframe after detecting the violation. So the US judge is trying to overrule the German court which clearly is illegal.
There is no immediate need for an injunction. Windows has been available in Germany for 20+ years? Xbox has been available in Germany for a decade (give or take). An injunction at this point to stop the sales is not about saving an industry from being destroyed in bad faith. Motorola is free to continue to file a suit in Germany, just not use the threat of an injunction in another country as a weapon to force Microsoft to drop its case in the US.
BTW, according to German law, injunctions typically should be filed within 1 month of finding out, and may be filed within 2. They say of you've waited more than 2 months then the matter really isn't urgent, and your injunction request will likely be denied. They don't say about if you've waited 7 years, but I'd suspect that the German court will throw out the request of their own accord anyhow, but it was foolish for Motorola to try this route and expect the US judge to just let it happen with no repercussions.
They will enforce it in the US by seizing Motorola's assets among other things if they continue to ask for an injunction in Germany before the US case is settled. They are free to pursue a lawsuit in Germany if they want, however, just not an injunction -- temporarily.
Changes: 4) Motorola doesn't like the way that the court case is going in the US, so they file for an INJUNCTION (not just filing suit) in Germany barring Microsoft to sell Windows, XBoxes, and other stuff in Germany in order to try and force Microsoft to drop the case from US courts and come to a settlement quickly.
5) The US judge sees that Motorola action is basically extorting Microsoft into dropping their case. This is the same as basically threatening a plaintiff's life if they don't drop a case.
6) The US judge tells Motorola they may not file for an injunction in Germany until the US case is settled. They are still free to file suit, or they can wait for the US case to be settled and then file for an injunction if they still want.
Just to be clear, Motorola CAN still file for an injunction in germany if they so choose, but the US judge will view this as a threat, and will slap Motorola with contempt of court, and then they can do any or all of the following: fine them into oblivion, seize all of Motorola's assets, barring them from doing any business in the United States, imprison Motorola's management, revoke their business license, etc etc. You NEVER want to piss off a judge. Not from any jurisdiction.
So a German court could give Motorola the right to enforce the injunction, but said right should Motorola win will be inhibited by a US court. How the hell is this not interfering with the German decision ?
First, courts don't give companies the right to enforce an injunction, they issue injunctions. The German court is free to do whatever it wants to do, however, if Motorola does file for an injunction (request an injunction) prior to the US case being completed, they will likely fine Motorola a silly amount of money. A US judge can't demand a German court does anything. However a US judge can demand that Motorola then pay 10 times the amount the Microsoft loses per day from the injunction for contempt of court, and/or seize all Motorola's assets, and/or jail Motorola's management until such time that the case here is decided.
Slashdot Mirror
Well considering that Sadam killed over a million iraqis, I would say the casualty rate went down the 1/10th of what it was, and only 1/12th of that 1/10th was caused by the US military.
I rest my case.
First collateral damage in a warfront is usually not considered murder. Also, 86% of the civilian casualties were from those same "innocent" civilians killing each other. Considering that only 14% were actually from Americans -- in a warfront -- I would say the American military did an outstanding job of limiting civilian casualties. Terrorist/Extremists planting pressure trigger bombs in the road, and along comes a civilian does not make the US Military responsible, sorry. Go troll and FUD elsewhere.
That is quite odd you say that since Microsoft's GUID does follow the UUID standard.
That's nice. I haven't been called Junior in a very long time. Let's see, 1989. I remember when being able to load your entire program into RAM was an absurd idea, no one had that much RAM memory. We had to swap portions out or load different phases of it at time. By 1989, I had already mastered most of the popular programming languages (6502, 8088, IBM 360 Assember, C, a multitude of basics, pascal, rpg, forth, pilot, a few others that didn't make it very far), twice earned two honors in state wide programming contests as being the best programmer in the state, started my own consulting business, did consulting work with Robert Bosch, US Robotics, and Motorola. I'd written widely distributed and widely used software for the Atari 800 line and the Atari ST line, created multiuser software for the Apple 8-bit series, had grown up through 75,110,300,1200,2400,9600,19200bps modems, had built and modified by own computer systems, written my own fully multitasking operating system for the IBM PC, created disk defraggers, terminal software, wrote the most popular BBS software in the state on the Atari 8-bit line, ran the largest BBS system in the midwest for any computer system that I am/was aware of, remember when the first disk drives first started to show up for home use -- the 90K drives, then 180K, then 360K drives, had 4 computers of my own, played with the very first "portable" computers (if you consider a 20 pound box "portable"), had been accepted to MIT without having to take a single additional test based on my prior demonstrated experience, had been repairing computers for extra cash (Atari ST/800/Amiga/PCs), had my work published in numerous magazines, had software I had written available in computer stores, etc etc. I saw Windows 1.0 come and go, play with the first multitasking (not preemptive yet) that didn't come from me, played with OS/2. Worked with some of the early telecomminication systems like tel-net (No, not the protocol), talked to and consulted with some of the very biggest names in cutting edge software at the time, like Michtron. I had submitted patches to numerous software houses... Worked with the very first harddrives (A 5MB ST-506), lived through the whole is it MFM or RLL encoding controllers debacle. Saw and praised the first IDE connectors and controllers finally standardize things. Hell by 1989 I already had computers on the internet.
After 1989 you can include everything you had listed, and add working on mini's like the AS/400, mainframes like the PDP series from DEC, and the System/360 series, built datacenters, designed and built probably a couple hundred PC's, setup and configured a half dozen networks ranging from Banyan Vines, Netware 286, Netware 386, Windows for Workgroups (YUCK! But it was awesome at the time), Windows NT, yadda yadda... Written FTP servers and clients, wrote remote control software (like PC Anywhere) for DOS. I saw Microsoft basically rip my off my multitasking OS code and use it as their new task scheduler in the Windows 3+ kernel. I could continue this list, but I think I've already made my point.
I didn't start this. It started with someone said they hated people "who didn't know the difference between memory and hard drive". I just pointed out that technically a hard drive is a type of memory. You can continue to try and argue the opposite in the face of fact, if you wish, but you are just making yourself look silly.
In short, I'm sure some people out there might be able to get away with calling me Junior, but it definitely isn't you. Now get off my lawn.
No, but now with this, you can CLEARLY see the glass is half FULL.
As for android being in the final stages, well, I guess that would be valid if you assume that the iPhone was developed on Mars and nothing was leaked. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Google could have had advance knowledge of the iPhone before it was released, either through tech demos, partners, ex-employees, etc. Not to mention that the a year is a very long time to fit features in, especially the finishing touches that quite often are what is considered to have been copied.
As for the rest of your post, nothing in there points to android being open as a factor. Free, however is, and even the later part of your post eludes to it through Microsoft forcing device manufacturers to pay for their use of android through it's infringing patents. If being "open" was such a driving force for manufacturers, the fact that they now have to pay $15 per handset for android shouldn't make a difference, but of course, it does. If WP7 becomes less expensive than android, but closed, and the features are on parity, then manufacturers will switch so they can make a larger profit. This is exactly what Microsoft, Apple, and the market analysts that are far more knowledgeable on this topic than you are I are saying. Barring anything that actually points to "open" being more than an insignificant driving force, I'll agree with them.
you do realize that Android development started in 2005 and was nearing final stages(*) when iPhone debuted in 2007, don't you?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say by comparing when development started on one platform to when another platform was released. Are you trying to say that Android development started before iPhone development started? Or that developing android took longer than iPhone development? Sorry, what was your point?
that more open everything, including the source, was the whole freaking point, the major selling point, the single reason it got adopted so widely?
Silly me, I thought it was Android being superior to the custom crap phone makers were trying to push out, and it was FREE were the reasons it got so adopted so widely. I don't think open had much of anything to do with it, and it definitely wasn't a major selling point to the masses. Sure, maybe .8% of those who bought it cared, but statistically insignificant.
Feel free to quote me as saying "RAM and hard drive memories" if you wish, as I mentioned two types of memory.
Let's assume I know what I am talking about, but since you don't, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_memory [wikipedia.org]
And if you are too lazy to go look it up, here's the first two paragraphs:
In computing, memory refers to the physical devices used to store programs (sequences of instructions) or data (e.g. program state information) on a temporary or permanent basis for use in a computer or other digital electronic device. The term primary memory is used for the information in physical systems which are fast (i.e. RAM), as a distinction from secondary memory, which are physical devices for program and data storage which are slow to access but offer higher memory capacity. Primary memory stored on secondary memory is called "virtual memory".
The term "storage" is often (but not always) used in separate computers of traditional secondary memory such as tape, magnetic disks and optical discs (CD-ROM and DVD-ROM). The term "memory" is often (but not always) associated with addressable semiconductor memory, i.e. integrated circuits consisting of silicon-based transistors, used for example as primary memory but also other purposes in computers and other digital electronic devices.
You can complain all you want, but when someone goes on a rant about how someone doesn't know the difference between memory and hard drives, when he himself obviously doesn't is quite silly. Even sillier for you calling me out on pointing it out to him.
Feel free to PM me if you wish, I can get you more references that point very specifically that hard drives are a type of memory in well published books if you want to continue being ignorant.
We all really enjoyed that in high school, didn't we?
Yes.
Every music video blocked in Germany is a click saved, and more money for GEMA (according to GEMA's logic), so let it happen!
You should/would/will be taught this in your first year in college, but here's a reference (Yes, I know, wikipedia and all that, but I'm too lazy to look up references from my computer books from 20 years ago): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_memory
And if you are too lazy to go look it up, here's the first two paragraphs:
In computing, memory refers to the physical devices used to store programs (sequences of instructions) or data (e.g. program state information) on a temporary or permanent basis for use in a computer or other digital electronic device. The term primary memory is used for the information in physical systems which are fast (i.e. RAM), as a distinction from secondary memory, which are physical devices for program and data storage which are slow to access but offer higher memory capacity. Primary memory stored on secondary memory is called "virtual memory".
The term "storage" is often (but not always) used in separate computers of traditional secondary memory such as tape, magnetic disks and optical discs (CD-ROM and DVD-ROM). The term "memory" is often (but not always) associated with addressable semiconductor memory, i.e. integrated circuits consisting of silicon-based transistors, used for example as primary memory but also other purposes in computers and other digital electronic devices.
No. Hard drives are secondary memory. But you are correct, this is basic computing 101; You need to go back to class.
I don't know how many times i've dealt with extremely smart people, people that hold very complex jobs, that simply don't understand the difference between memory and hard drive or CPU and GPU
Unfortunately, you obviously aren't one of them, because the hard drive IS memory. Perhaps you meant RAM and hard drive memories?
No, but if the states refuse to enact such a law, then they don't get any federal funding for the roads. This is the same way that the federal government got the speed limits reduced, and the legal drinking age raised.
The answer is simple. No, Java is not free. There can be no other interpretation. It is more free than some things, less than others, but it is not completely free. It is not free of all restrictions (the GPL does have some, even if you agree with them).
That is why we have two words that mean two different things. Threat and legal. You can threaten to do something legal. Threatening to do something to sway the outcome of a case (whether legal or not) is itself illegal.
I suppose that depends on what definition of broadcast you are using. Of course, you must pick one that would make Aereo liable for broadcasting, but one that doesn't also include how a TV antenna works, or how your TV retransmits the signal using light rays. I find that hard to do.
Well you are obviously not a lawyer, so let's just leave it at that.
How can doing something legal be a threat?
You seriously have to ask this question?
So why should that wait?
Why after 7+ years is it all of a sudden an urgent matter that needs to be resolved immediately?
The reason for punishment would be contempt of court.
The reason for the court to have ruled to say Motorola may not file for an injunction would be one of the following: Bribery, Extortion, and/or Blackmail. There is another term that could be used, but it slips my mind at the moment that basically means standing in the way of or blocking justice.
But the same patent might be valid in one jurisdiction and invalid in another one. So essentially it is necessary to argue seperately in both jurisdictions.
Sorry, my bad, it's not the exact same patents, but it's part of the deal Motorola is trying to negotiate. Yes, but using threats (even a threat of filing in another court system) to basically blackmail/extort a company into dropping suit out of another one while it is in progress, is against US law.
Yeah, and by that time the injunction in Germany will be denied because Motorola did not take immediate action. Injunctions must be filed within a certain timeframe after detecting the violation. So the US judge is trying to overrule the German court which clearly is illegal.
There is no immediate need for an injunction. Windows has been available in Germany for 20+ years? Xbox has been available in Germany for a decade (give or take). An injunction at this point to stop the sales is not about saving an industry from being destroyed in bad faith. Motorola is free to continue to file a suit in Germany, just not use the threat of an injunction in another country as a weapon to force Microsoft to drop its case in the US.
BTW, according to German law, injunctions typically should be filed within 1 month of finding out, and may be filed within 2. They say of you've waited more than 2 months then the matter really isn't urgent, and your injunction request will likely be denied. They don't say about if you've waited 7 years, but I'd suspect that the German court will throw out the request of their own accord anyhow, but it was foolish for Motorola to try this route and expect the US judge to just let it happen with no repercussions.
They don't.
They will enforce it in the US by seizing Motorola's assets among other things if they continue to ask for an injunction in Germany before the US case is settled. They are free to pursue a lawsuit in Germany if they want, however, just not an injunction -- temporarily.
Not exactly.
Changes:
4) Motorola doesn't like the way that the court case is going in the US, so they file for an INJUNCTION (not just filing suit) in Germany barring Microsoft to sell Windows, XBoxes, and other stuff in Germany in order to try and force Microsoft to drop the case from US courts and come to a settlement quickly.
5) The US judge sees that Motorola action is basically extorting Microsoft into dropping their case. This is the same as basically threatening a plaintiff's life if they don't drop a case.
6) The US judge tells Motorola they may not file for an injunction in Germany until the US case is settled. They are still free to file suit, or they can wait for the US case to be settled and then file for an injunction if they still want.
Just to be clear, Motorola CAN still file for an injunction in germany if they so choose, but the US judge will view this as a threat, and will slap Motorola with contempt of court, and then they can do any or all of the following: fine them into oblivion, seize all of Motorola's assets, barring them from doing any business in the United States, imprison Motorola's management, revoke their business license, etc etc. You NEVER want to piss off a judge. Not from any jurisdiction.
Google owns Motorola Mobility.
So a German court could give Motorola the right to enforce the injunction, but said right should Motorola win will be inhibited by a US court. How the hell is this not interfering with the German decision ?
First, courts don't give companies the right to enforce an injunction, they issue injunctions. The German court is free to do whatever it wants to do, however, if Motorola does file for an injunction (request an injunction) prior to the US case being completed, they will likely fine Motorola a silly amount of money. A US judge can't demand a German court does anything. However a US judge can demand that Motorola then pay 10 times the amount the Microsoft loses per day from the injunction for contempt of court, and/or seize all Motorola's assets, and/or jail Motorola's management until such time that the case here is decided.