I do believe that scientists who claim that "the theory of evolution is the hypothesis best supported by the evidence" are heavily influenced by their belief systems. They are atheists. According to their belief system, there is no creator, so the world must be of natural origin.
Science first, then atheism. Religion has the advantage that, in general, children are raised to believe in it based on dogma. Rational thinking and the scientific method dispels mysticism. The evidence points to evolution not because scientists are atheist, but because scientists looked at the evidence.
Anything can be funny on occasion, given the right context. However, as a general rule "fixed that for you" is a dick expression embraced by a dick community.
I think calling people "Slashdot's dick community" is rude and in doing so, you have undermined your own argument about rude behavior.
I disagree.
I find the "fixed that for you" to be a humorous and desirable part of/. discussion and feel it would be a loss if no one ever used that format to respond to posts.
There's nothing humorous about putting words into somebody's mouth and condescendingly telling them "fixed that for you".
I do not find calling people "dick" to be a humorous or desirable part of/. discussion.
It wasn't intended to be humorous.
I most often sense malice and insult when "dick" is used.
Yes, that was the intent. When somebody engaged in dick behavior then pointing out such behavior is dickish is necessarily going to be disagreeable to the person receiving the message.
Any time it looked like I might be getting close to affording a down payment on a home, my rent would go up. Just enough, it would seem, to keep me from meeting my goal within the next year.
Owning a home can be more expensive than renting. It depends on when you buy and what you buy. If you bought at the top of the last bubble, you got walloped.
Rents respond to the market like anything else. When the market is tight, rents go up. When the market is down, there often will be no increase and you can even ask for a reduction in rent if you feel you can find an equivalent place for cheaper. Some landlords like to increase rents yearly on the theory that the tenants don't want to move, so it is essentially an inertia tax.
This interview is after the heat he took over his earlier remarks. So, much like you did a lot of tap dancing to cover up a blatant error, I can't accept what he says after the fact to dismiss his earlier comments. That said, I concede that the damages are close to the Samsung estimate, so any extra "punishment" they decided to dish out wasn't outlandish.
I notice that you failed to similarly emphasize the point that they didn't want the damages to be unreasonable. The purpose of punitive damages (as described on the relevant wikipedia page) is precisely to be unreasonable.
You mean this page? I don't see the word unreasonable. I see the first sentence says, "damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit", which is wholly consistent with "message we sent" and "not just a slap on the wrist".
I fail to see, non-lawyer speech by non-lawyer jurists aside, how that can be considered punitive.
Their job was to dispassionately calculate the damages. It's obvious that they went beyond that in their thinking, despite your attempts to redefine words.
My "Failure to eat dinner = no desert" policy is not a punishment from my perspective but a failure to earn a reward.
A better analogy would be her stealing $2 from her mother's purse. Returning the $2 would hardly be a punishment.
That being said, I'm not convinced that the 1 billion is actually intended by the Jury to be punitive.
"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
That's not intending punishment and just unemotionally calculating the damages reward? These guys ignored the instructions, and your post was blatantly wrong.
"Twitter has now moved its entire search stack from Ruby-on-Rails to Java.
That's a big shift. Twitter moved its back end message queue from Ruby to Scala, a Java platform in the 2008-2009 time frame. The move was attributed to issues with reliability on the back-end.
This latest move makes the shift pretty much complete. At Twitter, Ruby is out of the picture."
I think it is more the lack of skills and that you will probably need some time with your nose in a manual to set up the rails environment to run a node.
Ah yes, just throw more nodes at your unreliable and resource-hungry server code.
$2.5B (the original amount of the suit) seems like a lot of money, enough to qualify someone as "sue happy". [..] Apple is pulling down tens of billions of dollars per quarter.
That's in revenue. Their gross profit for the last quarter was $15 billion. $2.5 billion on top of that is pure gravy without any of the heavy operating expenses that come with manufacturing, distribution, and retail. And that's only one lawsuit.
that design simply did not exist outside of a few devices (e.g. the LG Prada)
What do you mean except the LG Prada? Prior art is prior art. For a long time I thought that Apple was really unique with their iPhone, but the LG Prada destroys that argument. It looks like Apple was to own a market it popularized but did not invent.
But fifth, bounce-back scrolling and inertial scrolling really were actually innovative and useful â" so useful as to seem obvious in retrospect.
Maybe they are obvious. Either that or Apple copied from DiamondTouch. I don't see how, at least for bounce-back scrolling, the jury upheld the patent infringement. And "inertial scrolling", the basic idea has been around in other forms before touch UI became popular.
Even if one doesn't agree with software patents (and frankly, I have a hard time with them), one should at least be able to agree that IF software is to be patentable, then this is the kind of thing that should be patentable.
So now instead of "on the Internet" and "social" patents, we've got a bunch of stupid "on a touch UI" patents. No thanks.
Yes, the jury did decide to punish Samsung, but only becuase they believed that Samsung wilfully violated Apples IP, but that was their job to decide.
Your reply post:
Where did you read that they are specifically told NOT to determine damages.
Funny how you changed from "punish" in your original post to "damages" in your reply. The judges jury instructions:
"A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer." [bold added]
One of the reasons joining NATO right now is a bit sketchy is that USA has already made a habit of calling anything it wants an act of war(thus requiring others to join their cause in "defense" of USA).
So you don't think flying planes into buildings and bringing down the Twin Towers in New York City was an act of war? That's what led NATO into Afghanistan. NATO was not used in the Iraq invasion except for the NATO Training Mission-Iraq, which was a handful of advisors.
Science is about explaining things, not cataloging facts. If the guy thinks that the facts are the important bit, he's lost his way somewhere.
Here's the full quote in context: "Teaching and writing only about what is known risks turning science into a mere catalog of established facts, suggesting that "knowing" science is a matter of memorizing: this is how cells metabolize carbohydrates, this is how natural selection works, this is how the information encoded in DNA is translated into proteins."
The "facts" in this case are the processes, which does indeed explain things.
His main point was to teach mystery of the unknown along with the known. That and he's selling a book: 'his most recent book is "Homo Mysterious: Evolutionary Puzzles of Human Nature." '
Unreal. He at least took the time to actually look at the data. What did you do? You gave us "lazy assumptions" (that's being generous) like this: "Condemn Intel for insinuating their under-baked IP into all the pipes."
If there is a possiblity of conflict of interests (and with that, a bias towards the case), how could this person be chosen as juror to begin with?
Good question, and if this article is accurate, Samsung really dropped the ball on not getting him excluded:
"Velvin Hogan, foreman of the nine-member panel, told the court during jury selection last month that he spent seven years working with lawyers to obtain his own patent, one covering "video compression software," a hobby of his."
Perhaps it contains information that shows what we have been expecting all along, some of our senators are corrupt, they want to create laws to spy on everyone so that they can find people who know about them, and the same with corporations.
I'm having trouble following your logic. Senators pass laws, they don't execute them. You're living in some fantasy world.
It depends on exactly what was done and by who. You offer no specifics.
This is an obvious case of obstruction of justice, but also would have involved making false statements in legal reports.
What false statements were made and in which reports?
It is not legal for the military to cover up civilian casualties they've caused. Not ever.
Again, cite a law. Civilian casualties in a war are not a crime, per se, and you aren't even specific on what was "covered up" and in what manner. And if you want to talk about "covering up", read the criticism of the editorializing that Assange did on his "Collateral Murder" presentation, regarding edits made to the video and missing context.
Slashdot Mirror
On the PC, you have practically unlimited swap and tons of main RAM, so it's not an issue.
If you're relying on swap on a PC, you're in trouble. Having tons of main RAM means you don't go to swap space.
I do believe that scientists who claim that "the theory of evolution is the hypothesis best supported by the evidence" are heavily influenced by their belief systems. They are atheists. According to their belief system, there is no creator, so the world must be of natural origin.
Science first, then atheism. Religion has the advantage that, in general, children are raised to believe in it based on dogma. Rational thinking and the scientific method dispels mysticism. The evidence points to evolution not because scientists are atheist, but because scientists looked at the evidence.
Anything can be funny on occasion, given the right context. However, as a general rule "fixed that for you" is a dick expression embraced by a dick community.
I think calling people "Slashdot's dick community" is rude and in doing so, you have undermined your own argument about rude behavior.
I disagree.
I find the "fixed that for you" to be a humorous and desirable part of /. discussion and feel it would be a loss if no one ever used that format to respond to posts.
There's nothing humorous about putting words into somebody's mouth and condescendingly telling them "fixed that for you".
I do not find calling people "dick" to be a humorous or desirable part of /. discussion.
It wasn't intended to be humorous.
I most often sense malice and insult when "dick" is used.
Yes, that was the intent. When somebody engaged in dick behavior then pointing out such behavior is dickish is necessarily going to be disagreeable to the person receiving the message.
It's not hypocritical to call dick behavior what it is. Blunt, maybe, but not hypocritical.
"Fixed that for you" is often considered to be humorous on Slashdot.
It's a dick expression that has become popular due to Slashdot's dick community.
The thing is, the legality of Apple's patents wasn't on trial here.
Yes they were, and that is why prior art was part of the trial and jury instructions.
Any time it looked like I might be getting close to affording a down payment on a home, my rent would go up. Just enough, it would seem, to keep me from meeting my goal within the next year.
Owning a home can be more expensive than renting. It depends on when you buy and what you buy. If you bought at the top of the last bubble, you got walloped.
Rents respond to the market like anything else. When the market is tight, rents go up. When the market is down, there often will be no increase and you can even ask for a reduction in rent if you feel you can find an equivalent place for cheaper. Some landlords like to increase rents yearly on the theory that the tenants don't want to move, so it is essentially an inertia tax.
This interview is after the heat he took over his earlier remarks. So, much like you did a lot of tap dancing to cover up a blatant error, I can't accept what he says after the fact to dismiss his earlier comments. That said, I concede that the damages are close to the Samsung estimate, so any extra "punishment" they decided to dish out wasn't outlandish.
I notice that you failed to similarly emphasize the point that they didn't want the damages to be unreasonable. The purpose of punitive damages (as described on the relevant wikipedia page) is precisely to be unreasonable.
You mean this page? I don't see the word unreasonable. I see the first sentence says, "damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit", which is wholly consistent with "message we sent" and "not just a slap on the wrist".
I fail to see, non-lawyer speech by non-lawyer jurists aside, how that can be considered punitive.
Their job was to dispassionately calculate the damages. It's obvious that they went beyond that in their thinking, despite your attempts to redefine words.
My "Failure to eat dinner = no desert" policy is not a punishment from my perspective but a failure to earn a reward.
A better analogy would be her stealing $2 from her mother's purse. Returning the $2 would hardly be a punishment.
That being said, I'm not convinced that the 1 billion is actually intended by the Jury to be punitive.
"We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."
That's not intending punishment and just unemotionally calculating the damages reward? These guys ignored the instructions, and your post was blatantly wrong.
I took time to dig into the data, before I posted that rant.
Did you?
That's funny, because your post shows no evidence of it, while the post you replied to showed some example data. Who was being lazy again?
I also took time to dig into Intel's, Microsoft's, and now Apple's non-efforts at security.
Again, you show no evidence of it.
And I refrain from being more specific about that for similar reasons
Yeah, whatever. Security flaws are known in any system. A general swipe at a system is meaningless and lazy.
Now, who's unreal here?
You for being an arrogant hypocrite.
Bearing in mind the sites that use Ruby I don't think so.
Since Twitter is the Ruby poster-child, how about Once Again, Twitter Drops Ruby for Java:
"Twitter has now moved its entire search stack from Ruby-on-Rails to Java.
That's a big shift. Twitter moved its back end message queue from Ruby to Scala, a Java platform in the 2008-2009 time frame. The move was attributed to issues with reliability on the back-end.
This latest move makes the shift pretty much complete. At Twitter, Ruby is out of the picture."
I think it is more the lack of skills and that you will probably need some time with your nose in a manual to set up the rails environment to run a node.
Ah yes, just throw more nodes at your unreliable and resource-hungry server code.
$2.5B (the original amount of the suit) seems like a lot of money, enough to qualify someone as "sue happy". [..] Apple is pulling down tens of billions of dollars per quarter.
That's in revenue. Their gross profit for the last quarter was $15 billion. $2.5 billion on top of that is pure gravy without any of the heavy operating expenses that come with manufacturing, distribution, and retail. And that's only one lawsuit.
that design simply did not exist outside of a few devices (e.g. the LG Prada)
What do you mean except the LG Prada? Prior art is prior art. For a long time I thought that Apple was really unique with their iPhone, but the LG Prada destroys that argument. It looks like Apple was to own a market it popularized but did not invent.
But fifth, bounce-back scrolling and inertial scrolling really were actually innovative and useful â" so useful as to seem obvious in retrospect.
Maybe they are obvious. Either that or Apple copied from DiamondTouch. I don't see how, at least for bounce-back scrolling, the jury upheld the patent infringement. And "inertial scrolling", the basic idea has been around in other forms before touch UI became popular.
Even if one doesn't agree with software patents (and frankly, I have a hard time with them), one should at least be able to agree that IF software is to be patentable, then this is the kind of thing that should be patentable.
So now instead of "on the Internet" and "social" patents, we've got a bunch of stupid "on a touch UI" patents. No thanks.
Your original post:
Yes, the jury did decide to punish Samsung, but only becuase they believed that Samsung wilfully violated Apples IP, but that was their job to decide.
Your reply post:
Where did you read that they are specifically told NOT to determine damages.
Funny how you changed from "punish" in your original post to "damages" in your reply. The judges jury instructions:
"A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer." [bold added]
One of the reasons joining NATO right now is a bit sketchy is that USA has already made a habit of calling anything it wants an act of war(thus requiring others to join their cause in "defense" of USA).
So you don't think flying planes into buildings and bringing down the Twin Towers in New York City was an act of war? That's what led NATO into Afghanistan. NATO was not used in the Iraq invasion except for the NATO Training Mission-Iraq, which was a handful of advisors.
"We're #1! We're #1!"
tl;dr + monster paragraphs = Holy wall of text, Batman!
Science is about explaining things, not cataloging facts. If the guy thinks that the facts are the important bit, he's lost his way somewhere.
Here's the full quote in context: "Teaching and writing only about what is known risks turning science into a mere catalog of established facts, suggesting that "knowing" science is a matter of memorizing: this is how cells metabolize carbohydrates, this is how natural selection works, this is how the information encoded in DNA is translated into proteins."
The "facts" in this case are the processes, which does indeed explain things.
His main point was to teach mystery of the unknown along with the known. That and he's selling a book: 'his most recent book is "Homo Mysterious: Evolutionary Puzzles of Human Nature." '
Some lazy assumptions in your analysis
Unreal. He at least took the time to actually look at the data. What did you do? You gave us "lazy assumptions" (that's being generous) like this: "Condemn Intel for insinuating their under-baked IP into all the pipes."
If there is a possiblity of conflict of interests (and with that, a bias towards the case), how could this person be chosen as juror to begin with?
Good question, and if this article is accurate, Samsung really dropped the ball on not getting him excluded:
"Velvin Hogan, foreman of the nine-member panel, told the court during jury selection last month that he spent seven years working with lawyers to obtain his own patent, one covering "video compression software," a hobby of his."
How could they not see the bias he would have?
Perhaps it contains information that shows what we have been expecting all along, some of our senators are corrupt, they want to create laws to spy on everyone so that they can find people who know about them, and the same with corporations.
I'm having trouble following your logic. Senators pass laws, they don't execute them. You're living in some fantasy world.
Do you honestly believe this is legal behavior?
It depends on exactly what was done and by who. You offer no specifics.
This is an obvious case of obstruction of justice, but also would have involved making false statements in legal reports.
What false statements were made and in which reports?
It is not legal for the military to cover up civilian casualties they've caused. Not ever.
Again, cite a law. Civilian casualties in a war are not a crime, per se, and you aren't even specific on what was "covered up" and in what manner. And if you want to talk about "covering up", read the criticism of the editorializing that Assange did on his "Collateral Murder" presentation, regarding edits made to the video and missing context.