I don't understand this irrational hate. How is Comcast trying to destroy the Internet? They have clearly defined caps, they are one of the first trying to deploy IPv6 to consumers, they offer one of the best speeds. No, they are not perfect, and they are not cheap, but as an ISP they are better than AT&T, for example.
I've got Cablevision. I'd never give ATT a dime. As for Comcast and their faster speeds, there are odd throttles and caps on those and a plethora of other issues (research it if you dont believe me - a lot of people are already complaining about the uselessness of their Extreme105 service) making those faster speeds that cost more, not really worth it. Their customer service is horrendous. IPv6 rollout is irrelevant - it's something that has to be done. They do their damndest to filter traffic every way they think they can get away with (and that too, like the odd throttling on their fastest services, is NOT clearly spelled out anywhere).
And for me to say that Comcast doesnt treat their customers well (which is what I consider the above to mean) has nothing to do with whether or not ATT does or doesnt either. They can both fit in the same boat with plenty of room to spare... for instance, for companies like RoadRunner or TimeWarner Cable. Remember, I never said they were the only one who fit in that category. I simply exclusively mentioned them, as the others are not relevant to this discussion (as they are not the ones being sued).
All my websites are fine, which is what my high profile clients expect.
That's because we use Microsoft Windows Servers and Sql Databases.
Really? I've found both such products to be unsuitable for the demand we put on such infrastructures - unless I throw a lot more hardware at them. With 1/20th the traffic, and 6% the userbase, our forums crawled on Windows Server and MSSQL Server. We switched to Apache and MySQL, and even running the greatly more database intensive (than the Windows solution we were provided) Simple Machines Forum, we need a lot less hardware than we previously did when we had so much less traffic.
As much as I generally hate the practices of various collections agencies (and I've worked collections), I'm rooting for a Comcast loss on this one. Serves them right with the way they treat customers, and their attempts to destroy the Internet.
I don't know where you are getting your numbers for 'every other market,' but in Europe at least, iOS is beating Android as far as I can tell.
Mods, if you want to mod me down, do it because you have data that shows I am wrong, not because your inner fanboy is coming out. And for the record, I prefer Android because it is open. But I care about data more.
The data you show indicates you didnt read the post you responded to or the data. It does NOT show iOS beating Android. Nor does it show Android beating iOS. It shows total numbers of owners of such devices during a 3 month period (which could easily have been a one day period and come up with the same results). Of course iOS will have larger numbers with it's multi-year head start. The title of that article, and the way they have the data labeled (with the "3 month" tag) makes an erroneous implication that the information is about sales during those 3 months. It is not. It's about installed base - which, as I said, could have simply been measured on the last day of those 3 months... but doing so, would not create the misleading impression it's given you (or probably countless others).
You should find a 3 month sales statistics breakdown if you really want to compare the two to see who is currently beating who in this market. From what I've seen (Comscore, Gartner, numerous others), in both the US and UK, it's Android for the win. That means, if that trend continues (not even counting the increase in sales curve for Android devices), Apple will eventually lose total overall marketshare to Android, their head start, notwithstanding. Check out this below if you don't understand what I am saying... (numbers entirely fictitious... it's simply pointing out the math, which should hopefully explain what I mean):
In these made up figures, which parallel the events (if not the numbers), iOS is vastly ahead. If you do a "total number of iOS and Android users in the last 3 months), iOS wins. If you look at this year or last for sales during that time frame, Android wins. If things continue the same over the next few years, even assuming neither make gains in sales, then in a few years, Android takes the lead in total installed base as well.
Therefore, why would Apple bother to chase just Samsung, and not LG...
Because LG will sue them over the Prada incident (the inspiration for the iPhone's looks). They've already said they are considering it, and made multiple announcements claiming Apple infringed on their design. Apple would be smart to not drag LG into this... so far, LG has delayed taking action, but have publicly stated it's a possibility. That leverage will probably keep LG out of being dragged into court by Apple.
Then again, this event (suing Samsung) may end up dragging LG into court in the long run anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung tried invalidating these Apple patents by pointing out LG's statements against Apple and the Prada design (which predates the iPhone).
This isn't the first time apple has tried to sue over vague look and feel like assholes. Last time, in a saner era (well, apart from the thousands of nukes just waiting to rain down on USA and Russia and anyone in-between), they got their ass handed to them on a plate,
The last time Apple won the case, and eMachines and Future Computers (or something similar) had to stop selling computers that looked like iMacs. Apple had design patents that protected the design of the iMac. They have design patents that protect the design of the iPhone. So I expect the same outcome. Interestingly, eMachines also had a design patent for an all-in-one computer that reminded me strongly of an alien with ears so they must have been aware of the protection that design patents give you; they probably just liked Apple's design of the iMac better than their own.
The iMacs, unlike the cell phones in question, actually did have a somewhat relatively unique "look and feel" (trade dress) to them. OTOH, the Sony phone looks like the iPhone, which looks like an a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA">LG Prada. And I am sure there are other phones they each look like. The "innovative design looks" of them also isn't that innovative in comparison to the differences in the iMac's design compared to other computers.
It only took them 4+ years to figure it out. I could tell what effect it was having on my bandwidth back in 2008, if not before that.
Oh, and thanks for apologizing to your customers, AT&T, for that terrible service you knew you had been providing for years.
It's disgusting how incapable corporations are of being honest with their customers.
Let me explain this event to you. ATT wants to buy T-Mobile to solve this problem. They still have to go through the regulatory and review process and get the acquisition approved. The only reason they admitted to this (to the FCC no less) is because they are hoping it will help push them through the approval process. "Oooh.... without TMo, we wont be able to remain a viable carrier because of how pathetic our network is!!! Please let us buy them!!!" <-- THAT is what their recent announcements/admissions really say. On top of that, the vast majority of T-Mobile's customers who are online commenting about this are very very against this purchase. Numerous of them have already filed complaints in an attempt to block the purchase. I have a feeling ATT didnt think things would backfire like that to such an extent. They never would have admitted to this otherwise.
Actually, prior art only refers to prior patents (why wouldn't you have patented it, if you really invented it??) and in any case, the new rule is "first to file", not "first to invent", so prior art will no longer even have zero relevance.
I am very sure no one has file a patent for cooking food with fire. So that is patentable under the, "not first to invent, but first to file" rule?
Do you wanna place bets on whether or not someone with the proper motivation and a little creative wording could get such a patent through the USPTO?;-)
NASCAR is anything *but* stock car racing today. It lost its roots a long-ass time ago IMHO.
Technically, it really hasn't been in many many decades - if EVER. The only true stock car raced in NASCAR was the 1963 Chevy Impala. While there were only 58 of them made, they were "stock cars" that anyone could go into the dealership and buy/order. The bulk of the racing mods (except tires and wheelie bars) were stock. Including the aluminum front end, the beefed up suspension (which also went into the police cruisers), the 427cu in engine designed for 430hp (but they dyno'd between 500-650hp), and so on.
With a lot of digging, and reading through a lot of old magazines on the subject (as well as on that car - particularly the most famous one of them: Junior Johnson's "Holly Farms" 1963 Chevy Impala Z11 Super Sport). Many such articles cite that line as the only true stock car ever raced in NASCAR. The rest were either highly modded with some components from the car it was named after, or the stuff they race nowadays.
Just like today, there were various factory upgrade options one could purchase with a car. In this car's case, it was the Z11 package. And wonderfully, for those who owned them, the car was still street legal (since it came with street tires, and no wheelie bar installed). It could manage 0-60 in under 6 seconds, quarter mile speeds of 10.8 seconds, and in an acceleration from zero, could pop the front wheels off the ground in at least the first 3 (of 4) gears on shift. For that day and age, especially with a car that was still so heavy (even with it's aluminum nose) and only a four speed tranny, that was pretty impressive back then.
Blow up? Not quite. Burn out? Yep. Semi-blow up? On older ones, yes - never tried it on newer ones. It's kinda like a capacitor "sizzling out" - it kinda sounds like a mini bug zapper for a second or two makes a muted pop-like sound, smells burnt and dies somewhat charred. Again, no idea if that still happens with newer ones, but I've done both the "burned out magnetron" and the "kinda blew up magnetron" route with older microwaves.
What about something like Ferric Chloride (PCB Etchant), easy to obtain and you could simply sponge it over the disc surface?
Wow, EVERYONE is thinking of the most difficult ways of doing this. (nothing personal - I too like to over-engineer and over think from time to time... not that I'm always the best at the thinking part);-)
Simple and cheap and easy methods (choose any one):
- Melt the things
- take a belt sander with fine (or maybe medium) sandpaper to the "label" (ie: non-polycarbonate) side. Let's see someone glue back together the data medium once it's been powderized
- Use a good cross cut shredder (efficiency of doing so covered above) - really, you ain't gettin data after that.
Or get ingenuitive. Nah... I'll save that idea. Maybe patent it...
Because someone with patience can piece a shredded item back together again.
No... no they cant. That's a myth based on people doing that with paper. Shred a CD and try it. First, the "foil" section gets stretched and damaged (as it's also peeled away from the plastic disk at the cut edge) - as well as becomes unreadable in the cut areas. Due to the way it's bonded to the plastic, it's largely torn rather than cut (a cross between a tear and a stretch and a cut), making those areas unable to be put back together). In the end, with the size of the data on the disk surface itself, it'd be too damaged (through any industrial card/disk shredder) to be re-assembled.
Regardless, these things melt very nicely - including the data surface. That will leave the entire thing totally unreadable, can be done outdoors (ie: no fumes killing you in your house) and won't run the risk of damaging your microwave.
Reviews have generally been quite positive, and if they can use their market share from Windows and XBox and create some kind of easy porting method it might become at least a moderate success. It will probably take a couple of years before the platform can actually compete though, if that ever happens.
People will say anything for enough money.
And that is exactly what's happening. Windows Mobile marketshare is decreasing. While that may largely be due to people defecting from WM6.5 and earlier, they sure as heck arent picking up WP7 - and WP7 sales cant make up for that slip in marketshare (assuming it is actually the case, that WM6.5 defections are the issue). It explains why Microsoft REFUSES to release end user/activation numbers and started with citing oem sales to stores... and when that number turned abysmal, they started citing number of licenses sold to OEMs for phones they may or may not ever actually make.
Add to that, Microsoft has been caught, over the last 2.5 DECADES, buying/paying for favorable reviews (hello to some of you Ziff Davis greedy bastards who went as far as printing Microsoft's marketing materials for Win95 as actual reviews - and still do such things to this day).
No, I am not a troll... all of this stuff has been covered on/. numerous times. And those of you familiar with such things as the Windows vs Linux TCO's Microsoft bought have a tiny inkling of some of the stuff I'm talking about.
I'll make things a little easier for the idiots bought and paid for at Gartner and IDC by Microsoft (ever dig to find out how many such "studies" Microsoft has "commissioned" from them - or read the requirements of them that are in place to skew the results a certain way? If not, go do some digging if you are bored)... ah... I digress... I'll make it easy for them (ie: reality): there are tons of reports online just like this one:
http://vista.blorge.com/2011/03/08/microsofts-windows-phone-7-market-share-takes-a-dive/
That recent one cites even WP7 declining. In the end, it's another market Microsoft will fail in, after nice losses in their other such attempts in that same market. Guess they are worth even less than the CW people think.
At least where I live to be called to court someone has to HAND deliver the letter to you. Most people filing a claim against someone they don't care for will pay a few bucks to have the sheriffs department deliver the notice.(I don't remember the price to have the cops deliver it for you but I thought it was very cheap. Doubly so if you don't like the person and have the deliver it to the persons work) But there isn't anything like sending a letter to an address you lived at at one point in your life and claiming you were notified.
If that's the way the courts work where you live you need to get that changed, it's wrong.
Wrong, something similar happened to me, because of a corrupt Maryland State's Attorney. I was fortunate that (a) my dad is a cop (which helped in preventing them from dragging out "extradition" from VA where I got pulled over to MD) and (b) the desk sergent where I was "booked" after "extradition" was a kindly old guy with full access to the court records, who printed me out everything so I could show the judge that the State's Attorney was a lying deceitful asshole who never served me at my MD address as he was claiming, had no such documents to prove it, and knew that I had long since moved out of MD. Maryland is a VERY corrupt state. Oh, and the judge didnt so much care... "Fix it... serve him now" - how the hell does that fix a month in jail for "fugitive from the law" charges over a minor violation because the State's Attorney lied to get such warrants out on no factual basis?
It was all dropped... but at the cost of a MONTH of my life because of a deceitful, crooked, asshat, lying bastard State's Attorney.
While M$ may prevail in this case, the case itself ironically can be used to invalid many of M$'s own patents.
Don't cry foul when what you wish for come back to take a big bite at your ass, Micro$oft !
No, it cannot... ironically for the $ame rea$on$ a$ indicated by your exten$ive u$e of the dollar $ign above. They'll out-lawyer and out-muscle and out-money anyone smaller in such battles. And larger companies (such as Google) are ones they will avoid getting into suits with.
If Microsoft wins this case, its purported 235 patents that Linux supposedly infringes upon (they have yet to list them after all these years because they are likely piss-weak) are further weakened?
I'm all for it.
Go Microsoft!
--
BMO
Very sadly, you are wrong. Changing the laws only helps Microsoft, and companies their size, who engage (like Microsoft CONSTANTLY does - look it up (as someone else said in response, 50 such cases going on at any given moment)) in intellectual property theft. You see, what happens is they can now legally fight to invalidate patents of companies they've stolen from. And then comes the other edge of the sword... for instance, when it comes to stuff like the Linux patents, they can simply out $$$ those involved (who wont be able to stick it out to invalidate Microsoft's claimed (but probably dont exist) patents). It's a win-win for Microsoft, and a loss for numerous other companies (that are not their size or as corrupt as them). I suspect it will increase the amount of ip theft they engage in as well.
I hate the RIAA and their methods as much as anyone, but I don't think it is spurious to look at what's happened to the music industry in the last 15 years or so and say that the internet has not had a negative effect.
It will have a continuing negative effect on revenue - not that I care how much EMI makes, but I do care when by extension there is less money available to sign artists, promote music that is not currently mainstream, when lower quality music receives all the promotion dollars available from the now smaller pool, etc.
I'm an amateur musician, but among the semi-professionals I know no one has any delusions about breaking into the music industry anymore. It's really changed the landscape because the industry itself has shrunk dramatically.
Maybe people will see it as good in the future that most music will be local and self-released by the artist and the only acts with real national exposure will be the Britneys and Taylors who sell football stadiums. I just don't think some of the greatest records would have ever been recorded in the current and future system. We've lost something.
Oh, just release good stuff, and you won't have piracy issues. Iron Maiden really does nothing about piracy (other than look the other way, or encourage their fans to share IM's music amongst themselves), yet even with nearly 60,000 videos on YouTube, according to EMI, they don't have a piracy issue for Iron Maiden's stuff - people go out and BUY their music instead of pirating it. And they are buying it in record numbers for Iron Maiden. Someplace on IM's or EMI's website, you can found EMI's statement. So, Maiden's stance on piracy "share our music with your friends, record our concerts and put them online: coupled with good music seems to be combating piracy a lot better than the nonsense the RIAA is doing. Also, the vast majority of IM's sales are of physical products (perhaps due to the extra attention to detail they always direct towards the packaging, liner notes, etc).
Now, it does not matter if you like Iron Maiden or not. The lesson is, create music people like, package it well, skip "here today, gone tomorrow" fads and sing/write from your heart(s), and interestingly, people seem interested in buying it instead of pirating it. Good luck to you...
"Flash On Android Fails To Impress InfoWorld's Neil McAllister"
Tell us how it impressed you!
Though I cannot comment on how it performs on Android 3.0, I can comment on being generally happy with v10.1 on Android 2.2 (TMo/HTC G2). Of course there are going to be the "Flash shortfalls" introduced such as flash banner ads now appearing - but just like in the "PC/Mac Computer World", that's par for the course.
And just like in the "Computer World", there are options to alleviate such problems, such as the Froyo browser's "plugin on demand" feature ("To make Flash content load only after you click on it, go to the settings, tap Enable plug-ins and select On demand."). And of course, the same feature works in the much more powerful "Dolphin Browser", and there's also FlashBlock for Firefox.
So, the only "inconsistencies" I see that remain are the ones that one would expect from using a touch based tablet/cell phone to interact with anything that was designed for mouse based input - but those same inconsistencies apply from standard HTML/Javascript websites (for instance, our Computer Repair website, where the "mouse-over drop-down menus" (note, I said drop-down MENUS, and not drop-down form fields) are going to be "problematic" since there's no true mouseover for most touch devices - in our site's case, a long press on the dropdown will create the sub-menu). Even in that respect, it's something somewhat inconsistent - but that's due to site design, not the technologies behind it.
The same applies to flash content. If it's not designed for cell/tablet experiences, it's going to be "inconsistent" or broken on such devices. That's not a flash shortcoming - that's a web developer shortcoming. In our case, the default site view is a customized mobile view which is very very light (ie: none I'm aware of) on tablet/cell unsafe layout (yet allows one to switch to the full version if they so desire).
Considering I live a couple hundred miles from it I'm a gonner in the first wave
Yes, and believe it or not, you're the lucky one. At only a couple hundred miles, you'll be incinerated in just a few minutes as the wave of heat and ejected particles & rocks reaches you at over the speed of sound. Much better than the suffering others will go through who survive. Lucky bastard!
Just wanted to point out that parent is talking about crimes charged but not convicted, and you seem to be citing laws relevant to convictions. Not sure how or if that changes things, as I am not a lawyer - unlike the two of you.
The only thing I don't understand is why the guy waited so long to sue. He says it's because he only recently found the contract while looking for other papers. I see. I forget that I own a large majority of a major corporation all the time.
I know!!! Me too! I'm digging through my emails right now to see if there are any multi-billion dollar companies I'm a majority owner of that I also forgot about...
Thanks you kind sir, whatever would we do without the grammar police! You have no idea the life changing impact your pointing out of this (unusual) mistake has has on my life! You are truly in my debt!
As for the grammar police calling others trolls, wouldn't that be a little hypocritical?
Oh, I admit I was at least partially trolling (the grammar part). But the rest, you've gotta admit, is true. So, perhaps you'll end up admitting you were trolling too. (ir)Regardless, doesn't change that you did.;-)
That doesn't matter though...what matters is the exact product in question is what has to have certification, subset, superset even a simple version change doesn't matter they all have to be submitted for certification, google hadn't done that yet claimed it had...yes it was a "technicality" but in the eyes of the govt. and their sometimes ridiculous processes an important one.
No, what really matters is that Microsoft is clutching at straws to try to "win" the case or clear the injunction.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand this irrational hate. How is Comcast trying to destroy the Internet? They have clearly defined caps, they are one of the first trying to deploy IPv6 to consumers, they offer one of the best speeds. No, they are not perfect, and they are not cheap, but as an ISP they are better than AT&T, for example.
I've got Cablevision. I'd never give ATT a dime. As for Comcast and their faster speeds, there are odd throttles and caps on those and a plethora of other issues (research it if you dont believe me - a lot of people are already complaining about the uselessness of their Extreme105 service) making those faster speeds that cost more, not really worth it. Their customer service is horrendous. IPv6 rollout is irrelevant - it's something that has to be done. They do their damndest to filter traffic every way they think they can get away with (and that too, like the odd throttling on their fastest services, is NOT clearly spelled out anywhere).
And for me to say that Comcast doesnt treat their customers well (which is what I consider the above to mean) has nothing to do with whether or not ATT does or doesnt either. They can both fit in the same boat with plenty of room to spare... for instance, for companies like RoadRunner or TimeWarner Cable. Remember, I never said they were the only one who fit in that category. I simply exclusively mentioned them, as the others are not relevant to this discussion (as they are not the ones being sued).
All my websites are fine, which is what my high profile clients expect.
That's because we use Microsoft Windows Servers and Sql Databases.
Really? I've found both such products to be unsuitable for the demand we put on such infrastructures - unless I throw a lot more hardware at them. With 1/20th the traffic, and 6% the userbase, our forums crawled on Windows Server and MSSQL Server. We switched to Apache and MySQL, and even running the greatly more database intensive (than the Windows solution we were provided) Simple Machines Forum, we need a lot less hardware than we previously did when we had so much less traffic.
As much as I generally hate the practices of various collections agencies (and I've worked collections), I'm rooting for a Comcast loss on this one. Serves them right with the way they treat customers, and their attempts to destroy the Internet.
I don't know where you are getting your numbers for 'every other market,' but in Europe at least, iOS is beating Android as far as I can tell.
Mods, if you want to mod me down, do it because you have data that shows I am wrong, not because your inner fanboy is coming out. And for the record, I prefer Android because it is open. But I care about data more.
The data you show indicates you didnt read the post you responded to or the data. It does NOT show iOS beating Android. Nor does it show Android beating iOS. It shows total numbers of owners of such devices during a 3 month period (which could easily have been a one day period and come up with the same results). Of course iOS will have larger numbers with it's multi-year head start. The title of that article, and the way they have the data labeled (with the "3 month" tag) makes an erroneous implication that the information is about sales during those 3 months. It is not. It's about installed base - which, as I said, could have simply been measured on the last day of those 3 months... but doing so, would not create the misleading impression it's given you (or probably countless others).
You should find a 3 month sales statistics breakdown if you really want to compare the two to see who is currently beating who in this market. From what I've seen (Comscore, Gartner, numerous others), in both the US and UK, it's Android for the win. That means, if that trend continues (not even counting the increase in sales curve for Android devices), Apple will eventually lose total overall marketshare to Android, their head start, notwithstanding. Check out this below if you don't understand what I am saying... (numbers entirely fictitious... it's simply pointing out the math, which should hopefully explain what I mean):
2007 iOS 100 - Android 0
2008 iOS 110 - Android 20
2009 iOS 120 - Android 50
2010 iOS 125 - Android 130
2011 iOS 125 - Android 140
In these made up figures, which parallel the events (if not the numbers), iOS is vastly ahead. If you do a "total number of iOS and Android users in the last 3 months), iOS wins. If you look at this year or last for sales during that time frame, Android wins. If things continue the same over the next few years, even assuming neither make gains in sales, then in a few years, Android takes the lead in total installed base as well.
Therefore, why would Apple bother to chase just Samsung, and not LG...
Because LG will sue them over the Prada incident (the inspiration for the iPhone's looks). They've already said they are considering it, and made multiple announcements claiming Apple infringed on their design. Apple would be smart to not drag LG into this... so far, LG has delayed taking action, but have publicly stated it's a possibility. That leverage will probably keep LG out of being dragged into court by Apple.
Then again, this event (suing Samsung) may end up dragging LG into court in the long run anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung tried invalidating these Apple patents by pointing out LG's statements against Apple and the Prada design (which predates the iPhone).
This isn't the first time apple has tried to sue over vague look and feel like assholes. Last time, in a saner era (well, apart from the thousands of nukes just waiting to rain down on USA and Russia and anyone in-between), they got their ass handed to them on a plate,
The last time Apple won the case, and eMachines and Future Computers (or something similar) had to stop selling computers that looked like iMacs. Apple had design patents that protected the design of the iMac. They have design patents that protect the design of the iPhone. So I expect the same outcome. Interestingly, eMachines also had a design patent for an all-in-one computer that reminded me strongly of an alien with ears so they must have been aware of the protection that design patents give you; they probably just liked Apple's design of the iMac better than their own.
The iMacs, unlike the cell phones in question, actually did have a somewhat relatively unique "look and feel" (trade dress) to them. OTOH, the Sony phone looks like the iPhone, which looks like an a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_PRADA">LG Prada. And I am sure there are other phones they each look like. The "innovative design looks" of them also isn't that innovative in comparison to the differences in the iMac's design compared to other computers.
At least, that's the difference I see...
It only took them 4+ years to figure it out. I could tell what effect it was having on my bandwidth back in 2008, if not before that.
Oh, and thanks for apologizing to your customers, AT&T, for that terrible service you knew you had been providing for years.
It's disgusting how incapable corporations are of being honest with their customers.
Let me explain this event to you. ATT wants to buy T-Mobile to solve this problem. They still have to go through the regulatory and review process and get the acquisition approved. The only reason they admitted to this (to the FCC no less) is because they are hoping it will help push them through the approval process. "Oooh.... without TMo, we wont be able to remain a viable carrier because of how pathetic our network is!!! Please let us buy them!!!" <-- THAT is what their recent announcements/admissions really say. On top of that, the vast majority of T-Mobile's customers who are online commenting about this are very very against this purchase. Numerous of them have already filed complaints in an attempt to block the purchase. I have a feeling ATT didnt think things would backfire like that to such an extent. They never would have admitted to this otherwise.
Actually, prior art only refers to prior patents (why wouldn't you have patented it, if you really invented it??) and in any case, the new rule is "first to file", not "first to invent", so prior art will no longer even have zero relevance.
I am very sure no one has file a patent for cooking food with fire. So that is patentable under the, "not first to invent, but first to file" rule?
Do you wanna place bets on whether or not someone with the proper motivation and a little creative wording could get such a patent through the USPTO? ;-)
NASCAR is anything *but* stock car racing today. It lost its roots a long-ass time ago IMHO.
Technically, it really hasn't been in many many decades - if EVER. The only true stock car raced in NASCAR was the 1963 Chevy Impala. While there were only 58 of them made, they were "stock cars" that anyone could go into the dealership and buy/order. The bulk of the racing mods (except tires and wheelie bars) were stock. Including the aluminum front end, the beefed up suspension (which also went into the police cruisers), the 427cu in engine designed for 430hp (but they dyno'd between 500-650hp), and so on.
With a lot of digging, and reading through a lot of old magazines on the subject (as well as on that car - particularly the most famous one of them: Junior Johnson's "Holly Farms" 1963 Chevy Impala Z11 Super Sport). Many such articles cite that line as the only true stock car ever raced in NASCAR. The rest were either highly modded with some components from the car it was named after, or the stuff they race nowadays.
Just like today, there were various factory upgrade options one could purchase with a car. In this car's case, it was the Z11 package. And wonderfully, for those who owned them, the car was still street legal (since it came with street tires, and no wheelie bar installed). It could manage 0-60 in under 6 seconds, quarter mile speeds of 10.8 seconds, and in an acceleration from zero, could pop the front wheels off the ground in at least the first 3 (of 4) gears on shift. For that day and age, especially with a car that was still so heavy (even with it's aluminum nose) and only a four speed tranny, that was pretty impressive back then.
http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/default.aspx?carID=9077&i=2#menu
Science geeks have been doing this for years with microwave ovens; though, it was more for the cool light show than for data security.
I am going to hereby retroactively claim all my attempts were for data security (and the light show was just an added bonus).
Now, I just need someone to help me come up with a plausible reason why it was generally AOL CDs I did this too...
Blow up? Not quite. Burn out? Yep. Semi-blow up? On older ones, yes - never tried it on newer ones. It's kinda like a capacitor "sizzling out" - it kinda sounds like a mini bug zapper for a second or two makes a muted pop-like sound, smells burnt and dies somewhat charred. Again, no idea if that still happens with newer ones, but I've done both the "burned out magnetron" and the "kinda blew up magnetron" route with older microwaves.
What about something like Ferric Chloride (PCB Etchant), easy to obtain and you could simply sponge it over the disc surface?
Wow, EVERYONE is thinking of the most difficult ways of doing this. (nothing personal - I too like to over-engineer and over think from time to time... not that I'm always the best at the thinking part) ;-)
Simple and cheap and easy methods (choose any one):
- Melt the things
- take a belt sander with fine (or maybe medium) sandpaper to the "label" (ie: non-polycarbonate) side. Let's see someone glue back together the data medium once it's been powderized
- Use a good cross cut shredder (efficiency of doing so covered above) - really, you ain't gettin data after that.
Or get ingenuitive. Nah... I'll save that idea. Maybe patent it...
Because someone with patience can piece a shredded item back together again.
No... no they cant. That's a myth based on people doing that with paper. Shred a CD and try it. First, the "foil" section gets stretched and damaged (as it's also peeled away from the plastic disk at the cut edge) - as well as becomes unreadable in the cut areas. Due to the way it's bonded to the plastic, it's largely torn rather than cut (a cross between a tear and a stretch and a cut), making those areas unable to be put back together). In the end, with the size of the data on the disk surface itself, it'd be too damaged (through any industrial card/disk shredder) to be re-assembled.
Regardless, these things melt very nicely - including the data surface. That will leave the entire thing totally unreadable, can be done outdoors (ie: no fumes killing you in your house) and won't run the risk of damaging your microwave.
Reviews have generally been quite positive, and if they can use their market share from Windows and XBox and create some kind of easy porting method it might become at least a moderate success. It will probably take a couple of years before the platform can actually compete though, if that ever happens.
People will say anything for enough money.
And that is exactly what's happening. Windows Mobile marketshare is decreasing. While that may largely be due to people defecting from WM6.5 and earlier, they sure as heck arent picking up WP7 - and WP7 sales cant make up for that slip in marketshare (assuming it is actually the case, that WM6.5 defections are the issue). It explains why Microsoft REFUSES to release end user/activation numbers and started with citing oem sales to stores... and when that number turned abysmal, they started citing number of licenses sold to OEMs for phones they may or may not ever actually make.
Add to that, Microsoft has been caught, over the last 2.5 DECADES, buying/paying for favorable reviews (hello to some of you Ziff Davis greedy bastards who went as far as printing Microsoft's marketing materials for Win95 as actual reviews - and still do such things to this day).
No, I am not a troll... all of this stuff has been covered on /. numerous times. And those of you familiar with such things as the Windows vs Linux TCO's Microsoft bought have a tiny inkling of some of the stuff I'm talking about.
I'll make things a little easier for the idiots bought and paid for at Gartner and IDC by Microsoft (ever dig to find out how many such "studies" Microsoft has "commissioned" from them - or read the requirements of them that are in place to skew the results a certain way? If not, go do some digging if you are bored)... ah... I digress... I'll make it easy for them (ie: reality): there are tons of reports online just like this one: http://vista.blorge.com/2011/03/08/microsofts-windows-phone-7-market-share-takes-a-dive/
That recent one cites even WP7 declining. In the end, it's another market Microsoft will fail in, after nice losses in their other such attempts in that same market. Guess they are worth even less than the CW people think.
Guess i'm going to call you a liar.
At least where I live to be called to court someone has to HAND deliver the letter to you. Most people filing a claim against someone they don't care for will pay a few bucks to have the sheriffs department deliver the notice.(I don't remember the price to have the cops deliver it for you but I thought it was very cheap. Doubly so if you don't like the person and have the deliver it to the persons work) But there isn't anything like sending a letter to an address you lived at at one point in your life and claiming you were notified.
If that's the way the courts work where you live you need to get that changed, it's wrong.
Wrong, something similar happened to me, because of a corrupt Maryland State's Attorney. I was fortunate that (a) my dad is a cop (which helped in preventing them from dragging out "extradition" from VA where I got pulled over to MD) and (b) the desk sergent where I was "booked" after "extradition" was a kindly old guy with full access to the court records, who printed me out everything so I could show the judge that the State's Attorney was a lying deceitful asshole who never served me at my MD address as he was claiming, had no such documents to prove it, and knew that I had long since moved out of MD. Maryland is a VERY corrupt state. Oh, and the judge didnt so much care... "Fix it... serve him now" - how the hell does that fix a month in jail for "fugitive from the law" charges over a minor violation because the State's Attorney lied to get such warrants out on no factual basis?
It was all dropped... but at the cost of a MONTH of my life because of a deceitful, crooked, asshat, lying bastard State's Attorney.
Awesome. Experts exchange now blocked! This has immediately become my favorite google search feature.
I always read the URL as Expert Sex Change, so have never visited... So you're saying it isn't worth visiting anyway?
Yeah, not worth it at all... I spent weeks looking for the sex change part (much less finding an expert at it), and got nowhere... ;-)
While M$ may prevail in this case, the case itself ironically can be used to invalid many of M$'s own patents.
Don't cry foul when what you wish for come back to take a big bite at your ass, Micro$oft !
No, it cannot... ironically for the $ame rea$on$ a$ indicated by your exten$ive u$e of the dollar $ign above. They'll out-lawyer and out-muscle and out-money anyone smaller in such battles. And larger companies (such as Google) are ones they will avoid getting into suits with.
If Microsoft wins this case, its purported 235 patents that Linux supposedly infringes upon (they have yet to list them after all these years because they are likely piss-weak) are further weakened?
I'm all for it.
Go Microsoft!
-- BMO
Very sadly, you are wrong. Changing the laws only helps Microsoft, and companies their size, who engage (like Microsoft CONSTANTLY does - look it up (as someone else said in response, 50 such cases going on at any given moment)) in intellectual property theft. You see, what happens is they can now legally fight to invalidate patents of companies they've stolen from. And then comes the other edge of the sword... for instance, when it comes to stuff like the Linux patents, they can simply out $$$ those involved (who wont be able to stick it out to invalidate Microsoft's claimed (but probably dont exist) patents). It's a win-win for Microsoft, and a loss for numerous other companies (that are not their size or as corrupt as them). I suspect it will increase the amount of ip theft they engage in as well.
I hate the RIAA and their methods as much as anyone, but I don't think it is spurious to look at what's happened to the music industry in the last 15 years or so and say that the internet has not had a negative effect.
It will have a continuing negative effect on revenue - not that I care how much EMI makes, but I do care when by extension there is less money available to sign artists, promote music that is not currently mainstream, when lower quality music receives all the promotion dollars available from the now smaller pool, etc.
I'm an amateur musician, but among the semi-professionals I know no one has any delusions about breaking into the music industry anymore. It's really changed the landscape because the industry itself has shrunk dramatically.
Maybe people will see it as good in the future that most music will be local and self-released by the artist and the only acts with real national exposure will be the Britneys and Taylors who sell football stadiums. I just don't think some of the greatest records would have ever been recorded in the current and future system. We've lost something.
Oh, just release good stuff, and you won't have piracy issues. Iron Maiden really does nothing about piracy (other than look the other way, or encourage their fans to share IM's music amongst themselves), yet even with nearly 60,000 videos on YouTube, according to EMI, they don't have a piracy issue for Iron Maiden's stuff - people go out and BUY their music instead of pirating it. And they are buying it in record numbers for Iron Maiden. Someplace on IM's or EMI's website, you can found EMI's statement. So, Maiden's stance on piracy "share our music with your friends, record our concerts and put them online: coupled with good music seems to be combating piracy a lot better than the nonsense the RIAA is doing. Also, the vast majority of IM's sales are of physical products (perhaps due to the extra attention to detail they always direct towards the packaging, liner notes, etc).
Now, it does not matter if you like Iron Maiden or not. The lesson is, create music people like, package it well, skip "here today, gone tomorrow" fads and sing/write from your heart(s), and interestingly, people seem interested in buying it instead of pirating it. Good luck to you...
"Flash On Android Fails To Impress InfoWorld's Neil McAllister"
Tell us how it impressed you!
Though I cannot comment on how it performs on Android 3.0, I can comment on being generally happy with v10.1 on Android 2.2 (TMo/HTC G2). Of course there are going to be the "Flash shortfalls" introduced such as flash banner ads now appearing - but just like in the "PC/Mac Computer World", that's par for the course.
And just like in the "Computer World", there are options to alleviate such problems, such as the Froyo browser's "plugin on demand" feature ("To make Flash content load only after you click on it, go to the settings, tap Enable plug-ins and select On demand."). And of course, the same feature works in the much more powerful "Dolphin Browser", and there's also FlashBlock for Firefox.
So, the only "inconsistencies" I see that remain are the ones that one would expect from using a touch based tablet/cell phone to interact with anything that was designed for mouse based input - but those same inconsistencies apply from standard HTML/Javascript websites (for instance, our Computer Repair website, where the "mouse-over drop-down menus" (note, I said drop-down MENUS, and not drop-down form fields) are going to be "problematic" since there's no true mouseover for most touch devices - in our site's case, a long press on the dropdown will create the sub-menu). Even in that respect, it's something somewhat inconsistent - but that's due to site design, not the technologies behind it.
The same applies to flash content. If it's not designed for cell/tablet experiences, it's going to be "inconsistent" or broken on such devices. That's not a flash shortcoming - that's a web developer shortcoming. In our case, the default site view is a customized mobile view which is very very light (ie: none I'm aware of) on tablet/cell unsafe layout (yet allows one to switch to the full version if they so desire).
Considering I live a couple hundred miles from it I'm a gonner in the first wave
Yes, and believe it or not, you're the lucky one. At only a couple hundred miles, you'll be incinerated in just a few minutes as the wave of heat and ejected particles & rocks reaches you at over the speed of sound. Much better than the suffering others will go through who survive. Lucky bastard!
Just wanted to point out that parent is talking about crimes charged but not convicted, and you seem to be citing laws relevant to convictions. Not sure how or if that changes things, as I am not a lawyer - unlike the two of you.
The only thing I don't understand is why the guy waited so long to sue. He says it's because he only recently found the contract while looking for other papers. I see. I forget that I own a large majority of a major corporation all the time.
I know!!! Me too! I'm digging through my emails right now to see if there are any multi-billion dollar companies I'm a majority owner of that I also forgot about...
Thanks you kind sir, whatever would we do without the grammar police! You have no idea the life changing impact your pointing out of this (unusual) mistake has has on my life! You are truly in my debt!
As for the grammar police calling others trolls, wouldn't that be a little hypocritical?
Oh, I admit I was at least partially trolling (the grammar part). But the rest, you've gotta admit, is true. So, perhaps you'll end up admitting you were trolling too. (ir)Regardless, doesn't change that you did. ;-)
That doesn't matter though...what matters is the exact product in question is what has to have certification, subset, superset even a simple version change doesn't matter they all have to be submitted for certification, google hadn't done that yet claimed it had...yes it was a "technicality" but in the eyes of the govt. and their sometimes ridiculous processes an important one.
No, what really matters is that Microsoft is clutching at straws to try to "win" the case or clear the injunction.