The reason why most cable companies have their monopoly isn't because of the franchise agreements, many of which the FCC has actually invalidated. The biggest reason is because it takes a shitton of money to start an ISP, and even more money to tear up roads to plant your cables. Not to mention dealing with getting the permits to tear up those roads, and inconveniencing citizens with them.
How are they gonna get rid of the cable monopoly? The FCC has already invalidated a lot of the exclusive franchise agreements that were in place in this country. Hint: When something has a very large barrier to entry, it can be very difficult for private enterprise to bring competition to a sector.
Ummmm, the iTunes DRM doesn't preclude you from doing either of those things. All the iPods and iPhones will play unprotected MP3 files, which is what Amazon sells, and you can buy a CD from Walmart, rip it, and put it on your device.
Even if the iPhone had those (and it does have tethering, just not in the US:( ), there probably still would be jailbreaking, simply because people love to tinker with their gadgets. Hell, I remember hearing about some small, handheld IM client device, and people were hacking it to expose the full Linux functionality beneath it. Its a little texting device, aimed at little girls, and people were hacking it. So jailbreaking might not be as prevalent, and might not be as useful if it had those things you mentioned, but it'd still happen.
Jailbreaking isn't actually that common. And I would believe the amount of people who jailbreak with the intent of pirating games to be less so.
I have a jailbroken iPod Touch, but I'm not entirely sure why I have it jailbroken anymore. It used to be because I didn't pay for a dev certificate, but since then, I guess I've just been too lazy to revert it. Or too lazy to keep up with the Cydia community to see what's cool.
Well, here is a list of VNC clients for the iPhone, which will work on the iPad. Several of them will probably be reworked to take advantage of the iPad's larger screen. As for paying for apps, it depends. If everyone who has created a VNC client for the iPhone platform believes they should get paid for their work, then you might have to spend some money. But I'm 85% sure that at least one or two of the apps on that list are free.
I believe it is up to the individual apps how to handle closing or suspending when a phone call/text comes in. The app is sent the message that it will close, and is given a last chance to clean things up. If they want, then can save state, and then when the app starts again, resume from where they were. Such operation doesn't make sense for every type of app, but it could be nice for some (games).
Here's the thing: The OS X desktop isn't really suited for use in a finger-based environment. They have an OS designed from the ground up around touch input. Why wouldn't they use that?
I don't think the iPad is a general purpose computing device. Its mostly a media consumption device, with a bigger screen than an iPod. It also happens to run some games and small applications.
Why? Putting a "real" computer in tablet form has been tried several times before, and has failed miserably. People don't want a slate tablet to do actual computing work on. I don't really want an iPad, but it seems like they're at least trying not to duplicate what the rest of the tablet market has done.
Considering that before this, most slate tablets were a device with a Desktop OS shoehorned onto them that most often required the use of a special stylus to do anything, even typing on the onscreen keyboard, it sounds like they did change it, mostly by making a tablet that one could actually use with a finger, and not trying to pretend that the tablet was something that people were actually gonna use for serious work.
I'm quite embarrassed to say I've done this too. I've also lost a day's sleep due to it. Of course, when I realized it, and fixed it, I then had to come up with something outrageous to say happened, because there's no way I was gonna say it was something that silly. Its also why I tend to avoid just recompiling individual files in a project, preferring instead to let the IDE or makefile recompile the whole thing. Plus, then I get a legitimate reason to goof off for a few minutes;)
True and False questions did me in something terribly, as they were worded very poorly and I often caught myself over thinking the problem: "Well, it might be true, but if you look at the statement from this angle then it is actually false." I actually understood the subject matter too well for those kinds of questions and ended up having to say to myself "What did they think a student who has a basic knowledge of this question answer."
I ran into similar problems on several tests during my academic tenure. I eventually decided that, in the case of those questions, unless it specifically says something like "always" or "every time", then whichever case that is most likely to happen is the one the examiner is thinking about. That, and what would a reasonable student with the expected knowledge at this level be expected to think.
That's part of the problem: We don't really have that kind of social safety net for individuals in this country, at least not one that could handle the stress of all those people going unemployed at once.
Here's the difference: Did you actually do the work involved in developing the patents, or did you find someone else who did, yet was going out of business, so you bought their patents and waited for someone else to do the work in implementing a similar solution?
When discussing the subject at hand, your story is a special case. He is someone who actually did get screwed by a (several?) large company, and I hope he was able to get satisfaction. He is who the patent system was meant to benefit.
Patent Trolls, which is what we're discussing, do not deserve patent protection. They do none of the research, none of the hard work. They simply try to acquire patents from other companies, and wait for someone else to come up with a similar solution to the problem. Most large companies tell their engineers to not read patent filings, lest they accidentally implement some of the disclosed ideas. Sitting back on a patent, and waiting for someone to re-invent it should be discouraged, not rewarded.
Most patent trolls don't even come up with the patent themselves. They go around to companies that are going under, and buy up their patent portfolio for cheap. Then they wait for some other company, preferably one with deep pockets, to do something marginally similar, and then they sue.
And in the same time, you're stifling the progress of a company that, more likely than not given the description in your scenario, did not willfully infringe upon your patent, but merely made the mistake of putting someone clever on their problem who happened to come up with a similar solution. If you are unable to gather investors for your product, especially given the viability of the market as demonstrated by the other company, then why should the other company be unable to use their solution?
And there still will be plenty of law firms willing to take your case, probably on a contingency.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason why most cable companies have their monopoly isn't because of the franchise agreements, many of which the FCC has actually invalidated. The biggest reason is because it takes a shitton of money to start an ISP, and even more money to tear up roads to plant your cables. Not to mention dealing with getting the permits to tear up those roads, and inconveniencing citizens with them.
How are they gonna get rid of the cable monopoly? The FCC has already invalidated a lot of the exclusive franchise agreements that were in place in this country. Hint: When something has a very large barrier to entry, it can be very difficult for private enterprise to bring competition to a sector.
Ok, find a place. And convince the people living near there to allow it.
Ummmm, the iTunes DRM doesn't preclude you from doing either of those things. All the iPods and iPhones will play unprotected MP3 files, which is what Amazon sells, and you can buy a CD from Walmart, rip it, and put it on your device.
Even if the iPhone had those (and it does have tethering, just not in the US :( ), there probably still would be jailbreaking, simply because people love to tinker with their gadgets. Hell, I remember hearing about some small, handheld IM client device, and people were hacking it to expose the full Linux functionality beneath it. Its a little texting device, aimed at little girls, and people were hacking it. So jailbreaking might not be as prevalent, and might not be as useful if it had those things you mentioned, but it'd still happen.
Jailbreaking isn't actually that common. And I would believe the amount of people who jailbreak with the intent of pirating games to be less so. I have a jailbroken iPod Touch, but I'm not entirely sure why I have it jailbroken anymore. It used to be because I didn't pay for a dev certificate, but since then, I guess I've just been too lazy to revert it. Or too lazy to keep up with the Cydia community to see what's cool.
Perhaps. I wouldn't be surprised. Its just gonna take more than 2 cases to be convincing.
Well, here is a list of VNC clients for the iPhone, which will work on the iPad. Several of them will probably be reworked to take advantage of the iPad's larger screen. As for paying for apps, it depends. If everyone who has created a VNC client for the iPhone platform believes they should get paid for their work, then you might have to spend some money. But I'm 85% sure that at least one or two of the apps on that list are free.
Bigger screen?
I think the fact that most of us have not heard of it means that it hasn't been a big success.
I believe it is up to the individual apps how to handle closing or suspending when a phone call/text comes in. The app is sent the message that it will close, and is given a last chance to clean things up. If they want, then can save state, and then when the app starts again, resume from where they were. Such operation doesn't make sense for every type of app, but it could be nice for some (games).
Here's the thing: The OS X desktop isn't really suited for use in a finger-based environment. They have an OS designed from the ground up around touch input. Why wouldn't they use that?
I don't think the iPad is a general purpose computing device. Its mostly a media consumption device, with a bigger screen than an iPod. It also happens to run some games and small applications.
Why? Putting a "real" computer in tablet form has been tried several times before, and has failed miserably. People don't want a slate tablet to do actual computing work on. I don't really want an iPad, but it seems like they're at least trying not to duplicate what the rest of the tablet market has done.
Considering that before this, most slate tablets were a device with a Desktop OS shoehorned onto them that most often required the use of a special stylus to do anything, even typing on the onscreen keyboard, it sounds like they did change it, mostly by making a tablet that one could actually use with a finger, and not trying to pretend that the tablet was something that people were actually gonna use for serious work.
Well, if you want any semblance of battery life, you do...
While official support has been dropped, considering FUSE runs on OS X, it should be possible to get ZFS working through that.
I'm quite embarrassed to say I've done this too. I've also lost a day's sleep due to it. Of course, when I realized it, and fixed it, I then had to come up with something outrageous to say happened, because there's no way I was gonna say it was something that silly. Its also why I tend to avoid just recompiling individual files in a project, preferring instead to let the IDE or makefile recompile the whole thing. Plus, then I get a legitimate reason to goof off for a few minutes ;)
True and False questions did me in something terribly, as they were worded very poorly and I often caught myself over thinking the problem: "Well, it might be true, but if you look at the statement from this angle then it is actually false." I actually understood the subject matter too well for those kinds of questions and ended up having to say to myself "What did they think a student who has a basic knowledge of this question answer."
I ran into similar problems on several tests during my academic tenure. I eventually decided that, in the case of those questions, unless it specifically says something like "always" or "every time", then whichever case that is most likely to happen is the one the examiner is thinking about. That, and what would a reasonable student with the expected knowledge at this level be expected to think.
That's part of the problem: We don't really have that kind of social safety net for individuals in this country, at least not one that could handle the stress of all those people going unemployed at once.
At those prices, I'm gonna have to create two or three evil organizations. I mean, how can I not?
Here's the difference: Did you actually do the work involved in developing the patents, or did you find someone else who did, yet was going out of business, so you bought their patents and waited for someone else to do the work in implementing a similar solution?
When discussing the subject at hand, your story is a special case. He is someone who actually did get screwed by a (several?) large company, and I hope he was able to get satisfaction. He is who the patent system was meant to benefit.
Patent Trolls, which is what we're discussing, do not deserve patent protection. They do none of the research, none of the hard work. They simply try to acquire patents from other companies, and wait for someone else to come up with a similar solution to the problem. Most large companies tell their engineers to not read patent filings, lest they accidentally implement some of the disclosed ideas. Sitting back on a patent, and waiting for someone to re-invent it should be discouraged, not rewarded.
Most patent trolls don't even come up with the patent themselves. They go around to companies that are going under, and buy up their patent portfolio for cheap. Then they wait for some other company, preferably one with deep pockets, to do something marginally similar, and then they sue.
And in the same time, you're stifling the progress of a company that, more likely than not given the description in your scenario, did not willfully infringe upon your patent, but merely made the mistake of putting someone clever on their problem who happened to come up with a similar solution. If you are unable to gather investors for your product, especially given the viability of the market as demonstrated by the other company, then why should the other company be unable to use their solution?
And there still will be plenty of law firms willing to take your case, probably on a contingency.