The page for the GMA 950 even has this hilarious tidbit:
"With a powerful 400MHz core and DirectX* 9 3D hardware acceleration, Intel® GMA 950 graphics provides performance on par with mainstream graphics card solutions that would typically cost significantly more."
Whoever wrote that line must have been borrowing Steve's Reality Distortion Field.
Nah, thats just standard marketspeak. If this had of been Apple's doubleplus goodspeak it would sound like this.
"With revolutionary and magical" hardware, iGMA 950 provides a magical graphics revolution that would typically cost significantly more."
Based on what? Having more android phones sold (how many models on how many carriers)?
specifications, sales, increase in ad hits from Android devices (admob metrics).
And Steve's comments. He is definately agitated regarding Android.
They're probably suing because they thought they had an edge with multitouch,
You just provided your own justification, You don't sue other companies when you're in a good position, you don't even threaten to sue as shareholders and stock markets really don't like it (creates uncertainty and stock price drops). The act of suing straight off the bat, as opposed to asking nicely means you are afraid of them. You never sue when you have the edge, you sue when you lose the edge.
It's a good thing that oil rigs are better managed than data centres. Who knows what might happen if one of them ever had a problem like this?
I have a friend who is an engineer on one of the projects in the North West Shelf (of Western Australia) a few weeks back he asked "how can they build a rig in the gulf of Mexico for one third of our costs". Two days later One blew up an he got his answer.
but they are actually using the patent how a patent is supposed to be used
Well yes, seeing as software patents are artificial monopolies on mathematical functions they are being used to prevent a competitor from releasing a different technology that performs the same function. They haven't patented the specific code (design), rather the function of the code (otherwise you could just change variable names and get around the whole thing)
On a side note, has patents ever stopped OSS before?
They never have, however patents frequently slow down OSS development.
...shouldn't it be Synaptics? Their touchpads have been multitouch-capable since Apple was still using PowerPC chips and the iPhone was just some obscure Cisco product.
This is what makes it so insidious and wrong. Apple don't have the hardware patents, they have software patents on certain processes (using two fingers to manipulate page size and so forth). Synaptic, IBM, 3M and a few others have the hardware patents so all Android phones with capacitive touch screens are capable of multi-touch in the hardware but it's not implemented in the OS precisely because the screen manufacturers bought the patent rights from Synaptics and so forth but Apple will not license the software patents to an OSS project.
Despite my usual disposition, this is not a rant against Apple specifically but the general uselessness of software patents and their tendency to inhibit innovation and competition. Although Apple, as a main contributor to software patents is far from innocent but they are the symptom, software patents are the disease.
USAF buys literally tons of loss-leading PS3s but no games? I think you just hit on why Sony doesn't care about the problem the Air Force faces now.
Yeah, they should have bought Wii's.
Base Computer:"Waggle the XM745 motion command device in an arching motion in order to launch ordinance".
/ a general facepalms in the background.
General: "Colonel, you're doing it wrong, give me the wiimote. Now try it like this."
Base Computer: "Self destruct sequence activated, countdown set to 90 seconds. Waggle the XM745 motion command device in a circular motion followed by your authorisation code to disarm".
I have been using a Windows based smart phone for 7+ years and before that a Palm based smart phone for 4 years. There isn't anything new in the Apple phone that I haven't been doing for 6+ years, except for flinging your thumb to go to the next screen, but Palm was doing screen gestures 7 years ago. Plus other applications and systems have been doing similar things for a long time also.
Apple didn't have to invent anything, they only had to patent it. I understand Oxford has made a change to the dictionary.
In no va tion: v, The act of expensive litigation against ones competitors.
That's the point: Nokia offered to license the patents under RAND terms to Apple (the same terms they offer other companies, including those that don't have so many GSM-related patents such as Samsung/LG/HTC), and Apple refused to pay. This is the reason Nokia sued: Apple wanted to use their patented technologies without licensing them.
To be a bit more precise, Apple paid for the RAND patents as everyone does but Apple did not pay for Nokia's patents not covered by the RAND agreement but proceeded to use them anyway. Nokia kindly asked Apple to pay for two and a half years before filing.
Actually, I find that in the argument between Adobe and Apple, Apple usually comes out on top because at least its horrible, draconian software is stable and usable.
Actually, I find that in the argument between Adobe and Apple, Adobe usually comes out on top because at least its horrible, draconian software works on Linux and properly on Windows. It's also a lot less Draconian and horrible.
Apple is attempting to take control of a standard, before it becomes a standard (CLUEBAT: HTML5 is not a standard yet) much like MS did in the past. This is so Apple can control what does and does not work on HTML5 without their browser becoming non-compliant (unlike MS, who simply prefer to create their own de facto standard). This is about ensuring other browsers conform to what Apple's idea of HTML5 is.
Apple is helping build an open web that proprietary devices from any company can connect to.
So long as the publisher is paying for the H.264 license because Apple refused to support any other codec or permit another decoder (such as flash or another browser). Apple will limit HTML5 for the same reasons they are rejecting flash, it reduces the functionality of the App Store by allowing another framework to be used.
How is an open standard such as HTML an Apple only web experience?
If you own a Apple device, you have the choice of the way Apple implements HTML5 or not using it. Hence, an Apple controlled experience. It's not like you could install an alternate rendering engine or open source codec.
Adobe, determines what web experience (if you're talking about Flash) you get on any given device or platform
Adobe does not mandate flash must be used. Adobe does not mandate what can and cannot be written in Flash, you are free to use whatever level of functionality the software is capable of. You are not forced to use flash, flash became the de-facto video standard because it was cross platform and easy to develop for, not because some overlord declared it and shoved it down you throat.
Compare that to an open HTML5 rendering engine (webkit), and a push towards open web standards.
How can you call a standard open, when it is locked to proprietary codecs?
Apple is trying to kill WebKit, because they want people locked into Apple approved codecs.
Along with the fact the article makes no mention of SP3, Windows XP was NOT a replacement for Win2K. Windows had (and is continuing to preserve) 2 separate tracks:
3 -> 95 -> 98 -> Me -> XP -> Vista -> 7
NT -> 2000 -> 2003 -> 2008 -> 2008R2
BZZZZT but thanks for playing, XP was not part of the DOS track, it was part of the NT track. The correct Windows lineage is: DOS: 1 -> 2 -> 3 (3.1 -> 3.11 -> 3.2 (it exists, check Technet) -> 4 (95 -> 98 -> 98 SE -> ME) -> Death (RIP). NT: NT3 -> NT4 -> NT5 (2000 Server, 2000 Workstation) -> NT5.1 (XP, 2003 Server) -> NT6 (Vista, 2008 Server) -> NT7 (Win7).
XP was a replacement for Windows 2000 Workstation, which was a replacement for Windows NT4 Workstation. It's part of the NT stream and just because it replaced 98 on home machines does not make it part of the DOS/9x stream,
While it might be good to hold commercial companies responsible for the software they sell it can place OSS developers in a very bad situation.
Just make software the same as all other goods. If not fit for purpose I can return it for full purchase price, when that purchase price is zero, I can return it for that amount. Software companies want the boon of both product and contract sales but are not willing to accept the disadvantages of either, with a product I can return it if defective, with a contract I can sue if the product does not meet requirements while neither apply to software. This one sided arrangement needs to be fixed.
By the same token if someone uses their Toyota Hilux to run over me, I cannot sue Toyota because their product was misused. Current laws that govern sales protect manufactures/producers against what you are concerned about, companies aren't sued if their product is found to be defective, they are withdrawn from sale. Companies are only sued if they knowingly released a defective or dangerous product.
I fail to see how anyone could regard R18+ labels as anything other than a _good_ thing. If people want gore and smut, they can hunt those labels out. The rest of us can avoid them. Sounds like win-win.
Unfortunately rating systems are like using shotguns as mosquito repellent. PEGI and all others are the same, they work off checklists and completely ignore context. One mention of fellatio and it's R18 for you. However some movies with graphic simulated sex and minor nudity are M15 because there is no swearing (Species (M15) is a good example, yet most standup comedy is R18).
But that's another problem for another argument. I agree that R18 is a good thing but rating systems are only used as a guide, parents are meant to use Common Sense(TM) and look at the games they are buying for their children or perhaps watch how their children play games and attempt to correct (if any) bad responses. Plus we have companies who flaunt the system with ultra-violent games that pass the check-lists so they can market to teens (Girlie mags like Cleo and Girlfriend do this with sex, it's a soft porno and erotic novel but it's legal to sell to teenagers). An R18 rating does not excuse bad parenting, it just makes it easier for those of us who are adults to get a larger selection of games locally (I love parallel importing).
Labelling all R18 games/movies/etc as "smut and gore" is disingenuous at best and plays directly into the hands of the anti-R18 crowd.
The difference is that for some people their level of tolerance ends at exactly the point where their personal tastes are offended. A puritanical person might see gay porn and say "eww... now ban it for corrupting morals!" A reasonable person sees gay porn and says "eww... I'd better not go to that website again."
Which is why it needs to be well publicised that the internet is a pull system, not a push system. On the Internet you choose what you see, the service provider doesn't get a say in it.
Conjob's, sorry, I mean Senator Conroy's entire argument revolves around the assertion that the internet is the same as other forms of media thus the internet should be censored the same. This assertion is wrong as the provider of television, radio and print (broadcast) media decides what I view, with the internet it's the other way around, I decide what I view. Until this is understood by a large section of the populous we'll continue to see this and eventually get smacked down again by the minority (which Conroy is trying to paint as the "technological elite").
Whilst you could successfully argue that push (broadcast) media should be censored as inappropriate material could be accidentally seen (BTW, personally I do not hold this view), it cannot be successfully argued that pull (unicast or multicast) should be censored as you have to make a conscious decision to go there. Unfortunately few understand the difference between the internet and other media, at best we can do at the moment is to scare the average Australian with the old "filtering will require ISP's to double prices" trick, which is partly true making the best kind of election campaign. Not that censorship is particularly popular, most people are against it and the Greens are openly announcing a "no" vote prior to the elections.
Please we're the most subdued and docile population in the world. Other countries riot and go to the streets for less than what's been pulled on the Australian population in the past. Sure we'll be outraged for about 24 hours then back to business as usual.
But the pubs open and the footys on. Bloody hell you bastards are demanding, I riot after three quarters time when the Dockers get their arse handed to them.
What I meant is that I don't even feel it's a burden. I like using steam more than free illegally downloaded games for the practicality of it.
I prefer buying games that I like (I make no apology about pirating crap games, the market must adjust to the level of poorly coded shovelware clones out there). Thus most of my games are purchased but DRM is a serious issue with my legitimately purchased games. It's always a burden, Steam starts up before my network connection does so it always fails to log in (I just turn it off in the end), the simple fact that I cant play my steam games unless steam is running is a huge burden.
Slashdot Mirror
Now Apple is doing the exact same thing MS did back in the 80's and getting a free pass.
I guess those who do not learn from history.
Nah, thats just standard marketspeak. If this had of been Apple's doubleplus goodspeak it would sound like this.
Both of them.
specifications, sales, increase in ad hits from Android devices (admob metrics).
And Steve's comments. He is definately agitated regarding Android.
You just provided your own justification, You don't sue other companies when you're in a good position, you don't even threaten to sue as shareholders and stock markets really don't like it (creates uncertainty and stock price drops). The act of suing straight off the bat, as opposed to asking nicely means you are afraid of them. You never sue when you have the edge, you sue when you lose the edge.
I have a friend who is an engineer on one of the projects in the North West Shelf (of Western Australia) a few weeks back he asked "how can they build a rig in the gulf of Mexico for one third of our costs". Two days later One blew up an he got his answer.
Well yes, seeing as software patents are artificial monopolies on mathematical functions they are being used to prevent a competitor from releasing a different technology that performs the same function. They haven't patented the specific code (design), rather the function of the code (otherwise you could just change variable names and get around the whole thing)
They never have, however patents frequently slow down OSS development.
This is what makes it so insidious and wrong. Apple don't have the hardware patents, they have software patents on certain processes (using two fingers to manipulate page size and so forth). Synaptic, IBM, 3M and a few others have the hardware patents so all Android phones with capacitive touch screens are capable of multi-touch in the hardware but it's not implemented in the OS precisely because the screen manufacturers bought the patent rights from Synaptics and so forth but Apple will not license the software patents to an OSS project.
Despite my usual disposition, this is not a rant against Apple specifically but the general uselessness of software patents and their tendency to inhibit innovation and competition. Although Apple, as a main contributor to software patents is far from innocent but they are the symptom, software patents are the disease.
They've made a complaint to the FTC.
Apple is suing because it's being eclipsed by it's competitors.
Nokia is suing because it got sick of asking Apple nicely to pay for the patents they were using.
Yeah, they should have bought Wii's.
Base Computer:"Waggle the XM745 motion command device in an arching motion in order to launch ordinance".
/ a general facepalms in the background.
General: "Colonel, you're doing it wrong, give me the wiimote. Now try it like this."
Base Computer: "Self destruct sequence activated, countdown set to 90 seconds. Waggle the XM745 motion command device in a circular motion followed by your authorisation code to disarm".
Apple didn't have to invent anything, they only had to patent it. I understand Oxford has made a change to the dictionary.
In no va tion: v, The act of expensive litigation against ones competitors.
To be a bit more precise, Apple paid for the RAND patents as everyone does but Apple did not pay for Nokia's patents not covered by the RAND agreement but proceeded to use them anyway. Nokia kindly asked Apple to pay for two and a half years before filing.
At least with Flash I can block it easily.
Actually, I find that in the argument between Adobe and Apple, Adobe usually comes out on top because at least its horrible, draconian software works on Linux and properly on Windows. It's also a lot less Draconian and horrible.
So long as the publisher is paying for the H.264 license because Apple refused to support any other codec or permit another decoder (such as flash or another browser). Apple will limit HTML5 for the same reasons they are rejecting flash, it reduces the functionality of the App Store by allowing another framework to be used.
If you own a Apple device, you have the choice of the way Apple implements HTML5 or not using it. Hence, an Apple controlled experience. It's not like you could install an alternate rendering engine or open source codec.
Adobe does not mandate flash must be used. Adobe does not mandate what can and cannot be written in Flash, you are free to use whatever level of functionality the software is capable of. You are not forced to use flash, flash became the de-facto video standard because it was cross platform and easy to develop for, not because some overlord declared it and shoved it down you throat.
How can you call a standard open, when it is locked to proprietary codecs? Apple is trying to kill WebKit, because they want people locked into Apple approved codecs.
BZZZZT but thanks for playing, XP was not part of the DOS track, it was part of the NT track. The correct Windows lineage is:
DOS: 1 -> 2 -> 3 (3.1 -> 3.11 -> 3.2 (it exists, check Technet) -> 4 (95 -> 98 -> 98 SE -> ME) -> Death (RIP).
NT: NT3 -> NT4 -> NT5 (2000 Server, 2000 Workstation) -> NT5.1 (XP, 2003 Server) -> NT6 (Vista, 2008 Server) -> NT7 (Win7).
XP was a replacement for Windows 2000 Workstation, which was a replacement for Windows NT4 Workstation. It's part of the NT stream and just because it replaced 98 on home machines does not make it part of the DOS/9x stream,
However ROFLcopters fuelling up as we speak
Or 1.6666 Americans, using the Clarkson scale.
Begun, the patent wars have and it will not be good for any of us.
Just make software the same as all other goods. If not fit for purpose I can return it for full purchase price, when that purchase price is zero, I can return it for that amount. Software companies want the boon of both product and contract sales but are not willing to accept the disadvantages of either, with a product I can return it if defective, with a contract I can sue if the product does not meet requirements while neither apply to software. This one sided arrangement needs to be fixed.
By the same token if someone uses their Toyota Hilux to run over me, I cannot sue Toyota because their product was misused. Current laws that govern sales protect manufactures/producers against what you are concerned about, companies aren't sued if their product is found to be defective, they are withdrawn from sale. Companies are only sued if they knowingly released a defective or dangerous product.
We must repent with correct spelling an grammar immediately.
Unfortunately rating systems are like using shotguns as mosquito repellent. PEGI and all others are the same, they work off checklists and completely ignore context. One mention of fellatio and it's R18 for you. However some movies with graphic simulated sex and minor nudity are M15 because there is no swearing (Species (M15) is a good example, yet most standup comedy is R18).
But that's another problem for another argument. I agree that R18 is a good thing but rating systems are only used as a guide, parents are meant to use Common Sense(TM) and look at the games they are buying for their children or perhaps watch how their children play games and attempt to correct (if any) bad responses. Plus we have companies who flaunt the system with ultra-violent games that pass the check-lists so they can market to teens (Girlie mags like Cleo and Girlfriend do this with sex, it's a soft porno and erotic novel but it's legal to sell to teenagers). An R18 rating does not excuse bad parenting, it just makes it easier for those of us who are adults to get a larger selection of games locally (I love parallel importing).
Labelling all R18 games/movies/etc as "smut and gore" is disingenuous at best and plays directly into the hands of the anti-R18 crowd.
Which is why it needs to be well publicised that the internet is a pull system, not a push system. On the Internet you choose what you see, the service provider doesn't get a say in it.
Conjob's, sorry, I mean Senator Conroy's entire argument revolves around the assertion that the internet is the same as other forms of media thus the internet should be censored the same. This assertion is wrong as the provider of television, radio and print (broadcast) media decides what I view, with the internet it's the other way around, I decide what I view. Until this is understood by a large section of the populous we'll continue to see this and eventually get smacked down again by the minority (which Conroy is trying to paint as the "technological elite").
Whilst you could successfully argue that push (broadcast) media should be censored as inappropriate material could be accidentally seen (BTW, personally I do not hold this view), it cannot be successfully argued that pull (unicast or multicast) should be censored as you have to make a conscious decision to go there. Unfortunately few understand the difference between the internet and other media, at best we can do at the moment is to scare the average Australian with the old "filtering will require ISP's to double prices" trick, which is partly true making the best kind of election campaign. Not that censorship is particularly popular, most people are against it and the Greens are openly announcing a "no" vote prior to the elections.
But the pubs open and the footys on. Bloody hell you bastards are demanding, I riot after three quarters time when the Dockers get their arse handed to them.
I prefer buying games that I like (I make no apology about pirating crap games, the market must adjust to the level of poorly coded shovelware clones out there). Thus most of my games are purchased but DRM is a serious issue with my legitimately purchased games. It's always a burden, Steam starts up before my network connection does so it always fails to log in (I just turn it off in the end), the simple fact that I cant play my steam games unless steam is running is a huge burden.
What happened to Tom's 1 to 16?