If I was attempting to claim that, I would have said so.
What I actually claimed is right there for you to read; and there is never any need to make up extra things that I didn't say in order to understand what I did say.
You're as stupid as the other guy. No, nobody magically learns about anything all on their own, the whole idea is idiotic. And just as idiotic is the idea that kids are going to intentionally turn to adults for music recommendations. The reason that kids get their interests from adults is only because the promoters are adults. Adults who are not using advertising or other promotion to interest the kids will be ignored because the kids will figure out that these adults are making recommendations!
You weren't even born human, it is obvious because you were never a human child.
Artists make money when you go to their show, buy a ticket, and buy swag from the booth. They might even make money off the CD sales at the concert booth.
This is generally true regardless of whatever deal they signed with a record company. Also, performing is most of the work that a performer should be doing. So it makes sense.
If they write their own songs, they also get paid when it plays on the radio.
Artists who complain about their record deal should be touring more. They're not really even in the "record" business.
If the RIAA vanished tomorrow, new mechanisms would form to help people find music they like. And those new mechanisms would be better for both the artists and listener.
Or worse. Some places have mechanisms where people who listen to music have their heads removed from their torsos.
If a group of people is vanishing, I have a few questions before I know if it is better or worse.
I'm sitting here listening to Rolling Stones recordings from the 70s, and I was reading their history on wikipedia... they got their first UK chart hit by having fan club members buy the single at the record shops that were being polled for the chart! LOL That's what let them get bookings outside of London. They were way ahead of the game. The labels didn't have the payola locked up yet, so their band manager was able to finagle that stuff directly.
One of my other common listening choices is the Clancy Brothers. They were folk fans trying to be theater actors in NY, they opened a theater and production company and they only starting performing as a folk act to promote their venue. Commercial success as a promo was hoped for, but artistic success and recognition was perhaps a (welcome) surprise.
The money doesn't bother me. I also listen to Madonna, her money doesn't bother me either.
What people don't realize is that when their friend tells them about a show somewhere, it was probably promoted to them using money. "Word of mouth" often consists of happy customers simply repeating the ad copy for free to their friends. People miss that part.
... instead you wrote some enormous history of how SCOTUS totally misunderstood Congress's intent in 1885 and Congress stepped in and rewrote the law, even though that has nothing whatsoever to do with the case in hand.
If you read the ruling, it actually does matter, in that the Court looked at it and it made their decision easy here. Reading the ruling is really easy, it is only a few pages of plain English. What Congress did when they re-wrote the law was to make the law consistent with what was already the precedent, that's what the fanbois are getting a bit confused about. Sometimes, the Court smacks down a law, and Congress rewrites it trying to get their way. That is what some smucks would have you believe here. But if you read the ruling it explains it very clearly; that isn't what happened here. Here Congress just fixed the law to say the same thing as what the Court had interpreted the old law as meaning.
And it doesn't take more than five pages to explain "You're doing it wrong...
Granted, it is 9 pages. But these "pages" are a single narrow column of text with large print. A more typical business format would only reach 3 pages. And most of it is spent explaining the dispute; the part explaining the ruling and its reasoning is only three pages, starting with:
The text resolves this case. The term “article of manu- facture,” as used in 289, encompasses both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product.
followed by a detailed explanation. That Congress didn't even try to change the precedent when they last visited the law makes it clear to the Court what their intent was.
You're close, but it isn't the incremental profits as it is with other types of IP; here it is 100% of the profit directly attributable to the component. So it doesn't matter how much profit they made, or how much less they would have made had they not infringed.
What matters is the profit that they made from the physical component that infringed. It doesn't matter what the differential would be if they used something else. Unfortunately for Apple, the design patent covers primarily the plastic bezel, for which Samsung probably doesn't even have any profits, and the software screen layout, which is software, and likely don't have any profits from the software either.
The reality is that design patents aren't as useful as Apple claimed; on a decorative item, which is what they're intended for, they offer a lot of protection because the design actually is the value; a decorative plate is the typical example. Complex items that are mostly functional aren't well protected by design patents, because most of the device is functional and by definition isn't covered, and you're not going to get paid for the functional components just because the case copied your case. If a regular functional-but-ugly smarthphone cost $5, and the one with the fancy design code $500, as is the case with decorative plates, then it would make sense to protect it that way.
The really funny part is that 50 years ago Congress rewrote the law to say exactly what the Court said today, which was already the precedent under the old law. So 100+ years ago Congress wrote the law in an unclear way, the Court clarified, and then 50 years ago Congress fixed the law to say the same thing as the precedent. Then a couple years ago, the appeals court made up some nonsense that was exactly the same as what the Court had thrown out 100 years ago. Most slashdot readers are on one side or the other of this issue, and either way, they don't/won't/can't comprehend the basic facts in dispute.
The whole thing is only a few pages, and it was written by Sotomayor so it is easy to read. They upheld the exact wording of the statute here, which is in agreement with precedent. The only thing thrown out was the awful ruling.
The Federal Circuit would have us believe that the word "article" in "article of manufacture" means only things available for sale by themselves. As Justice Sotomayor explains, article actually means any item, it is a very broad word. So an "article of manufacture" is a thing you make; the definition has nothing to do with if it is sold to the end consumer in a single box or not. According to Apple and the Federal Circuit, even the toys in a Happy Meal wouldn't be articles of manufacture, since they're not sold by themselves! A toy in a crackerjack box? Not an article of manufacture. A car stereo? Oh, only if it is a brand available in the store. A brand only sold as an OEM unit would not be an article of manufacture! Complete absurdity.
Also clear in the ruling is that if Samsung had had better SCOTUS lawyers, they could have got more of the issues decided; there were issues briefed by the government that would likely have gone Samsung's way, that are instead being sent back down to the Federal Circuit. But the Court did make clear that they're ready to do more work on this case when it comes back, and it likely will because Apple can't resist asking for the moon, and the Federal Circuit can't resist giving Apple whatever they ask for.
Having actually read the ruling, the answer is that it didn't change any precedent, and they actually ruled that the Federal Circuit had avoided existing precedent, and that their interpretation also conflicted directly with the statute.
Because with prohibition the federal government could take whatever steps it wanted to do enforcement!
With drugs, it is only a federal matter in the first place when certain conditions are present, such as involving interstate commerce.
The vast majority of situations involving law enforcement are only going to be dealing with State law.
Like if you're watching a cop or lawyer show, and there is some Federal cop tagging along. They can go anywhere and look at files and stuff, but the locals call the shots unless something happens that lets the Feds take over, then the local cops are out of the loop. See also: Roe v. Wade; the right of privacy requires that the government have a reason to mess with you.
Real research is in early stages in stages that have legalized. There is actually funding, and a shortage of grant proposals at this stage. That is expected to change, as there are presumably a large number of in-progress proposals.
It is certainly true that California's first try was defeated partly by the pot exporters, but there were other problems too. Like in Oregon, we voted on it multiple times because the early efforts were bad laws, poorly written, poorly designed.
Totally anecdotal, but a friend of mine smoked a large quantity of ayahuasca (the plant, not the drink) and went on a trip into the sprit world... for a few months. He spent most of it in the hospital. It was a few years before he was back to "normal."
I'm so glad I was the party pooper who said, "Uhm, no thanks, I have no idea what that actually does."
The logical expectation is for a change not a good/bad evaluation.
Obviously it is logical that changes are more likely to be bad than good, whatever criteria you're using. But good changes do exist, see also: medicine.
You should stop the name-calling. You're trying to use nasty language to shout down people just for having different opinions than you. That is lame. Actually, it is totally idiotic and stupid. I don't mean any insult, I mean that literally; it is poor mental technique. It is illogical and actually harmful to public discourse and logic. Which is bad. Whereas cock-sucking is more of a personal issue, not some sort of failing that you should insist people not do.
Other opinions than yours exist. There is no reason for him to change his views just to make you happy. There is no reason for you to think that anybody who disagrees, would instead agree, just to make you happy.
Snowden is a controversial figure. If you can't see multiple sides of that, then you're an idiot. There are going to be people who disagree with what he did, and there are going to be people who disagree over the results, over the details of what happened, over the details of what didn't happen, over the details of what is happening now, over the details of what could or should be done differently in the future, there are disagreements over the choices of people to receive the information and decide what to tell us and when, there are disagreements over even the technical meaning of what was leaked. There are disagreements over even the expected civic consequences based on existing law, even though most of the experts agree about exactly which laws apply and if they were intended to apply in this situation.
There are even apparently disagreements over which definitions of "can't" the President of the United States is allowed to use, a controversy I find shocking just that it would be raised, though I'm not surprised at all how many people refuse to even attempt to understand his words.
No, in the sense that I said it. If you don't know, you're not even ready to disagree.
You don't need to correct something that might to be true, but you don't know.
There are examples that are very famous bits of software that even you have heard of, you just didn't know that they were written using OOP in plain C.
I don't provide a link or tell you the name, because you're expected to already know what I'm talking about before you try to tell me I'm wrong. You apparently don't even know what OOP is. You read a comment where somebody tried to explain, but you argued instead.
I could cherry pick a period of growth in a rodent population cycle that would show the same type of result, but neither would result in a prediction of boiling off the oceans. You have to look at the complete cycle to make any sort of predictions about it. What should jump out at you right away in that type of chart is that it is a subset of a cycle, and so you have no idea what the rest of the curve is. It is not rational to be given a chart of part of a cycle and assume it grows unchecked to an extreme result like boiling oceans.
I could chart two months of El Nino and show the same thing.
Well, surely the elite monk who got there against all odds would have had a special ability to see the problems of the future, right? LOL
If you go from this stuff to Feynman's memoirs there is very big, refreshing contrast. Feynman would see a giant pile of unknowns in the future and know he wouldn't be able to calculate a result, and that it is also out of his field so he should finish a solid calculation before trying to dictate the answer to the world.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm not attempting to claims that.
If I was attempting to claim that, I would have said so.
What I actually claimed is right there for you to read; and there is never any need to make up extra things that I didn't say in order to understand what I did say.
You're as stupid as the other guy. No, nobody magically learns about anything all on their own, the whole idea is idiotic. And just as idiotic is the idea that kids are going to intentionally turn to adults for music recommendations. The reason that kids get their interests from adults is only because the promoters are adults. Adults who are not using advertising or other promotion to interest the kids will be ignored because the kids will figure out that these adults are making recommendations!
You weren't even born human, it is obvious because you were never a human child.
Artists make money when you go to their show, buy a ticket, and buy swag from the booth. They might even make money off the CD sales at the concert booth.
This is generally true regardless of whatever deal they signed with a record company. Also, performing is most of the work that a performer should be doing. So it makes sense.
If they write their own songs, they also get paid when it plays on the radio.
Artists who complain about their record deal should be touring more. They're not really even in the "record" business.
Well, most of the cats do have soundtracks.
If the RIAA vanished tomorrow, new mechanisms would form to help people find music they like. And those new mechanisms would be better for both the artists and listener.
Or worse. Some places have mechanisms where people who listen to music have their heads removed from their torsos.
If a group of people is vanishing, I have a few questions before I know if it is better or worse.
how are high school students ... expected to learn about bands without help from labels?
Adults ...
LMFAO you're not even from this planet, man. ROFLCOPTER
Most of the music I listen to is from before I was born, but I was a kid once. A human kid.
I'm sitting here listening to Rolling Stones recordings from the 70s, and I was reading their history on wikipedia... they got their first UK chart hit by having fan club members buy the single at the record shops that were being polled for the chart! LOL That's what let them get bookings outside of London. They were way ahead of the game. The labels didn't have the payola locked up yet, so their band manager was able to finagle that stuff directly.
One of my other common listening choices is the Clancy Brothers. They were folk fans trying to be theater actors in NY, they opened a theater and production company and they only starting performing as a folk act to promote their venue. Commercial success as a promo was hoped for, but artistic success and recognition was perhaps a (welcome) surprise.
The money doesn't bother me. I also listen to Madonna, her money doesn't bother me either.
What people don't realize is that when their friend tells them about a show somewhere, it was probably promoted to them using money. "Word of mouth" often consists of happy customers simply repeating the ad copy for free to their friends. People miss that part.
... instead you wrote some enormous history of how SCOTUS totally misunderstood Congress's intent in 1885 and Congress stepped in and rewrote the law, even though that has nothing whatsoever to do with the case in hand.
If you read the ruling, it actually does matter, in that the Court looked at it and it made their decision easy here. Reading the ruling is really easy, it is only a few pages of plain English. What Congress did when they re-wrote the law was to make the law consistent with what was already the precedent, that's what the fanbois are getting a bit confused about. Sometimes, the Court smacks down a law, and Congress rewrites it trying to get their way. That is what some smucks would have you believe here. But if you read the ruling it explains it very clearly; that isn't what happened here. Here Congress just fixed the law to say the same thing as what the Court had interpreted the old law as meaning.
And it doesn't take more than five pages to explain "You're doing it wrong...
Granted, it is 9 pages. But these "pages" are a single narrow column of text with large print. A more typical business format would only reach 3 pages. And most of it is spent explaining the dispute; the part explaining the ruling and its reasoning is only three pages, starting with:
followed by a detailed explanation. That Congress didn't even try to change the precedent when they last visited the law makes it clear to the Court what their intent was.
You're close, but it isn't the incremental profits as it is with other types of IP; here it is 100% of the profit directly attributable to the component. So it doesn't matter how much profit they made, or how much less they would have made had they not infringed.
What matters is the profit that they made from the physical component that infringed. It doesn't matter what the differential would be if they used something else. Unfortunately for Apple, the design patent covers primarily the plastic bezel, for which Samsung probably doesn't even have any profits, and the software screen layout, which is software, and likely don't have any profits from the software either.
The reality is that design patents aren't as useful as Apple claimed; on a decorative item, which is what they're intended for, they offer a lot of protection because the design actually is the value; a decorative plate is the typical example. Complex items that are mostly functional aren't well protected by design patents, because most of the device is functional and by definition isn't covered, and you're not going to get paid for the functional components just because the case copied your case. If a regular functional-but-ugly smarthphone cost $5, and the one with the fancy design code $500, as is the case with decorative plates, then it would make sense to protect it that way.
The really funny part is that 50 years ago Congress rewrote the law to say exactly what the Court said today, which was already the precedent under the old law. So 100+ years ago Congress wrote the law in an unclear way, the Court clarified, and then 50 years ago Congress fixed the law to say the same thing as the precedent. Then a couple years ago, the appeals court made up some nonsense that was exactly the same as what the Court had thrown out 100 years ago. Most slashdot readers are on one side or the other of this issue, and either way, they don't/won't/can't comprehend the basic facts in dispute.
The whole thing is only a few pages, and it was written by Sotomayor so it is easy to read. They upheld the exact wording of the statute here, which is in agreement with precedent. The only thing thrown out was the awful ruling.
The Federal Circuit would have us believe that the word "article" in "article of manufacture" means only things available for sale by themselves. As Justice Sotomayor explains, article actually means any item, it is a very broad word. So an "article of manufacture" is a thing you make; the definition has nothing to do with if it is sold to the end consumer in a single box or not. According to Apple and the Federal Circuit, even the toys in a Happy Meal wouldn't be articles of manufacture, since they're not sold by themselves! A toy in a crackerjack box? Not an article of manufacture. A car stereo? Oh, only if it is a brand available in the store. A brand only sold as an OEM unit would not be an article of manufacture! Complete absurdity.
Also clear in the ruling is that if Samsung had had better SCOTUS lawyers, they could have got more of the issues decided; there were issues briefed by the government that would likely have gone Samsung's way, that are instead being sent back down to the Federal Circuit. But the Court did make clear that they're ready to do more work on this case when it comes back, and it likely will because Apple can't resist asking for the moon, and the Federal Circuit can't resist giving Apple whatever they ask for.
Having actually read the ruling, the answer is that it didn't change any precedent, and they actually ruled that the Federal Circuit had avoided existing precedent, and that their interpretation also conflicted directly with the statute.
Businesses are going to need some robo-cop security robots to deal with this stuff in the future.
auto-banned lol
Because with prohibition the federal government could take whatever steps it wanted to do enforcement!
With drugs, it is only a federal matter in the first place when certain conditions are present, such as involving interstate commerce.
The vast majority of situations involving law enforcement are only going to be dealing with State law.
Like if you're watching a cop or lawyer show, and there is some Federal cop tagging along. They can go anywhere and look at files and stuff, but the locals call the shots unless something happens that lets the Feds take over, then the local cops are out of the loop. See also: Roe v. Wade; the right of privacy requires that the government have a reason to mess with you.
Real research is in early stages in stages that have legalized. There is actually funding, and a shortage of grant proposals at this stage. That is expected to change, as there are presumably a large number of in-progress proposals.
It is certainly true that California's first try was defeated partly by the pot exporters, but there were other problems too. Like in Oregon, we voted on it multiple times because the early efforts were bad laws, poorly written, poorly designed.
Totally anecdotal, but a friend of mine smoked a large quantity of ayahuasca (the plant, not the drink) and went on a trip into the sprit world... for a few months. He spent most of it in the hospital. It was a few years before he was back to "normal."
I'm so glad I was the party pooper who said, "Uhm, no thanks, I have no idea what that actually does."
They modded you funny, but I doubt it is a joke.
The logical expectation is for a change not a good/bad evaluation.
Obviously it is logical that changes are more likely to be bad than good, whatever criteria you're using. But good changes do exist, see also: medicine.
So after reading your comment I thought, OK, I'll look it up.
I was really shocked to find out it means "nerd."
Yeah, I've got the nerd phone. You know it is 2016, right?
[roflcopter, stage left]
Right, like a watermelon seed vs a flat slice of carrot.
Everybody knows a watermelon seed basically sticks to your finger the grip is so good.
I mostly agree, except that if you don't have the tools you need, the essentials haven't been kept!
Of course, any tool they normally provide might be essential for some users.
I'm thinking these days I actually just want to run desktop linux on a mobile device, with a good input application.
Exactly! Sugar-free and aspartame aren't even synonyms.
Anything I would eat that is sugar-free is also aspartame-free, so the whole premise of the story is crap.
Food. It's what's for dinner.
You should stop the name-calling. You're trying to use nasty language to shout down people just for having different opinions than you. That is lame. Actually, it is totally idiotic and stupid. I don't mean any insult, I mean that literally; it is poor mental technique. It is illogical and actually harmful to public discourse and logic. Which is bad. Whereas cock-sucking is more of a personal issue, not some sort of failing that you should insist people not do.
Other opinions than yours exist. There is no reason for him to change his views just to make you happy. There is no reason for you to think that anybody who disagrees, would instead agree, just to make you happy.
Snowden is a controversial figure. If you can't see multiple sides of that, then you're an idiot. There are going to be people who disagree with what he did, and there are going to be people who disagree over the results, over the details of what happened, over the details of what didn't happen, over the details of what is happening now, over the details of what could or should be done differently in the future, there are disagreements over the choices of people to receive the information and decide what to tell us and when, there are disagreements over even the technical meaning of what was leaked. There are disagreements over even the expected civic consequences based on existing law, even though most of the experts agree about exactly which laws apply and if they were intended to apply in this situation.
There are even apparently disagreements over which definitions of "can't" the President of the United States is allowed to use, a controversy I find shocking just that it would be raised, though I'm not surprised at all how many people refuse to even attempt to understand his words.
The first step is to comprehend what he said.
I'll give you a hint, and most people somehow are missing it: He didn't say he isn't allowed to, or would fail.
Now, look up "can't" and see if there are other meanings of "can't" other than just isn't allowed. Hint 2: Yes, there are other definitions.
I just can't support the level of alliteracy that has developed on slashdot these days. Even most of the old farts forgot about reading.
No, in the sense that I said it. If you don't know, you're not even ready to disagree.
You don't need to correct something that might to be true, but you don't know.
There are examples that are very famous bits of software that even you have heard of, you just didn't know that they were written using OOP in plain C.
I don't provide a link or tell you the name, because you're expected to already know what I'm talking about before you try to tell me I'm wrong. You apparently don't even know what OOP is. You read a comment where somebody tried to explain, but you argued instead.
I could cherry pick a period of growth in a rodent population cycle that would show the same type of result, but neither would result in a prediction of boiling off the oceans. You have to look at the complete cycle to make any sort of predictions about it. What should jump out at you right away in that type of chart is that it is a subset of a cycle, and so you have no idea what the rest of the curve is. It is not rational to be given a chart of part of a cycle and assume it grows unchecked to an extreme result like boiling oceans.
I could chart two months of El Nino and show the same thing.
Well, surely the elite monk who got there against all odds would have had a special ability to see the problems of the future, right? LOL
If you go from this stuff to Feynman's memoirs there is very big, refreshing contrast. Feynman would see a giant pile of unknowns in the future and know he wouldn't be able to calculate a result, and that it is also out of his field so he should finish a solid calculation before trying to dictate the answer to the world.