"accused Samsung of waging all-out patent war"
Isn't that exactly what they said they'd do, back in the summer?
Can't help but think Apple have brought this on themselves.
446 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Nov 2007
Mark this day, but I actually agree with the old ginger buffoon.
10 years ago, M$ were being threatened with being broken up due to their monopolistic actions, they had too much power and were using it to further their business. Now the stock holders want to do just that?!? I don't think the various regulatory authorities were saying split M$ up as they're not good enough value for their stockholders!
The PC is the 20th Century, M$ need to find a new cash-cow, and the only way to do that is to throw product at different markets. They best way for them to do that is if they can afford to gamble and use their (de facto) monopoly..
Plus, y'know, the bigger they are... ;-)
local Indian takeaway was using a fairly beat up em@iler until about a year ago. Always gave me a chuckle seeing it.
and as for @Nuke
"He bet the farm on it. A number of of his senior staff resigned from the company in disgust."
They did, but in defence of the barrow boy, how many of them now wear fancy cloaks, and have their own hit TV show?
OK, so we've discovered a natural resource, that is there for the taken (bar some up front investment) that not only reduces our reliance on imports, but would also give the govt a bit of extra cash. Sure, we don't want to continue to burn gas, or dig up Preston to get at it, we know it's bad. But it's there, and it's better than free, and we have no choice. Surely it's not beyond the realms of man (or even whitehall mandarin) to say, ok, so this'll get us a few extra £bn over the next decade, let's use that so when it does run out, we have a viable green alternative, and we've kicked our gas-habit for good. Is it really too hard to imagine?
Is this the version where there's an extra scene at the beginning of ANH, where we see Greedo planting bombs, murdering school kids, abusing every known narcotic, and pimping out a whole bunch of those green dancing girls. All shortly before his ill-fated meeting with all-round-good-guy Han. Who was therefore totally justified in practically shooting him on sight, and as Han sits back with a wry smile on his face, we see that it was in fact Bin Laden in disguise!!!11!!
I disagree, I think that it's enough that technology can provide kids with a 'panic button' and let them get on with the messy business of growing up without constant surveillance/intervention/nannying.
Kids need to be taught that freedom is the greatest gift and learn the responsibility to use it wisely, not 'micromanaged' *shudder*
I hate that term, and the concept behind it.
it's a technique used by a certain type of person, that has no direct control or influence over a situation, and feels deeply uncomfortable about that (can I say 'impotent'?). They force those involved, those who do influence the outcome of a situation, to constantly report back any change or action, or more often, lack of change as it was only a minute ago you asked, just let me get on with it DAMMIT!! </tangent> These people need to learn to just relax and go with the flow.
See what I did there?
But seriously, never heard of her. Some career advice for her, if she wants to be a successful IT CEO, she needs to get with the program and piss off as many of her customers as possible. And maybe wear a nice pastel sweater too.
Of course, Yahoo! doesn't have any customers left TO piss off...
An all expenses paid 2 week vacation into one of the world's many trouble spots, where life is undoubtedly harsher than living on benefits in a London council estate. If they survive, then they might think themselves lucky and come back even slightly reformed, otherwise.. well no need to pay for the return flight.
As it happens multi core does that.
Thanks to the magic of physics, running 1 core at 1GHz uses more power than running 2 at 500MHz. Of course that doesn't stop developers from thinking 'multi-core == free lunch' and making the software even more bloated and cycle hungry, so you end up having to run both cores at 1GHz.
I'd really like to know what it is that the uk taxpayer has bought with all this money, as from what I can tell it's just gone straight onto the balance sheets of the companies involved, with nothing of any worth having been delivered.
I'd also like to be able to say that the findings of the report are a complete surprise, but it's been inevitable since the outset.
Who should we be asking about a refund?
"Secondly I agree you'd have to be terminally dim to allow permissions without realising exactly what you've agreed to."
Perhaps you've missed all those studies where people happily hand over login details for a bar of chocolate, etc. - Even if the installed asked permission for things like 'take all your money', you'd still find people who would click 'accept' just to get their fix of Angry Farmers or whatever.
What is needed is a system that breaks the current 'no permission - no play' access granting system.
Just adding that to the permissions system would be enough, so at install time you could select which of the permissions to actually grant, and which you'd like to have the OS provide 'fake' access to - for instance, allow it to get a location fix, but it's always the north pole. Or allow send sms, but the sent sms's just appear in a folder that would allow the user to vet them before possible allowing them to be sent.
"if time travel will ever exist - ever - then time travelers are here, now, in their subjective past."
This is a common rationale against time travel, but it makes a wide range of assumptions on the nature of the universe. If it is possible - and the odds are stacked against - then you might not see them here, in their past, as it hasn't been discovered *yet* - their past, may not be our present, if we invoke a many-worlds theory.
For your statement to be true not only requires that time travel be permitted, but also that the future is fixed, which raises many deep philosophical questions.
I'm pretty sure it's only been about 3-4 years since they started bombarding our telly boxes with those annoying ads, what were they doing before that?
Still, impressive sales. Though 38 million cards from 3 million punters, means either most of their business is repeat custom, or there are some seriously addicted moonpiggers out there!
I doubt it. Their HW platform was no more suited to Android than it is to WinPhone, sure they might have had more enthusiasm from the engineering, but they've all been sacked anyway.
Also, M$ would still be winning, as Nokia would have to pay the license fees that have been reported on recently. At least this way, M$ is paying them to take it. For now.
Not really, I just don't see masses of people all holding off buying a WinPhone because it lacks a Nokia badge.
What we're seeing here is Nokia's smartphone customer base trading out to something else, and in the meantime buying their partners/parents/whatever a Samsung Android handset instead of the mid range S60 they would have so readily recommended in recent years.
Nokia's traditional customer base have now left the building, and no amount of chair-throwing antics from the sweaty orang-utang is going to change that.
" the judge decided that since the evidence was given by someone no longer in Aaron’s employ, what had happened in the past didn’t count as evidence of likely future harm."
That could be a nice get-out-of-jail-free card right there for them!
It did, there was plenty of interest in it when it first hit the ground. Where it fell down was the simple fact that it was shit, and solved a problem no-one had, or could even understand.
Let's see if + hits the same rocky shores. Early signs aren't so good, with "so what do I do with it" being the reactions of most early adopters.
Is there any hint of how these would actually be implemented? That may well involve some non obvious novelty, in the way devices would detect each others locations to such accuracy. But patenting the fact that a user can interact with some pixels, and what the pixels might look like?!? Puh-lease!
between Google and ICANN; When is a registered domain not a registered domain? when it doesn't show up in an explicit google search for it.
So, if I owned a .co.cc domain, how much would I have to pay Google to have them return it in their results? If there was a free for all in TLDs, then you can bet Google will be looking at how best to 'monetize' it, purely for the good of their users mind, nothing evil, never anything evil...
From what I can tell, to get a patent in the US only seems to require that you submit a claim that has either different words, or different ordering of words from any previous patents, and that you obfuscate the obviousness of the 'patent' with enough words to bore even to most 'librarian' of patent clerks into submission. And once you get that stamp (it's 9pm on a Friday and the clerk wants to get home for an illicit Horlick's), it's just a game of Poker with anyone you fancy taking aim at, except you now have the unfair advantage that to see your hand, the other side has to shell out thousands/millions of $$ to lawyers.
Perhaps the scale of the rapture is entirely dependent on the number of believers involved, as it will only be They Who Truly Believe that will experience it, as I understand it, the rest of us are left behind to look after the cats. If that is the case, then perhaps it did actually happen, but on such a overwhelming minor scale that no one noticed.
We have all been found wanting and God has left us. At least the two Steves are still here to keep us entertained.
Three letters: A O L
All ISPs should have a contract that basically asks:
I understand that the internet is full of questionable and/or objectionable content, and I am a responsible adult.
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Those that tick no, get signed up to AOL, the rest of us can get on with our day in peace.