I grew up running OS-9 Level II on a Tandy CoCo 3. Pretty amazing stuff for the time.

The idea that iPhone owners aren't and can't be geeks is a red herring.

Despite that, I agree with the overall gist of your comment: the quality of Slashdot posts has declined.

The article summary mentions nothing about patent, so what's with the comment on prior art?!

And from its sub-pixel resolution, to its developer tools, to its 'write once, play everywhere' functionality, Flash has too much going for it to fall by the wayside.

What write once, play everywhere functionality?!?!

I think you'd be surprised how many real geeks use apple devices.

Agreed.

I'm 35. I got my first computer (a TRS-80 CoCo 1) in 1980. I was writing pretty sophisticated code by the mid- to late-80's. Wrote a wardialer for OS-9 Level II when I was in my teens. I've been professionally involved in IT (engineering, consulting and management) for well over a decade. I own or have owned most easily obtainable computing platforms, often just for the sake of exploration and learning. I recently bought an old HP-9000/735 just to play around with NeXTStep PA-RISC. I do system administration for various flavors of Windows, Linux, and Unix, including Mac OS X.

By almost any account, I'm a hardcore geek. And I love my iPad. If anything, just because it's a new platform to explore. But also because it's a great kick-back and relax device for content consumption and play.

For some reason, there's a group of people out there who view the iPad as a threat of some kind. I frankly just don't get it. Apple's not forcing anyone to buy or use their products, and they aren't trying to take away your "real" computer. If you don't want one, don't buy it. But, leave those who do buy it in peace. The iPad appeals to a wide class of people: both hardcore geeks like myself who are eager to explore the new platform, and also to people who really don't want to put up with the complexity of traditional computers just for the sake of sending an email to their family.

More like vice versa. Theora is an extension of VP3, the only codec whose patent holder (On2) has licensed it worldwide for use in software meeting the definition of free software. All other codec owners have rejected Firefox.

No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.

Nope. That's completely false. Thus you have no right to think of it.

There's also the problem of would be terrorists coming to the US on student visas and then doing something else with their time in the country. This is likely the strongest case for involving Federal funds in this matter although there should be more appropriate means of verifying a student's presence at a campus that don't involve the wholesale homage to Big Brother.

GIMP is open source, covered by the GPL. How, exactly, would it be stealing for Apple to use the GIMP codebase?

One might wonder about the persistent production of certain fluids.

You're putting a lot of words in to my mouth there. I didn't say anything about open source being better than closed source anywhere. I also said nothing bad about DirectX. All I said was it's wrong to use proprietary standards.

I will say again, I am on topic for this particular thread. You have no idea if I have read TFA or not. As far as trolling, the first (off-topic) comment bothered me and I chose to respond...I guess that's feeding the troll isn't it.

And for the EXACT SAME REASON. That is also why ppl like Ben Franklin invented his stove and then left it in public domain. So that an industry could be started from it. In addition, Walt Disney himself made heavy use of works that had gone into public domain. He likely would not have gotten off the ground except for that.

Maybe because all the "safety requirements" for an activity that is inherently unsafe (strapped to what is essentially a bomb is NOT safe!) delay the process and increase costs beyond what is "economically feasible".

I work in a Faraday cage, you insensitive clod!

Michael Collins didn't.

So essentially this would require developers to go out on a limb and almost invent a new type of online experience, we have our mmorpgs, and we have our first person shooters. The mmo is protected by subscriptions, where the first person shooter is not, obviously you can't charge people a monthly fee to play a first person shooter in its current format, but why not instead take the campaign content and put it in an online mmo format, then charge a flat fee for the game as well as a subscription. There aren't many games like this, although a more recent one such as Global Agenda comes to mind. I really can't say that the pirating is not happening, because it is, even games that require steam have been cracked for people to play the campaign content for free. I think the best commonground solution would be to tell your story in an online world, similar to how guild wars handled story progression and massively multiplayer features, then require a subscription, because it then becomes a point where buying the software is irrelevant, and its all about a subscription, add more content through patches, and you have a steady userbase.