And I answer again:

In the most practical way. If you issue a device that has a different aspect ratio, you might still get sued (as Samsung has).

More generally, you need to be a patent lawyer in order to answer, in general, whether things like aspect ratio are part of the specific claims of a design patent. I am not a lawyer. Obviously, Apple's lawyers thought it is not.

If you know differently (maybe you are a patent lawyer), please do speak up. If not, please avoid re-asking the same question merely because you do not like the answer.

Shachar

In the practical way. Samsung were sued for violating this patent despite having a different aspect ratio. Obviously, Apple doesn't think the aspect ratio in any way limits the applicability of this patent.

The aspect ratio was so different that Apple felt the need to photoshop evidence to make the devices look more alike.

Shachar

Let me see.....

GP linked to the patent. The patent covers everything shown in the diagram that isn't excluded by means of being drawn in a dotted line. If you check the diagram, the only thing not dotted are the rounded corners and the curve on the back (which just means the "rounded corners" are 3D).

So, no. This design patent is solely about rounded corners.

Shachar

Windows, including the most up to date one, still have a 16 bit personality able to run DOS programs. This means there is something there that is able to catch int 21 and process it, as well as allow programs to direct interrupts.

While it is true that cmd.exe (as well as the black screen dumb terminal that it usually runs in) are not DOS, DOS is certainly still in there, somewhere.

Which is not to say that I think the "vulnerability" angle has any merit. Just that your statement isn't entirely true.

Shachar

Not necessarily.

In a study, patents were given placebo, and told what it was. They got specific instructions that these are just sugar pills, and that it doesn't really matter whether they take it or not. The pills were still as effective as placebo.

I am wondering why that research did not make more waves than it did, as it clearly solves placebo's greatest problem as treatment.

Shachar

As long as the research is valid and the conclusions correctly presented (which, in this case, they do not seem to have been), I don't care for the motive.

Shachar

How will stop voting improve the situation?

Shachar

Even if it's legal to install the CA, it is almost certainly not legal to intercept the traffic (wiretapping laws etc).

So, probably illegal, but IANAL.

Shachar

No, that is not what everyone on slashdot are saying.

What we are saying is:

• Terrorism is extremely rare.
• People who brings a water bottle on board because they want to drink it are extremely common

So, to falsify the common slashdot knowledge, you'd have to show all of the following:

1. The plane was downed by a terrorist attack
2. The terrorists were not the passengers boarding with false passport (else traditional airport security was supposed to locate them),

3. and..

4. The terrorist were using some sophisticated water based bomb assembled on board, or smuggled stuff in their underwear.

Assuming 1 is true and the rest is false, pre-9/11 airport security was all it was supposed to take to prevent this plane from going down.

Shachar

Not Sherlock, but Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. The one who originally said "fire in a crowded theater".

Shachar

I don't think "we all" quite covers it.

TL;DR:
Holmes is often misquoted (more specifically, truncated). Holmes himself recanted that position later.

Shachar

Do you have any citation for the taste claim? From what I heard, taste was actually pretty good.

Here's what I have (from wikipedia):

Shachar

While I agree that Android != Linux, I think your statements are somewhat over-broad.

There is a full Posix userspace on Android. It is done via different libraries than the usual ones, so don't expect any GNU extensions to glibc and such, but posix is there completely. You will need to use a toolchain adapted to that environment, but the same holds true if you decide to go with uclibc.

I'm not sure what you mean by the kernel being locked/limited. This is, when all is said and done, a Linux kernel, exposing all of the usual Linux user space APIs. There are some non-standard APIs as well, true, but I don't see how that is any problem. I have statically compiled a fairly comprehensive version of busybox, and everything worked. The only reason I did this statically was to avoid the toolchain problem mentioned above.

Shachar

Completely undermining.

Shachar

I think you are thinking about the wrong question. The question is not whether the publication is going to cause trouble. Of course it is. The question is whether it is legitimate for the spying to have taken place in the first place.

If it is, then Snowden releasing this information is betrayal, and the shit storm that will (likely) happen now is just one good reason to keep this a secret.

My point was that countries are forming spy organizations. I know very few people who claim those organizations are completely unnecessary. And yet, assuming you don't live in a country with clear enemies (which, living in Israel, I actually do), you have to wonder, who are those organizations spying on? If it's not okay to spy on your own citizens (and it's not), and not okay to spy on your close allies (which it's probably not), and not okay to spy on other countries (which, implied by this piece of news, is also not), then who's left?

Shachar