Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:lol (Score 2) 126

Kind of counter productive, in this case... Hollywood has made a huge noise about this sort of issue for such a long time that most people have had the topic forced into their consciousness and are aware that copyright infringement IS NOT theft.

So, their natural reaction is going to be "I know you are fucking with my head and you're making me angry."

But no one likes having someone take credit for their work. That's an issue that touches even the guy flipping burgers. If they framed the issue accurately, they'd get more sympathy for their position.

Comment Re:lol (Score 1) 126

They do this because they want people in general to relate to them. If people do not relate to them, they will not stand beside them.

The vast majority of people are completely immune to copyright infringement. They don't make a living selling people permission to copy. Therefore, when they hear "We must do something about copyright infringement!", their reaction is "Meh, doesn't affect me."

Just about everybody is vulnerable to theft. Most people have a shirt on their back and would be cold if someone took it. Therefore, when they hear "We must do something about theft!", their reaction is "Yeah, I don't want anyone stealing my shirt! I'm with you!"

This is their motive for trying to confuse people about the issue.

Comment Re:Actually... (Score 1) 642

Ok, you clearly are trolling. The line you quoted says, an orbit is a path around a point in space. Not an object. A point. And, in the case of our planet that point is the barycenter of the Sun and the Earth. Not sure what your agenda is here, but I'm content that any third party reading this exchange will understand, so I think I've done enough here.

Comment Re:Actually... (Score 4, Informative) 642

Same way you define the center of anything: the thing around which other things rotate.

Occam's Razor rules out the sheer complexity of any model showing our solar system orbiting any body other than the Sun.

If you want to be precise about it, the Earth does not rotate around the Sun.

Rather, the Sun and the Earth rotate around their mutual center of gravity, or barycenter. Same goes for the other planets. The barycenter of the Sun and the Earth is within the Sun, but is not at the center of the Sun. The barycenter of the Sun and Jupiter, on the other hand, is not contained within the Sun at all.

Comment Re:Just like Nuclear Fusion (Score 3, Funny) 256

No. Nothing like nuclear fusion. This is not an energy source. It is a fuel source.

I think the parent was referring to the power that would need to be input into these processes. Without nuclear power of some sort, this would be kinda pointless for the Navy's purposes.

I think the guy was intending to express his skepticism that we will ever see this happen. Nuclear fusion is the new Duke Nukem Forever.

Comment Re:I'm not entirely sure how it merited a patent i (Score 0) 408

Whatever, dude. You're biased as hell and I don't care. If I found the interview, you'd say he was just a bad egg who should be fired and that it wasn't systematic. I'm not American and I have no desire to start a business and be your servants, so I can just casually infringe on all this shit as though it didn't exist while your country implodes on an overdose of poorly thought out ideology.

Back in the day, it was necessary to entice people to reveal their guild secrets because forcing them wasn't practical and running them out of business wasn't either. Now, both options are practical, and that's what I support.

I've often thought of building a shopping cart with a 3D scanner in it and going down to the shops to wander around indecisively putting things into and out of my shopping cart, before buying a stick of gum and going home to upload them all to thingiverse. Even things I have no interest in personally possessing. Just to put the screws to people who enforce these artificial scarcity measures. Perhaps the act of typing this out will be the trigger that causes some 16 year old geek to do it tomorrow. If not, I'll probably get to it eventually,

I really do want you guys to suffer, though. I try not to think that way, but some part of me would be upset if you change before you pushed the rest of the world to the point of taking violent steps against you. I know that on a systematic level justice is wrong, and that I should try to have compassion for you even though you're evil fucks... but it IS emotionally gratifying, and I'm not as nice a guy as I try to be.

Comment Re:Seems pretty different, not a gesture (Score 1) 408

I see your point, but to me it's still different even in the case of iOS 6 - yes you are dragging a physical looking element, but that doesn't correspond to anything real - what real-world thing do you drag one way and then the whole thing vanishes? The button itself is physical but not "real".

To me it's just very different than manipulating a very direct physical representation of a real switch on-screen, where the dragging isn't even a flat dragging as it is taking an object through an arc by dragging over as it swings a switch back and forth.

It is a great point that a major issue is that at no point are they showing that action unlock anything. It seems a small point to most of us to go from a switch to an unlock but of such things patents are formed. That may well be wrong, but as that's how the system is you can't argue about t being invalid based on "common sense", when the patent system is built to diverge from same...

You're putting it out there that the MS example has buttons while the iPhone doesn't have any buttons. I'd argue, the MS example is more sophisticated because it supports multiple buttons, while the iPhone has one button: The iPhone. The MS example entirely encapsulates the iPhone's technology and moves forward from there.

Comment Re:Seems pretty different, not a gesture (Score 5, Insightful) 408

I'd say "no" primarily because of the bolt/barrel latches that have been holding doors closed for millenia. The idea of "slide to unlock" is obvious from such devices. "On a computer" is not innovation.

If you actually take the time to watch the video, you might understand the results of UI research are not as obvious as you presume.

For those of you arguing against patents for UI elements in general, this is just HILARIOUS, because this video makes an excellent case for SOMEONE having the patent! =D

Most of the time, I think you guys are just trolling or have a vested interest in the exploitation going on. But for brief moments, one of you manages to convince me that you really are genuinely that stupid, and that I have far fewer peers on this hunk of rock than I thought I did, and it's deeply depressing.

Comment Re:Yes, yes it is. (Score 2, Insightful) 408

"Apple, and several others, have managed to blatantly hijack the patent system"

Not defending their current practice (slide to unlock and pinch zoom clearly have prior art), but it comes from their past experience.

One obvious example is the keyboard/trackpad layout of all modern laptops. It was Apple on their PowerBooks who pushed the keyboard toward the screen, making room for palmrests and pointing devices below. Prior to that, everyone was putting keyboards tight against the lower edge. They didn't patent it, and the rest of the industry quickly followed.

I never knew that. I hate them just a little more now than I did 5 minutes ago. These trackpads-under-the-palms are fucking terrible.

Not just "I miss the clit-mouse on my old Thinkpad" terrible...

"I need to disable this because I'm constantly moving the cursor with my palms while I try to type and now I need to go buy a USB mouse for this poorly designed piece of shit." terrible.

Comment Re:Except much of the time they're right... (Score 2) 408

The only thing worse than granting ridiculously obvious, simple, overly broad, or just plain stupid patents (and the companies trying to enforce them) is the absurd state of copyright protection in the USA.

Did you actually watch the video? You know, where the nice lady discusses the pros and cons of about ten different ways of doing roughly the same thing, and results of the usability studies?

If anything, this video demonstrates this line of work is not obvious or stupid. Arguing over prior art is one thing, but arguing against patenting UI elements in the context of this R&D video is just a little stupid.

Did you seriously see anything there that wasn't painfully obvious? All the video demonstrated to me is that Microsoft throws their money away. It struck me as a bureaucratic butt covering move that they hired her to go through these motions in the first place.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster. - Voltaire

Working...