This makes no sense to me. First of all, G+ is a non-starter because Google is even worse than Facebook about collecting all the data they can on everyone who touches their services and trying to sell to them. If it ever were to catch on (however unlikely that may be), you'd see the exact same thing there or worse. The rest, well, if you can't monetize it somehow, who's going to pay the developers to develop it? A bunch of enthusiasts only gets you so far, and won't be able to keep up with an organization that has a revenue stream that's able to sustain a large development team. Apple's theory has been to tie their services to hardware and make money there, thus negating the need to track and spam, but it doesn't seem to produce great online services that way (and most geeks here seem to prefer Google monitoring their every move to Apple's model anyway). So basically, it's not going to become world-class if it can't be monetized, and while the only two models today (track and spam like FB and Google or tie to hardware like Apple and Samsung) each have significant issues, you don't seem to be proposing any alternate model that could be self-sustaining either.
The Matrix came out in 1999. Remember those switchblade phones they used? That was a Nokia 8110... state of the art in 2000. The PalmOS phones wouldn't come out for a few years after that, which are arguably one of the first mass-produced "smart" phones.
On this site a substantial number of readers use a phone whose OS is produced by a company that gets 95% of its revenue and profit from recording everything about you that it can, finding your weaknesses, and selling access to them to the highest bidder with zero oversight. Compared to that, what is the outrage over a Government agency sifting through metadata looking for people who want to hurt us and trying to stop them?
> The default cipher list for Java 7 was updated, but Android is stuck using JDK 6 and a default cipher list over a decade old.
The Android platform did not upgrade. How is that Oracle's fault? Next we will be blaming vendors for vulnerabilities that were patched years ago.
It can't possibly be Google's fault; this is Slashdot. It must be Oracle's fault that Google copied badly from Java.
Yes and no. You do not have to include the high risk patients, and we do have a good reason to rule them out of that data.
Just compare the patents that a competent midwife would of warned away from a home-birth.
"A competent midwife" is a loaded statement. In the UK most midwives have at least a 3-year degree or an additional set of courses on top of a nursing degree. In the US, many midwives are "self-taught" or taught by apprenticeship by others and there is little oversight. And, of course, the US does not have universal health care so many more pregnancies are higher risk with reduced prenatal care of the mother or child. I'm not sure where the study the parent poster was quoting was done, but it should certainly control for health care systems as well.
My answer is: Apple doesn't have a design patent on rounded corners and never claimed to have one
D670,286. Dotted lines are not part of the claimed patent. The only solid lines in that patent are: 1 rectangle with rounded corners. 1 rectangle inside the rounded one for the screen.
They simply show a diagram of an iPad and claim a design patent on anything that could be confused with it. "Rounded corners" does not appear in the claim list at all. One could create a new device whose corners were a different radius and it wouldn't infringe. (Plus, this patent has never been tested in court-- the Samsung trial used much more complete patented renderings, and claimed software similarities while this is a hardware design patent.)
My answer is: Apple doesn't have a design patent on rounded corners and never claimed to have one. (And Gore never claimed he was the inventor of the Internet, either.)
Not just that, but hotel chains do this because it's how businesses and the Government (apparently) like to pay them. They negotiate a fixed price for a room then reimburse employees for fees like parking, Internet, etc. If you go $1 over your allotted room rate you're in trouble, but $20 parking and $5/night internet? No problem.
Samsung's case hinged on a standards-essential patent they had agreed to license on fair and nondiscriminatory terms and was decided by the ITC. Apple's patent was not part of a standard and was decided by a US court of law. The cases aren't even remotely similar, no there's nothing "blatant" here.
What you are seeing is the liberal's strategy for staying in power. Get as many people as possible dependent on the government. Then nobody dare oppose them or they will threaten to take away the government teat like what is happening right now. Obamacare is their attempt to get the majority of the population dependent on government for medical care. Imagine the power they will wield when they can threaten to shut down the government and take away your health care.
Every point in your post is the complete opposite of the truth. It's the Republicans who repeatedly threaten to take away the Government when they don't get concession on top of concession. And most of the safety net programs are designed to keep you from becoming destitute and therefore remain employable instead of becoming a social burden. And the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is not Government health care; It's the opposite of that. You are required to take responsibility for yourself and get yourself insured so we don't have to pay for you when things go wrong, but beyond that it's up to you to make a deal with your own private insurer. They even provide an online free market system in which to do it. It's a Conservative wet dream, but they can't let Obama get credit for it. That's why they have no plan themselves, just repeal and go back to the old system.
So now they're demanding we bring back pre-existing conditions, re-enstate lifetime insurance caps, make it harder for low-income and working class women to control their fertility, make us pay for some uninsured YOLO's emergency room visit, keep graduate students or people starting their career from staying on previous insurance while they're getting on their feet, eliminate preventive care for diabetics and other high-risk individuals forcing them to go to the emergency room when things get bad, eliminate vaccination programs, allow insurers to raise rates to increase their profits arbitrarily, prevent individuals starting businesses to self-insure in an open competitive marketplaces or else they'll shut down the Government, refuse to negotiate a budget, and default on the debt. Yeah. That makes sense.