Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment An Actual Comment About the Article (Score 1) 47

Since every other post seems to be eye-rollinging inept trolls or meta-commentary about gender along the full spectrums, I thought I'd actually pos about the content since I read most of the article before I saw it on Slashdot...

It's more interesting than you might think as the people polled are from different technical fields, so the answers are a lot more varied than you usually get in a predictive piece.

If you take a step back though what is really interesting is how much the whole thing together looks like the parable of the blind men and the elephant, each describing only the part they could feel.. The actual future we reach by 2027 will be a really odd mash of all the answers given, where a breakthrough in any number of fields could change the dominance of one answers probability over the others..

Personally I hold out for the dark horse of computational biology taking the forefront by 2027. Perhaps that ship at the end of System Shock 2 was... US!

Comment You have got to be joking (Score 1) 47

*virtue_signal*I don't mind these are all women, I think it's great.*virtue_signal*

However, how many times on Facebook now have I seen an image of "Tumps Economic Team" noting that it's all men and a few of them named Steve to boot? (Never mind that he has already appointed a few women for various roles, or that he won the election because of a team of women)

You seriously do not think MS would be roasted if in this ay and age they came out with a think piece like this, all from men?

Heck, you are doing that RIGHT NOW.

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 1) 97

I never said that, and responded to your other post explaining that I never said that. If you want to insist I did say it, please copy-paste from my post.

OK, if you say so. That makes about 90% of your original post completely irrelevant to any point you were trying to make. You could have just said "Congress passed the latest law that applied to this in 1952, and this appears to be at odds with how I interpret it", but instead you wrote some enormous history of how SCOTUS totally misunderstood Congress's intent in 1885 and Congress stepped in and rewrote the law, even though that has nothing whatsoever to do with the case in hand.

My insults to them were an explanation of why they voted 8-0 and issued an opinion that only had 5 substantive pages and punted the creation of any test to the Federal Circuit: they really don't care much about patent law. This was to address your contention that, because they're "deeply divided" on Constitutional issues around, say, privacy or the federal-state divide, it's highly unusual for them ever to agree on something (that happens to entirely unrelated to those issues).

You're implying that this isn't normal. SCOTUS doesn't usually write long essays on all the possible things it wants to overturn, and nearly never prescribes how a lower court should resolve them. This is a fairly standard case of a trial participant appealing a ruling over a technical error, and SCOTUS agreeing with them, explaining why, and telling the lower court to rethink.

And it doesn't take more than five pages to explain "You're doing it wrong, you should be basing profits on the articles of manufacture, like the law says you should, rather than the entire finished product."

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 1) 97

. I said they're disregarding the explicit language of a long-standing statute and previous Congress-slap of the court, and replacing it with "you want a test? Go make one up."

Absolutely untrue, and after you made a big song and dance about how they're somehow reversing Congress's wishes, it's hard for me to take seriously the notion you were never arguing that.

Flip over a carpet sometime. You'll see a standard mat that the fibers are woven into that is the same, regardless of design. That mat is a substantial part of the carpet, literally holding it together.

Nobody's arguing any different. If there's a practical way to separate the components of a carpet into articles of manufacture (and they must be items you'd make separately) in such a way that only one part violates the patent, then only that one part violates the patent, and the damages can be assessed. That's entirely within the keeping of the 1952 act, which explicitly codifies the "Article of manufacture" language.

but it's not necessary to redefine article of manufacture.

Sotomayor isn't redefining anything. The term has always had a meaning. Congress's intent is preserved by this ruling. The reason all eight justices agreed that this was the original intent, and original meaning of the term, is because legally it is.

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 3, Insightful) 97

Nope, you're just wrong about what they did. I explained here, but to summarize:

Your claim: they went back to 1885 and changed the profitability criteria to "incremental value added by patent."

What they actually did: they said that the profits due to the infringed upon party need to be those applying to the component that was sold, rather than the whole of the smartphone.

To put it another way: If Samsung makes $200 on profits per a $1000 phone, and would have made $199 in profits if it didn't have rounded corners, and case makes up 5% of the total cost of the phone, then:

In 1885 (we agree): Samsung would pay $1 per phone to Apple.
In your interpretation of the law: Samsung should pay $200 per phone to Apple.
Eight supreme court justices: Samsung should pay something similar to 5% of $200, eg $10 per phone (or a similar formula.)

Your insults to the Supreme Court Justices are noted and hardly do your case credit: they may not know much about technology, but this case wasn't about technologies, it was about the criteria needed to measure compensation. You bet Scalia's fat dead ass they all know the law on that better than anyone else.

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 1) 97

You're misrepresenting the opinion. The opinion is not "Oh, let's go back to the incremental value added by the patented technology as the yardstick for profitability", it's "Let's recognize that this device is made up of separate parts ("articles of manufacture"), and only one part violates the patent. The profits that need to be turned over to Apple are those applying to that component."

What's the difference?

In the carpet's case, 100% of the carpet violates the patent, regardless of whether you compare it to a beige carpet or not. In the phone's case, the phone has a case, a screen, electronics, and so on. Only the case, for example, violates the rounded corners patent.

Reading the opinion, they're not just making up that criterion. The "article of manufacture" concept is long standing in the patent world, and it would certainly mean a complete shake up of patents if patents ceased to apply to components, and only to the whole of a completed product. (Whether that's a good or bad thing I'll leave to the lawyers.)

This hopefully explains why 8 justices who rarely agree on anything outside of which branch of Applebees to have lunch at all agreed with one another this time.

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 2) 97

I'm finding it somewhat improbable that an 8-0 decision would be made on a deeply divided Supreme Court with justices having dramatically different views of the constitution if there's such a compelling case in opposition to the decision they made. Can you put forward a theory that explains why all eight justices rejected this argument?

Comment Why does it have to more than convenient? (Score 3, Interesting) 101

I always thought...Apple watch was a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

You can make toast easily in a pan or an in an oven. A toaster then, is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist.

Why does everything have to be the only possible answer to a problem? The Apple Watch is not the ultimate answer to any one problem - but it is more convenient for a lot of things. It's been really handy for dismissing calls in meetings because I can quickly glance to see if I need to take it, and cover the watch if I want to dismiss it so my phone stays in my pocket. It means my phone is not left on tables as much and is less likely to be forgotten...

It also is handy around the house, I don't have to have my phone with me to see I've got a text message or receive a call. Would I use the watch normally for a phone call? No but in that one case, it's quite handy.

It also does make for a really great fitness device. After all it is fully programmable so you have custom apps for any purpose that you can quickly glance at. Again the phone would serve also but the watch is just much handier.

It also means that I am less tied to a particular form factor of phone. I like to run so if I were just using my phone for tracking I'd be inclined to get a smaller phone so I could strap it on my arm... but since I have the Apple Watch I have the larger size of phone than I might otherwise.

Now, if the device was truly stand alone, that's one thing

The airily named "series 2" includes GPS so you can indeed do some things (like record runs) without a phone. That is a natural evolution but for the moment I'm a lot happier with a watch that easily lasts a 16-20 hour day than I would be with a cell connection I almost never use.

Also of course, around the house all of the Apple Watches are connected via WiFi and so do not need the phone on your person...

Comment Re:Michael Flynn Jr believes it (Score 5, Insightful) 737

Slashdot is a forum where the majority of users are IT professionals, our brains able to deal with some unbelievably complex problem solving that people outside of IT consider a type of magic. Most of us have been hailed as geniuses by our friends and family.

Stray outside of IT related issues however, and the comments here vary widely from occasionally insightful to completely idiotic. You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it.

And it's not just us. From Thomas Edison to Richard Dawkins, remove them from their field(s) of expertise and they end up being advocates of really shitty ideas.

The point is Carson is intelligent in his field, but that doesn't make him qualified in anything else. I'm not saying it precludes him from being smart in other fields, but it explains why in many areas he's said some really dumb stuff.

Comment Re:What about stop making stuff super thin? (Score 1) 272

They aren't that fragile. My Dad has my old iPhone 4, it's never been kept in a thick plastic or silicone case, and it still looks nearly as good as new despite now being 6 years old (and on its original battery!)

My iPhone 6 which replaced it, when it came out, has never been in a case. It rattles around in my pocket with everything else in there. It's now 2 years old and still looks practically brand new despite never having been in a case and having been dropped once or twice.

They aren't anywhere near as fragile as people think. They are actually pretty tough.

Comment That is not a good reason (Score 1) 272

If I had to guess, they probably goofed because this was only their second gen all-metal design.

But even just from the summary, you do not need any experience of any kind to know you need spacing in the battery, which the engineers omitted. It was not a case of not having enough experience with a metal design, it was outright engineering malpractice.

Comment Re:Bad Headline (Score 1) 587

I stopped reading at your very first alleged quote. It's a misquote, it ignores his full statement which in context is factually correct. It is not racist.

It's exactly shit like that which has done the damage. Pull your had out of your arse and try and provide some objective accurate facts. Shit, you may even have had some in that list but since you threw away all your credibility at the outset I'm not wasting my time trying to find out.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Some post election clarifications 4

1. No, Liberals were not "in a bubble". Our reaction isn't because we were surprised by the Trump victory, we knew there was a chance of one, pretty much every liberal I knew in a swing state voted for Clinton because we knew how close it was. Our reaction post election is horror, not surprise. Insofar as we expected a Clinton win, it was because the opinion polls seemed to suggest that. Those of us who trusted Nate Silver knew there was a one third chance of Trump winning.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is difficult to soar with the eagles when you work with turkeys.

Working...