Who do businesses think they are, trying to advertise.
Who do businesses think they are, trying to make money.
We should boycott all businesses that advertise.
We should boycott all people who support advertisement.
Except, I will not be there with you when you make this bold move, because I like my technology, and do not want to live in a cave. I also do not like the barter system, or making all my own stuff...
The funny part is, that is what I was just thinking.
The band made a great move there, but how come I smell someone else coming after them saying "I did not authorize the use of my image in their video for use of many lots of money. I want money now too."
The ironic part is when they are buying from the right company, and still not getting the real thing.
Here is a story that highlights how a company who claimed to import furniture from Italy for the China market was actually manufacturing it in China. And this is expensive furniture...
Thank you for the link.
The information, in some ways, is correct, because of Verizon offering iPhone.
I have already seen information on this about how people who were buying Android were doing so only because they refused to go to AT&T, and their carriers were not offering the Apple product.
I do not claim Apple is not a good system, nor that it is not a good and/or powerful product. I just hate Apple for other reasons (Restrictiveness, cost basis, patent trolling, etc.).
The one fact that was not addressed though was the very thing I specifically commented on: Please show me about the world, not the US. This is clearly US based. From what I have personally viewed living here in Taiwan, this information is false on a world wide application level. Many countries actually prefer Android over Apple, although some prefer Apple over Android. The reason this is important? The US is not the center of the world, and profits by companies may actually be higher for total sales outside the US then inside. Again, this is why I specifically pointed towards information on the iOS Vs. Android in a global perspective.
Please remember, there is something outside the fish bowl, and I am American proving that.
Actually, it does matter.
You realize you can be guilty of more then one crime, and be tried civilly on more then one issue, right?
In fact, if this is CP (Which seems to be the facts as of this point), he will probably receive different levels of sentences depending on what all he can be charged with.
In fact, you can look at many different levels of crime here:
Possession
Public display
Distribution
Creation (Although it was an automated system, please keep in mind from the case review, it appears he recorded it on a system outside the main surveillance storage, on his office, so this might be able to be argued)
Don't mitigate by saying "This is the biggest crime, so all others don't matter".
Eh, no worries, I had the same thing happen to me the other day on another blog when I tried some light humor. When I reread it after he posted wondering why I was getting so upset, I realized how my comment sounded on paper, not in my head.
One of the pains of internet communication, where facial expressions, body expression, tone of voice, etc. is missing.
It could also be I am overly sensitive to CP. My cousin was a victim while she was living in Germany, and I have two beautiful teenage daughters that a pedobear would probably love...
Coupled by the fact that I now live is Asia, where there is a real problem of "compensated dating", where high school girls basically prostitute themselves so they can get that new smart phone, or LV bag, or whatever. They even go around and stick their phone number on scooters so strange people can call them up for a "date".
I just take a more realistic view, and realize that over-protecting is just another way to silence people on other issues. After all, if the "plague of CP" was as prevalent as it is sometimes sold to us by those pushing their agendas, wouldn't that mean that we would see naked kids everywhere?
Well color me pickled, it appears you are right. But for future reference, please don't bother asking me to look up a claim you make, instead just show people where your claim came from. I try to do that when I make bold statements. Sorry, I will not be a witness against myself for your claim. I may be an idiot, but you have to prove it.
Now second, I never claimed they Google has more IP power, I said Apple is not going after them directly. That could very well change in the future. So this is still not Apple vs. Google, it is Apple vs. those who dare to use Android (not the one who makes it). Apples and oranges, not Apples and Googles.
I looked it over, and got the impression that she was 18 at the time of the indecent. Had to read it a couple times, so either my English is deteriorating here in Taiwan, or they did not make it very clear.
After reading it over again, it seems that it may in fact be saying she is 18 now, which would make you correct.
Either way, my issue is not over her age, I think we can all agree that watching an minor engaging in sex is both immoral and illegal.
The issue I take, and what upsets me, is how DandonTRJ is insinuating we do not care about child porn, and care more about if it violates copyright.
I doubt if anyone here will argue that child porn is bad. But comments like his just remind me of all the ways in which people are trying to hide behind child porn in ways to take away our other freedoms. It ticks me off when someone is discussing a specific issue, and is followed up by the comment:
you know, aside from the fact that it's probably child porn. But that's obviously a less important issue than the copyright one
making it look like anyone actually discussing the applied topic (privacy rights) means that we do not care about other issues...especially when they are already addressed in several other threads in this various topic.
Here, let me quote the original article here for you:
An 18-year-old Male High School graduate has filed a lawsuit against her former principal, claiming he invited other staff members to watch a surveillance tape of the teen and another student having sex in the school cafeteria in 2009.
So, since when is 18 years old Child Porn?
So I guess we are left with, leave on the horse you rode in on.
Wish I could vote you down...
You apparently have missed the points that question CP.
Simple fact: We don't know. Or was every single senior in your school under the age of 17?
No one said that copyright is more important that watching underage students in sexual congress. That issue has been brought up more then enough.
What the entire article is talking about has nothing to do with CP. It has to do with "Privacy Rights".
So, is it "probably child porn"? Statistically, yes.
Is it true that it is "child porn"? I don't know, and unless you are more familiar with the case then we see here, neither do you.
Now when you find the case labeled "for principal facing criminal charges of watching and publicly showing child porn", we can discuss that issue.
Until then, leave on the horse you rode in on, or go put the response in a thread in this very discussion that is dealing with that topic...
Please cite your source, because I believe you are full of piss and vinegar. And please, make sure it is not a "US only" study, because, although this is hard to believe, there is a whole world out there, and Apple is loosing the world, not just the US.
That is two right there from a single site that sort of shows you are full of piss and vinegar. So, want to go back to the "Apple has nothing to fear from Samsung" comment?
Actually, it is not Apple Vs. Google, well, not directly.
I think Apple might be afraid of going after Google because they could potentially loose, as well as having Google retaliate (via removal of permissions to use their Google products, which Google also actively supports on Apple devices).
I think you need to get more familiar with the industry before you make a blanket statement about it.
Google created the OS, they are not selling anything.
Even their Nexus line, which is the official Google line, is created by other companies, marketed by other companies, sold by other companies, and maintained by other companies (HTC and Samsung for phone, Sony for TV).
And as for "Apple warning Google about introducing multitouch features in Android", I would like you to please show me where you got this information, because given that I actually work with Google in my company (I am in fact the primary point of contact between my company and Google, so know lots of juicy details), I watch any news that happens on these fronts, and I have not yet seen this particular warning.
Now, people, quit telling us about all the phones and tablets Google makes... It just makes you look silly (Didn't I hear this somewhere before???? They only make an Open Source OS, not a single phone or tablet...).
Did he distribute it?
I can't honestly see how distribution could be applied, but then again, I am not a lawyer, so someone else may have to verify.
Seems more like "public performance" may fit better then distribution, unless the principal made copies and handed them out, or uploaded to the internet.
This is such a funny discussion, given I live over here.
I will admit, some Chinese companies are indeed shameless about blatantly copying other peoples products.
Here are a couple examples that I have recently seen that are very obvious:
1. One time, someone brought in his new tablet. It was a Windows 7 tablet. The amazing part was, with the exception of the slots on the back to provide needed cooling to the CPU, it looked EXACTLY like an iPhone. Only, well, much bigger.
2. I recently bought what is called an MP5 player for my family back home. An MP5 player is a device that can play the usual games, play movies, and view pictures. The added feature is that it can also play the NES, SNES, Game Boy, Game Boy color, etc. video games. This is not the part that showed blatant copying though. It looked exactly like a PSP, except blue. It was even sold to me in a PSP box (Or at least what Looked like a real PSP box, with the instruction manual calling it a PSP).
Now, although we realize we do see copying, I want others to keep in mind normal tech trends.
1. Companies become OEM manufacturers of products for other companies (Foxconn's making of the i devices for Apple).
2. The companies become very familiar with those technologies, including their detailed systems, spec designs, etc.
3. Given they are already familiar with the designs, they begin to produce what they are familiar with (Didn't we also see this during the rise of Japan?).
4. They start producing those things they are most familiar with.
5. As their learning curve evens out, and they have become familiar with how to operate a normal business based on these "copies", they start to create their own unique goods (Don't believe me, ask Huawei).
6. Slowly, they start creating less of these knock offs, and start offering their own unique items.
Now, don't get me wrong, I understand that copying is wrong. However, I do want to point out that jumping to harsh criticisms may be the wrong way to go about it. As they get a better grip on the technologies they are creating, they will start in the "innovative" side (In fact, I would argue that some Chinese have already started this). Don't label it as a "China" thing, because we have seen it over and over again (First Japan, then Taiwan, and now that our outsourcing has moved to China, in China).
Just please remember to keep it in perspective. First, they were babies at manufacturing, but they are now grown up. Then they were babies at producing, now they are grown up. Now they are, while I would not say babies, still growing up in the innovation areas. Trust me, you will see more unique innovations coming out of China, and less "knockoffs", going forward. Then another country can take it's place and copy all of our wonderful, innovative ideas.
I love how you throw in ad hominem arguments to show your point, decrying "Apple Hater" or "Fanboy", then ending with labeling Mike an "idiot".
Goes far in making your point.
I'm not mad though, of course, I'm not Mike either.
I have spent enough time in this industry, working on tablet projects based around Android, that I know your arguments are a fallicy.
Fallacy 1: Innovation - Apple has not "innovated" anything, as almost everything they have done can be found in other, previous systems. The entire drag to move was implemented in almost any off page scrolling technique. Don't believe me? Look at any web browser, they use a "Bar" to drag the system. The difference is, as found in Windows Mobile, it doesn't work well, so the next step was to make the entire thing one big "bar", aka, drag the entire page, not just the smaller "bar". As an engineering background, this is not a novel idea, and has been used repeatedly. Just because I managed to get my piece of paper through the system first does not mean that I created the idea...
I could go through almost every "innovation" that you list and disprove any innovation Apple has done as coming from them. Even the PC.
Fallacy 2: That Apple has "unique" designs. The candy bar style phone has been around a lot longer then the iPhone. While some merits of Apple's suits do in fact seem to take on a "copying" concept, such as the round home button with the square in the middle, others seem more like "common sense" and less like "innovation". How else do you make a large screen phone seem sleek and sexy? A 4" flip phone, doubling the size to 8" and making it so awkward that it cannot even compete? Rounding it, squaring it? Maybe they should have patented some shapes instead. I have seen the comparisons, and while there are some things that can be pointed at between Samsung and Apple, and you can say "Yeah, they did copy that (Which might make sense to go to court over, but trust me, they are going for more then the "obvious"), some of those things just make obvious sense, and as debated over and over here on Techdirt, sense should not be patentable (Although it does appear that scarily, too many patents are being issued based on common sense instead of innovation) So, what happens? This companies broad patents are used to sue that company, which is defended by that companies broad patents, etc. In fact, I would say many of the companies in the current patent suits probably hold some broad patent that probably already covers what they are being sued for, and they are so broad in fact, that many end up overlapping.
Fallacy 3: Apple is being sued more then they sue. You claim it is because Apple is the "victim" in this? Most of the lawsuits have been filed as a retaliatory strike. If you trace out almost every date for patent suit in the current industry, you will find it as follows: Apple sues company x, so company x sues Apple. In fact, go back to these original suits, and you will find Apple was one of the first to start this. I would not say they are the only, but it is my impression that they are the catalyst (We can even go back to the original Apple Vs. Microsoft if you want to see how back this has gone on). Unfortunately, now it has spread, and it seems that this has created a wildfire that will not stop for a long time.
Fallacy 4: Apple has gotten the courts to see they are violated. Not completely accurate and non-opinionated there. While yes, they have won some judgments, they have at the same time lost some judgments. In fact, in some cases, the patents overlap to such an extent that they loose based on the very same patent they won, because the other side has a patent that covers overlapping ideas.
So, overall, you have failed to "win over" anyone with your somewhat misleading, and in some cases, quite false, arguments. So now, you understand why I say your idea is idiotic (Just in case you missed the point in this, I am not calling "you"an idiot, thus making an Ad hominem argument, but instead is telling you that your points are idiotic.).
I at first wanted to call you an idiot, but then decided not to call you an idiot, so that you would realize I am not attacking you, just personally thinking your logic makes me feel your an idiot.
He was reporting the issue, and while yes, normally we see some sort of feelings come out on articles, you realize he may not view all articles the same way.
Maybe he has not yet formed his opinion, so that is left out? I don't know, I am guessing, same as you.
I also saw no defense coming in, of anyone, nor any allegations.
It seems more to me there was neutrality (Other then the fact we know Mike views it as "creepy").
As for those who are claiming child porn issues, while my knee-jerk reaction was the same, after I thought about it, I came to realize that, not all people in high school are underage.
In fact, a good many of the seniors are 18 years old, so without more information, we cannot automatically cry "Child Porn!"
As for the morality, yes, I think most of us will rationally think of it as morally wrong. After all, I think most people view that when something is for purpose a (security), and people use it for purpose b (entertainment), there is an conflict of interest.
While I think it is fair to say that this could potentially go either way (After all, no matter what laws are on the books, this is civil and we have no guarantee on how a judge will view the situation, not like judges have not twisted various laws and rulings to fit their ideas in the past).
I think it is also fair to say that the students involved made a bad choice, and that the principal also made a bad choice.
Although I do wonder, would we apply the same criteria if the principal walked into the cafeteria and recorded it on his phone? Or if the security guard was looking at the tape? What about if it got "leaked" to the internet? Makes me wonder about other situations like this (And all those internet videos that are "leaked" private videos, or people secretly recording).
Sorry for the typos, I was typing this on my Android Phone.
I admit, they built a great eco-system around the product*
Futher notes, please check how Jobs denounced flash player, then after Android announced and started putting flash player in their system, Apple suddenly changed it's stance.
Guess people still showed that they would rather buy what they wanted, not what they were told to get.
On the post: Why Didn't UK Deal With Ridiculous Copyright Term Lengths?
Re: Re:
Now, get back on that Ouija board so John Lennon can write me some new songs.
On the post: Blink-182 Rewards Fans Who Uploaded Unauthorized Clips On YouTube
Re: CORPORATE sponsorship.
Who do businesses think they are, trying to advertise.
Who do businesses think they are, trying to make money.
We should boycott all businesses that advertise.
We should boycott all people who support advertisement.
Except, I will not be there with you when you make this bold move, because I like my technology, and do not want to live in a cave. I also do not like the barter system, or making all my own stuff...
On the post: Blink-182 Rewards Fans Who Uploaded Unauthorized Clips On YouTube
Re: Re: Re:
I will report you to the Peta organization.
You will see when 100 nude actresses are standing outside your door protesting what it means to cross puppies and kittens, and Peta.
On the post: Blink-182 Rewards Fans Who Uploaded Unauthorized Clips On YouTube
Re:
The band made a great move there, but how come I smell someone else coming after them saying "I did not authorize the use of my image in their video for use of many lots of money. I want money now too."
Or something like that...
On the post: More Chinese Knockoff Stores Uncovered: Fake Ikea Just As Frustrating As Real Ikea
Re: Re: Re:
Here is a story that highlights how a company who claimed to import furniture from Italy for the China market was actually manufacturing it in China. And this is expensive furniture...
http://www.chinasmack.com/2011/stories/da-vinci-furniture-responds-to-false-importin g-scandal.html
On the post: Apple Continues To Scream To The World How Competitive Samsung's Tablet Is By Getting It Banned In Australia
Re: Re: Re:
The information, in some ways, is correct, because of Verizon offering iPhone.
I have already seen information on this about how people who were buying Android were doing so only because they refused to go to AT&T, and their carriers were not offering the Apple product.
I do not claim Apple is not a good system, nor that it is not a good and/or powerful product. I just hate Apple for other reasons (Restrictiveness, cost basis, patent trolling, etc.).
The one fact that was not addressed though was the very thing I specifically commented on: Please show me about the world, not the US. This is clearly US based. From what I have personally viewed living here in Taiwan, this information is false on a world wide application level. Many countries actually prefer Android over Apple, although some prefer Apple over Android. The reason this is important? The US is not the center of the world, and profits by companies may actually be higher for total sales outside the US then inside. Again, this is why I specifically pointed towards information on the iOS Vs. Android in a global perspective.
Please remember, there is something outside the fish bowl, and I am American proving that.
On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex
Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
You realize you can be guilty of more then one crime, and be tried civilly on more then one issue, right?
In fact, if this is CP (Which seems to be the facts as of this point), he will probably receive different levels of sentences depending on what all he can be charged with.
In fact, you can look at many different levels of crime here:
Possession
Public display
Distribution
Creation (Although it was an automated system, please keep in mind from the case review, it appears he recorded it on a system outside the main surveillance storage, on his office, so this might be able to be argued)
Don't mitigate by saying "This is the biggest crime, so all others don't matter".
On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
One of the pains of internet communication, where facial expressions, body expression, tone of voice, etc. is missing.
It could also be I am overly sensitive to CP. My cousin was a victim while she was living in Germany, and I have two beautiful teenage daughters that a pedobear would probably love...
Coupled by the fact that I now live is Asia, where there is a real problem of "compensated dating", where high school girls basically prostitute themselves so they can get that new smart phone, or LV bag, or whatever. They even go around and stick their phone number on scooters so strange people can call them up for a "date".
I just take a more realistic view, and realize that over-protecting is just another way to silence people on other issues. After all, if the "plague of CP" was as prevalent as it is sometimes sold to us by those pushing their agendas, wouldn't that mean that we would see naked kids everywhere?
On the post: Apple Continues To Scream To The World How Competitive Samsung's Tablet Is By Getting It Banned In Australia
Re: Re: Re: Apple vs. Google
Now second, I never claimed they Google has more IP power, I said Apple is not going after them directly. That could very well change in the future. So this is still not Apple vs. Google, it is Apple vs. those who dare to use Android (not the one who makes it). Apples and oranges, not Apples and Googles.
On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
I looked it over, and got the impression that she was 18 at the time of the indecent. Had to read it a couple times, so either my English is deteriorating here in Taiwan, or they did not make it very clear.
After reading it over again, it seems that it may in fact be saying she is 18 now, which would make you correct.
Either way, my issue is not over her age, I think we can all agree that watching an minor engaging in sex is both immoral and illegal.
The issue I take, and what upsets me, is how DandonTRJ is insinuating we do not care about child porn, and care more about if it violates copyright.
I doubt if anyone here will argue that child porn is bad. But comments like his just remind me of all the ways in which people are trying to hide behind child porn in ways to take away our other freedoms. It ticks me off when someone is discussing a specific issue, and is followed up by the comment:
you know, aside from the fact that it's probably child porn. But that's obviously a less important issue than the copyright one
making it look like anyone actually discussing the applied topic (privacy rights) means that we do not care about other issues...especially when they are already addressed in several other threads in this various topic.
On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex
Re: Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
An 18-year-old Male High School graduate has filed a lawsuit against her former principal, claiming he invited other staff members to watch a surveillance tape of the teen and another student having sex in the school cafeteria in 2009.
So, since when is 18 years old Child Porn?
So I guess we are left with, leave on the horse you rode in on.
On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex
Re: Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
You apparently have missed the points that question CP.
Simple fact: We don't know. Or was every single senior in your school under the age of 17?
No one said that copyright is more important that watching underage students in sexual congress. That issue has been brought up more then enough.
What the entire article is talking about has nothing to do with CP. It has to do with "Privacy Rights".
So, is it "probably child porn"? Statistically, yes.
Is it true that it is "child porn"? I don't know, and unless you are more familiar with the case then we see here, neither do you.
Now when you find the case labeled "for principal facing criminal charges of watching and publicly showing child porn", we can discuss that issue.
Until then, leave on the horse you rode in on, or go put the response in a thread in this very discussion that is dealing with that topic...
On the post: DailyDirt: Oh, Give Me A Home...
Here is one from Hong Kong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg9qnWg9kak
Wish I could find the one again in France...
On the post: Apple Continues To Scream To The World How Competitive Samsung's Tablet Is By Getting It Banned In Australia
Re:
Please cite your source, because I believe you are full of piss and vinegar. And please, make sure it is not a "US only" study, because, although this is hard to believe, there is a whole world out there, and Apple is loosing the world, not just the US.
Here is one that would "dispute" your claim straight off:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/02/canalys-android-rules-the-smartphone-world-samsung-couldve- do/
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/31/canalys-android-overtakes-symbian-as-worlds-best-selling-sma rt/
That is two right there from a single site that sort of shows you are full of piss and vinegar. So, want to go back to the "Apple has nothing to fear from Samsung" comment?
On the post: Apple Continues To Scream To The World How Competitive Samsung's Tablet Is By Getting It Banned In Australia
Re: Apple vs. Google
Actually, it is not Apple Vs. Google, well, not directly.
I think Apple might be afraid of going after Google because they could potentially loose, as well as having Google retaliate (via removal of permissions to use their Google products, which Google also actively supports on Apple devices).
I think you need to get more familiar with the industry before you make a blanket statement about it.
Google created the OS, they are not selling anything.
Even their Nexus line, which is the official Google line, is created by other companies, marketed by other companies, sold by other companies, and maintained by other companies (HTC and Samsung for phone, Sony for TV).
And as for "Apple warning Google about introducing multitouch features in Android", I would like you to please show me where you got this information, because given that I actually work with Google in my company (I am in fact the primary point of contact between my company and Google, so know lots of juicy details), I watch any news that happens on these fronts, and I have not yet seen this particular warning.
Now, people, quit telling us about all the phones and tablets Google makes... It just makes you look silly (Didn't I hear this somewhere before???? They only make an Open Source OS, not a single phone or tablet...).
On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex
Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
I can't honestly see how distribution could be applied, but then again, I am not a lawyer, so someone else may have to verify.
Seems more like "public performance" may fit better then distribution, unless the principal made copies and handed them out, or uploaded to the internet.
On the post: More Chinese Knockoff Stores Uncovered: Fake Ikea Just As Frustrating As Real Ikea
I will admit, some Chinese companies are indeed shameless about blatantly copying other peoples products.
Here are a couple examples that I have recently seen that are very obvious:
1. One time, someone brought in his new tablet. It was a Windows 7 tablet. The amazing part was, with the exception of the slots on the back to provide needed cooling to the CPU, it looked EXACTLY like an iPhone. Only, well, much bigger.
2. I recently bought what is called an MP5 player for my family back home. An MP5 player is a device that can play the usual games, play movies, and view pictures. The added feature is that it can also play the NES, SNES, Game Boy, Game Boy color, etc. video games. This is not the part that showed blatant copying though. It looked exactly like a PSP, except blue. It was even sold to me in a PSP box (Or at least what Looked like a real PSP box, with the instruction manual calling it a PSP).
Now, although we realize we do see copying, I want others to keep in mind normal tech trends.
1. Companies become OEM manufacturers of products for other companies (Foxconn's making of the i devices for Apple).
2. The companies become very familiar with those technologies, including their detailed systems, spec designs, etc.
3. Given they are already familiar with the designs, they begin to produce what they are familiar with (Didn't we also see this during the rise of Japan?).
4. They start producing those things they are most familiar with.
5. As their learning curve evens out, and they have become familiar with how to operate a normal business based on these "copies", they start to create their own unique goods (Don't believe me, ask Huawei).
6. Slowly, they start creating less of these knock offs, and start offering their own unique items.
Now, don't get me wrong, I understand that copying is wrong. However, I do want to point out that jumping to harsh criticisms may be the wrong way to go about it. As they get a better grip on the technologies they are creating, they will start in the "innovative" side (In fact, I would argue that some Chinese have already started this). Don't label it as a "China" thing, because we have seen it over and over again (First Japan, then Taiwan, and now that our outsourcing has moved to China, in China).
Just please remember to keep it in perspective. First, they were babies at manufacturing, but they are now grown up. Then they were babies at producing, now they are grown up. Now they are, while I would not say babies, still growing up in the innovation areas. Trust me, you will see more unique innovations coming out of China, and less "knockoffs", going forward. Then another country can take it's place and copy all of our wonderful, innovative ideas.
On the post: Apple Continues To Scream To The World How Competitive Samsung's Tablet Is By Getting It Banned In Australia
Re:
I love how you throw in ad hominem arguments to show your point, decrying "Apple Hater" or "Fanboy", then ending with labeling Mike an "idiot".
Goes far in making your point.
I'm not mad though, of course, I'm not Mike either.
I have spent enough time in this industry, working on tablet projects based around Android, that I know your arguments are a fallicy.
Fallacy 1: Innovation - Apple has not "innovated" anything, as almost everything they have done can be found in other, previous systems. The entire drag to move was implemented in almost any off page scrolling technique. Don't believe me? Look at any web browser, they use a "Bar" to drag the system. The difference is, as found in Windows Mobile, it doesn't work well, so the next step was to make the entire thing one big "bar", aka, drag the entire page, not just the smaller "bar". As an engineering background, this is not a novel idea, and has been used repeatedly. Just because I managed to get my piece of paper through the system first does not mean that I created the idea...
I could go through almost every "innovation" that you list and disprove any innovation Apple has done as coming from them. Even the PC.
Fallacy 2: That Apple has "unique" designs. The candy bar style phone has been around a lot longer then the iPhone. While some merits of Apple's suits do in fact seem to take on a "copying" concept, such as the round home button with the square in the middle, others seem more like "common sense" and less like "innovation". How else do you make a large screen phone seem sleek and sexy? A 4" flip phone, doubling the size to 8" and making it so awkward that it cannot even compete? Rounding it, squaring it? Maybe they should have patented some shapes instead. I have seen the comparisons, and while there are some things that can be pointed at between Samsung and Apple, and you can say "Yeah, they did copy that (Which might make sense to go to court over, but trust me, they are going for more then the "obvious"), some of those things just make obvious sense, and as debated over and over here on Techdirt, sense should not be patentable (Although it does appear that scarily, too many patents are being issued based on common sense instead of innovation) So, what happens? This companies broad patents are used to sue that company, which is defended by that companies broad patents, etc. In fact, I would say many of the companies in the current patent suits probably hold some broad patent that probably already covers what they are being sued for, and they are so broad in fact, that many end up overlapping.
Fallacy 3: Apple is being sued more then they sue. You claim it is because Apple is the "victim" in this? Most of the lawsuits have been filed as a retaliatory strike. If you trace out almost every date for patent suit in the current industry, you will find it as follows: Apple sues company x, so company x sues Apple. In fact, go back to these original suits, and you will find Apple was one of the first to start this. I would not say they are the only, but it is my impression that they are the catalyst (We can even go back to the original Apple Vs. Microsoft if you want to see how back this has gone on). Unfortunately, now it has spread, and it seems that this has created a wildfire that will not stop for a long time.
Fallacy 4: Apple has gotten the courts to see they are violated. Not completely accurate and non-opinionated there. While yes, they have won some judgments, they have at the same time lost some judgments. In fact, in some cases, the patents overlap to such an extent that they loose based on the very same patent they won, because the other side has a patent that covers overlapping ideas.
So, overall, you have failed to "win over" anyone with your somewhat misleading, and in some cases, quite false, arguments. So now, you understand why I say your idea is idiotic (Just in case you missed the point in this, I am not calling "you"an idiot, thus making an Ad hominem argument, but instead is telling you that your points are idiotic.).
On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex
I at first wanted to call you an idiot, but then decided not to call you an idiot, so that you would realize I am not attacking you, just personally thinking your logic makes me feel your an idiot.
He was reporting the issue, and while yes, normally we see some sort of feelings come out on articles, you realize he may not view all articles the same way.
Maybe he has not yet formed his opinion, so that is left out? I don't know, I am guessing, same as you.
I also saw no defense coming in, of anyone, nor any allegations.
It seems more to me there was neutrality (Other then the fact we know Mike views it as "creepy").
As for those who are claiming child porn issues, while my knee-jerk reaction was the same, after I thought about it, I came to realize that, not all people in high school are underage.
In fact, a good many of the seniors are 18 years old, so without more information, we cannot automatically cry "Child Porn!"
As for the morality, yes, I think most of us will rationally think of it as morally wrong. After all, I think most people view that when something is for purpose a (security), and people use it for purpose b (entertainment), there is an conflict of interest.
While I think it is fair to say that this could potentially go either way (After all, no matter what laws are on the books, this is civil and we have no guarantee on how a judge will view the situation, not like judges have not twisted various laws and rulings to fit their ideas in the past).
I think it is also fair to say that the students involved made a bad choice, and that the principal also made a bad choice.
Although I do wonder, would we apply the same criteria if the principal walked into the cafeteria and recorded it on his phone? Or if the security guard was looking at the tape? What about if it got "leaked" to the internet? Makes me wonder about other situations like this (And all those internet videos that are "leaked" private videos, or people secretly recording).
On the post: Apple Continues To Scream To The World How Competitive Samsung's Tablet Is By Getting It Banned In Australia
sorry for the typos
I admit, they built a great eco-system around the product*
Futher notes, please check how Jobs denounced flash player, then after Android announced and started putting flash player in their system, Apple suddenly changed it's stance.
Guess people still showed that they would rather buy what they wanted, not what they were told to get.
Next >>