> > Samsung filed counter-claims against Apple too.
Samsung also holds patents.
63 karma · joined January 22, 2011
Samsung also holds patents.
In this particular point, Samsung is 100% in the right. Interoperability is one of the explicit justifications for copying. Vendor lock-in is nor protected by law, and is one of Apple's borderline-illegal monolopy-protecting tactics.
Every time one of these articles about "how investors screw founders" or "how employee stock option are never going to pay out", the pool of employable staff are a little more likely to say "These stock options are worth nothing to me but a lottery ticket, so I'm not going to work hard at this job beyond my salary, and maybe I'll get my win for getting some sliver of equity if the company goes big on someone else's effort or sheer luck." In the end, in a den of thieves no one puts in an honest day's work, and nobody wins.
Bootstrap your business with your own money and your own customers' money, and leave the sharks behind.
It's no diagram of a cotton gin these days.
Quintuple Negative!
We've done this already.
At best, we might have the benefit of the fraud benefiting a million individuals, like in the housing bubble, instead of a handful, like in the S&L days.
A Named Constructor / Factory creates a new instance on demand. A mingleton hands out references to the same instance each time it is called.
It's a slightly subtle distinction, and you still have the risks associated with non-local mutable objects, but at least you can track (using the Annotation API) which classes are using the shared state; it's better than letting any line of code anywhere in the middle of any method sneakily and suddenly grab access to shared state.
This is now one of the more frequent activities I do on my machine. Next step is to make a desktop shortcut or applet "Fix my Sound" or a command-line script, to avoid going through the incantation to find and kill the right proces. Then install Windows.
With the GUIs, problem is that Gnome and KDE and Canonical have gone through so many changes to their config systems (supposedly freedesktop.org D-Bus or something is supposed to fix that, but there is always at least one team starting up a vendetta against another team, and breaking compatibility), and even if there is new stuff that works, there are tons of packages in the Canonical repository that happily edit config that your environment isn't actually using (gtk vs gconf vs dconf vs kde vs gnome, etc)
For #2, a thousand times amen. My project for today is re-partitioning my hard drives to make room for a Windows installation. Wifi-sharing doesn't work anymore (because someone decided that bridging wifi to ethernet adapters was a misfeature?), but still happily advertised in Network Manager.
Suspend and Hibernate don't work (even worse, they lock up the system), and the summer weather is too hot to keep the desktop running 24/7.
Apparently, desktop Linux only works if you want to version-lock on 2-to-5-year-old hardware and features that were designed for that hardware, that took 2-5 years to port to Linux and debug, all the while creeping through the minefield to avoid reressions in stability, functionality, and user experience.
If you can't use modern software, and you can't use the capabilities of modern or bargain hardware, than what's the point? It adds up to a hidden tax because you endure an ongoing lag against progress and wasting money on hardware you can't fully exploit. You may as well buy proprietary OS and software with all the money you can save by buying new-generation Windows-certified hardware, and money can earn by not spending 10 hours a week trying to fix you machine.
Fighting for freedom is noble, but it's a martyr's calling. It's hard to be so in love with technology, while at the same time never getting to enjoy using it. It's sadomasochism.
This goes for the desktop. On the server, where we have hardware drivers with 10-year lifecyles, and top-to-bottom programmability and network-transparency, Linux is a dream.
I am planning to switch to Windows to get wifi and multimedia to work, and run Linux on a virtual machine inside it, treating the VM like a local low-latency headless Linode/EC2-style instance.
Also, the cover just reeks of business-book BS (http://www.amazon.com/*/dp/0884270610)
When I finished the book, my boss asked me what I thought. I told him I didn't like it, and he laughed and told me it was awful. I shut my mouth instead of asking me why he recommended the book in the first place.
That was my first introduction to management BS.
For OR, and manufacturing in general, and when the book was written in the early 1990s when these ideas were newer and we didn't have the Internet for disseminating information, The Goal and TOC were probably more valuable to the contemporary audience.
(The "8,000 from one school in one year" estimate is too high, though, yes.)
My mother taught me that basic strategy for betting on a "horse race" carnival game with the similar design (but the winner was chosen randomply via multiple rolls of a die that represented each "step" along a racetrack)
She taught me to watch the bettors and bet on whichever horse had the least number of shares purchased. If the bets were semi-secret, and we had to engage people ("analysts"?) in conversation about their supposed bets, it would be even more like the real equities marker.
"Cupertino, start your photocopiers." (http://www.macnews.com/content/wwdc-apple-blasts-microsofts-...)