@Marketing Hack
It's kinda like a steak, "well done" is most assuredly not well done.
1937 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Oct 2008
Can someone please point me to the semi-naked woman? I seemed to have missed that part. -_-
Or are you referring to the to the woman wearing far more then the holiday photos of their SOs most people put on the desk in professional environments?
Good lord, you're prudish.
AAPL's P/E is a respectable 12.4, 'tis true.
Their market share really IS slipping, and not by a little bit. Admittedly, much of this is because GOOG et. al. have been expanding the market so greatly, but then again, you have to ask yourself, why ISN'T AAPL? Marketshare drives developers. AAPL has been massively successful at driving developers to their platform, and using that as a driver for market share, but GOOG has been getting more successful at driving marketshare lately by way of more models and a wider range of prices. Eventually, the larger user base will make Android the preferred app development platform, which will be devastating for APPL. As much as I don't like Steve "flyin' chair" Ballmer, he was right on three things: "Developers, developers, developers."
In addition, I like yields above 5. It's a personal thing, and YMMV, but AAPL's paltry 1.94 just doesn't do it for me.
The GPL is probably one of the more litigated licenses out there, and even with v2, this is all still possible because there is no patent grant in the GPL v2 (v3 does, but is incompatible license). This is one of the reasons I'm not such a fan of the license, favoring the CDDL. BSD doesn't include a patent grant either, but allows more freedoms reducing the need for litigation farther.
Of course, Public Domain (for those regions that honor it) is even less likely to be litigated (in the absence of math^wsoftware patents).
slight difference, if you have any competence what-so-ever, the port should be fairly easy. So you get free phone, and a hedge that it might take off. for a couple of hours work.
Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.
Now if you've written a completely importable mess of code, thats your problem.
I mostly wanted to say, good for you for feeling the world can be damned. I think if more people had that attitude rather then making everyone else's opinion the most important thing in their lives, everyone would be in a better place.
I also wanted to voice my support with you fully about unprofessionalism, uncivility, and outright employment discrimination.
Ahh, but Leo isn't crying about how unfailr it is. Meg is. A stupid deal was made without due diligence. Just admit it, and get to work fixing things. Don't cry "it's unfair, we didn't know it was a bad deal," you say, "this was a fuckup, but I am here to make sure these types of things don't contenue."
Sorry for not spelling that out well enough for you, Matt.
GOOG is not a MPEG-LA licensor, so their patents are not part of the pool.
GOOG IS a licensee of the other MPEG-LA patents, and the contract GOOG has says the rate cannot be increased by more then 10% each renewal (as all MPEG-LA contracts do).
That is all I said, I made no judgment on the "fairness" of it. As to FRAND, it's likely that neither GOOG nor Motorola where part of the any of the 4 working groups that jointly developed the standard, and therefor are not subject to FRAND terms on their patents (without knowing more then this article provides, I can't really check).
That said, I can only assume AAPL already licensed the patents in question, as I cannot imagine GOOG missing the chance to go after them.
from MPEG-LA:
"Q: Are all AVC essential patents included?
A: No assurance is or can be made that the License includes every essential patent. The purpose of the License is to offer a convenient licensing alternative to everyone on the same terms and to include as much essential intellectual property as possible for their convenience. Participation in the License is voluntary on the part of essential patent holders, however."
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx
So MPEG-LA covers SOME of the patents required, maybe even most of the patents required, they make no representation that they cover ALL the patents required.
Google, Inc. is an MPEG-LA licensee, but their rate cannot be increased by more then 10% per renewal.
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx
FACTS, aren't they fun?
While I would agree it is an excellent read, I would say it's more about challenging mores then anything else. If it where JUST about alienation, belonging, and understanding across cultural divides, it wouldn't have been required to create a such a stark contrast to the social norms of 1961 (it's worth noting, this was published 6 years before the now infamous "summer of love"), as there are many existing cultures which clash with even modern western culture (in fact some are represented in the novel).
If you do seek this out, do your self a favor, get the 1992 "uncut edition." It is the originally intended manuscript, as Putnam required the 220,000 word volume to be cut down for both space and content.
or maybe an OS
http://www.lynuxworks.com/rtos/
how about a programming language
The second dissenting paper can be easily answered: run the test multiplexing three spins rather then two. Either it won't work (and these guys are right) or it will work, and there is some new things to explore in physics.
TBH: I hope they can and do get it to work with three. It will likely lead to exciting advancements in quantum mechanics!