|
Paul MaudDib posted:There are an awful lot of bullshit software patents out there - for example, when you're scrolling your phone screen and it hits the bottom, iphones bounce as they stop scrolling. That's patented. There's certainly not anything that's difficult to implement there, it's purely a patent on a program behaving a certain way. I disagree that good design, once you reveal the underlying structure, is "obvious." I'd say that good design is often intuitive, but nothing about intuitive design is easier. It's actually quite difficult. I don't have an answer for the patent issue at stake, but it's erroneous to think that software innovation is a matter of proprietary formulas. The revolution in computer and mobile technology has been grounded on changing the very way that we interact abstractly with computers, which makes something like springy scrolling, despite it becoming a favorite example of frivolous patents, actually quite important.
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 12:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
Thwomp posted:Except Aereo's argument is that it's not retransmitting the public broadcast. It's recording it, at the user's own direction (not Aereo's which is unlike the cable/sat providers which are explicitly retransmitting the broadcasts), and replaying it when the user wishes to view it (whether that's 30 seconds after or the following week). I didn't understand that this is how Aero operated, thanks for this. Can you clarify a bit more — is part of the issue that Aero is sending you OTA broadcasts from ANYWHERE in the country, in other words they can record sports games for you when, for example, they might be blacked out in your local market? But aside from that it's "just" an internet-based DVR service for OTA transmission that is freely available? Also, you'd think technology rulings would be the best example for the Supreme Court of just how ridiculous an originalist Constitutional approach can be. But I suppose it's more about "what does the jurisprudence of the 1780's say about this issue" since the issue itself couldn't possibly be addressed. And for the 1909 public performance ruling: were the defendants the Soggy Bottom Boys?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Rereading it, I change my mind and agree with you. I guess the whole thing, at first anyway, smelled fishy. Imagining this small-time fisherman in the Supreme Court seems like a real fish-out-of-water case to me.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Speaking of the bill of rights, when's the next time we're supposed to hear about that third amendment case that was in the news last year? Oh boy, a third amendment case! It's like constitutional Christmas. There must be some super dusty books in the Supreme Court library that get dusted off for a case like this.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
ErIog posted:If voter ID becomes solved in a way that the GOP can stop complaining about it then they most certainly will shift to talking about trying to do away with absentee voting for everyone besides the military. They most likely will run up against the Supreme Court on that one, but I can also imagine the Supreme Court coming to some absolutely terrible compromise conclusion that makes absentee voting harder than before. Aside from the fact that they're not in good faith trying to stop "voter fraud," it strikes me as ridiculous that these same people are adamantly opposed to a free national ID because they see it as a vague step towards tracking people and taking away their guns...or something. Libertarianism mumble mumble. Because a real push towards national ID cards would solve both voter fraud and some attempts to reduce minority voting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's not ridiculous. Their goal is to disenfranchise minorities and the poor, and a national ID would be inimical to that purpose because there's no way they can realistically restrict issuing a national ID the way they can play games with shortening the hours at state DMVs and refusing to make them accessible to public transportation or even (in Texas) closer than a three hour drive to impoverished rural areas. I don't think I was clear, we're in agreement. I'm saying it's ridiculous precisely because it's the GOP that keeps trotting out the problem (voter fraud) that a national ID would solve. Their stated objectives are so clearly in conflict that the dog whistle is almost deafening.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:According to Wikipedia, yes! So interesting. I always learn something from you guys. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 16:48
|
|