M*8
2 楼
【 以下文字转载自 Military 讨论区 】
发信人: MB80528 (肥猫(Contrarian)[食MM而肥]), 信区: Military
标 题: Re: 中国大陆第一神童宁铂出家成为高僧
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Jun 25 02:23:41 2012, 美东)
这是他的真正兴趣，我热忱支持。
如果多几个聪明绝顶的入道家佛家，
中华的传统实践文化的复兴发扬有望。
上次还有个北大还是清华的高才数学生，
也是半途决定放弃大学教育，去钻研玄学。
这些都是好事，道家佛家虽被马列教迫害，
但冥冥里有神护助，必将再次恢复昔日辉煌。
发信人: MB80528 (肥猫(Contrarian)[食MM而肥]), 信区: Military
标 题: Re: 中国大陆第一神童宁铂出家成为高僧
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Jun 25 02:23:41 2012, 美东)
这是他的真正兴趣，我热忱支持。
如果多几个聪明绝顶的入道家佛家，
中华的传统实践文化的复兴发扬有望。
上次还有个北大还是清华的高才数学生，
也是半途决定放弃大学教育，去钻研玄学。
这些都是好事，道家佛家虽被马列教迫害，
但冥冥里有神护助，必将再次恢复昔日辉煌。
A*g
3 楼
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500358-37/exclusive-apple-s
棒子太无耻了：跟intel有过协议不能告intel的客户，还要来告：
One patent involved the baseband chip in the iPhone and iPad with 3G. During
the trial, Apple turned around and pointed to a licensing deal Samsung had
with Intel, which made the chips Apple used. Under that deal, Apple said
Samsung was not able to sue any companies Intel sold to. Apple then
presented the receipts from when it purchased the accused chips from Intel.
----------
Exclusive: Apple-Samsung juror speaks out
Manuel Ilagan, one of the nine jurors who ruled in favor of Apple, tells
CNET he thought Samsung's internal e-mails about incorporating some of Apple
's technology into its devices, and the evasive way Samsung executives
answered questions, was damning.
54 comments
Facebook67
Twitter319
Linked In13
More
(Credit: Vicki Behringer)
Apple v. Samsung juror Manuel Ilagan said the nine-person jury that heard
the patent infringement case between the companies knew after the first day
that it believed Samsung had wronged Apple.
Ilagan told CNET in an exclusive interview that the jury had several
sometimes "heated" debates before reaching its verdict yesterday. He also
said nothing in the deliberation process was rushed and that the jury
carefully weighed the evidence.
"We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented," Ilagan said. "
It was clear there was infringement."
Asked to point to some of the more compelling evidence Ilagan said:
"Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung
execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their
devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, they showed the
pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and
ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung
executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea -- I thought they
were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help
their cause."
Ilagan highlighted another area where Samsung lost the jury: its offensive
on Apple that claimed Apple violated two of its patents relating to 3G
wireless technology. One patent involved the baseband chip in the iPhone and
iPad with 3G. During the trial, Apple turned around and pointed to a
licensing deal Samsung had with Intel, which made the chips Apple used.
Under that deal, Apple said Samsung was not able to sue any companies Intel
sold to. Apple then presented the receipts from when it purchased the
accused chips from Intel.
The jurors came to their decision in 21 hours, or less than three work days.
They ruled in favor of Apple on a majority of its patent infringement
claims against Samsung. The jury also awarded Apple more than $1 billion in
damages.
Apple had originally sought $2.75 billion in damages. Though it wasn't
unanimous on all counts, the verdict was a major victory Apple. Samsung,
which asked for $421 million in its countersuit, didn't convince the jury
that Apple infringed on any of its patents and received nothing in damages.
The decision was very one-sided, but Ilagan said it wasn't clear the jurors
were largely in agreement until after the first day of deliberations.
"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the
first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the
patents on bounce back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but
we were debating about the prior art [about the same technology that
Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin Hogan] was jury
foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the
debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, so he took
us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that
first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing
there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple.
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster.
It was bogging us down."
To those who are skeptical that the jury could reach a decision so quickly
on more than 700 often complex patent questions, Ilagan said members of the
jury took their job seriously and didn't take any shortcuts.
"We weren't impatient," Ilagan said. "We wanted to do the right thing, and
not skip any evidence. I think we were thorough."
The deliberation process moved faster once all the jury members had agreed
that Apple's patents were infringed.
"Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's
easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products because it was all
the same. Like the trade dress, once you determine Samsung violated the
trade dress, the flatscreen with the Bezel...then you go down the products
to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn't rush. We had a
debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated."
A bezel is a term analogous with the non-functional area around a digital
screen, also refers to an ornamental band around the front face. In Apple's
first iPhone was polished chrome, a look that stayed with it for three
generations until the iPhone 4.
During the trial, Samsung attempted to undercut the importance of the bezel.
That included bringing out one of its design experts to say that the
feature was functional, and therefore dictated form -- a part of Samsung's
argument that jurors appear to have actually bought based on what was a very
mixed ruling of infringement on the patent that covers the look of that
feature.
As far as the criticism that Ilagan also said there was no hometown bias.
"We weren't going for Apple," Ilagan said. "We were going by the judge's
instructions on how we should go about it, and we stuck to that. We weren't
thinking Apple or Samsung."
As far as the deliberation process was concerned, each of the jurors had
some kind of expertise or played some role that helped the process go
smoothly. Hogan, the jury's foreman, owned a company that went through the
lengthy process of obtaining a patent. He was also on a jury three prior
times.
The two women on the jury, Luzviminda Rougieri and Aarti Mathur, helped keep
the discussion on track and within the rules, Ilagan said. One of the
jurors, believed to be Peter Catherwood, is a project manager with AT&T and
he helped the group add up damages, Ilagan said.
Complete coverage: Apple v. Samsung, a battle over billions
"I was vocal about the technical [issues], about the power controls, because
I know that stuff," Ilagan said. "I work on that."
Ilagan has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering and worked as a
systems engineer for Western Electronic and as an applications engineer for
Stanford Telecom.
Four of the nine jury members, which all lived in the area around San Jose,
Calif., where the trial was held, had experience working for technology
companies, including Intel and AT&T. Hogan worked for a hard-drive company.
CNET reporter Josh Lowensohn contributed to this story.
棒子太无耻了：跟intel有过协议不能告intel的客户，还要来告：
One patent involved the baseband chip in the iPhone and iPad with 3G. During
the trial, Apple turned around and pointed to a licensing deal Samsung had
with Intel, which made the chips Apple used. Under that deal, Apple said
Samsung was not able to sue any companies Intel sold to. Apple then
presented the receipts from when it purchased the accused chips from Intel.
----------
Exclusive: Apple-Samsung juror speaks out
Manuel Ilagan, one of the nine jurors who ruled in favor of Apple, tells
CNET he thought Samsung's internal e-mails about incorporating some of Apple
's technology into its devices, and the evasive way Samsung executives
answered questions, was damning.
54 comments
Facebook67
Twitter319
Linked In13
More
(Credit: Vicki Behringer)
Apple v. Samsung juror Manuel Ilagan said the nine-person jury that heard
the patent infringement case between the companies knew after the first day
that it believed Samsung had wronged Apple.
Ilagan told CNET in an exclusive interview that the jury had several
sometimes "heated" debates before reaching its verdict yesterday. He also
said nothing in the deliberation process was rushed and that the jury
carefully weighed the evidence.
"We found for Apple because of the evidence they presented," Ilagan said. "
It was clear there was infringement."
Asked to point to some of the more compelling evidence Ilagan said:
"Well, there were several. The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung
execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their
devices was pretty damning to me. And also, on the last day, they showed the
pictures of the phones that Samsung made before the iPhone came out and
ones that they made after the iPhone came out. Some of the Samsung
executives they presented on video [testimony] from Korea -- I thought they
were dodging the questions. They didn't answer one of them. They didn't help
their cause."
Ilagan highlighted another area where Samsung lost the jury: its offensive
on Apple that claimed Apple violated two of its patents relating to 3G
wireless technology. One patent involved the baseband chip in the iPhone and
iPad with 3G. During the trial, Apple turned around and pointed to a
licensing deal Samsung had with Intel, which made the chips Apple used.
Under that deal, Apple said Samsung was not able to sue any companies Intel
sold to. Apple then presented the receipts from when it purchased the
accused chips from Intel.
The jurors came to their decision in 21 hours, or less than three work days.
They ruled in favor of Apple on a majority of its patent infringement
claims against Samsung. The jury also awarded Apple more than $1 billion in
damages.
Apple had originally sought $2.75 billion in damages. Though it wasn't
unanimous on all counts, the verdict was a major victory Apple. Samsung,
which asked for $421 million in its countersuit, didn't convince the jury
that Apple infringed on any of its patents and received nothing in damages.
The decision was very one-sided, but Ilagan said it wasn't clear the jurors
were largely in agreement until after the first day of deliberations.
"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the
first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the
patents on bounce back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but
we were debating about the prior art [about the same technology that
Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin Hogan] was jury
foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the
debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, so he took
us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that
first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing
there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple.
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster.
It was bogging us down."
To those who are skeptical that the jury could reach a decision so quickly
on more than 700 often complex patent questions, Ilagan said members of the
jury took their job seriously and didn't take any shortcuts.
"We weren't impatient," Ilagan said. "We wanted to do the right thing, and
not skip any evidence. I think we were thorough."
The deliberation process moved faster once all the jury members had agreed
that Apple's patents were infringed.
"Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's
easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products because it was all
the same. Like the trade dress, once you determine Samsung violated the
trade dress, the flatscreen with the Bezel...then you go down the products
to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn't rush. We had a
debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated."
A bezel is a term analogous with the non-functional area around a digital
screen, also refers to an ornamental band around the front face. In Apple's
first iPhone was polished chrome, a look that stayed with it for three
generations until the iPhone 4.
During the trial, Samsung attempted to undercut the importance of the bezel.
That included bringing out one of its design experts to say that the
feature was functional, and therefore dictated form -- a part of Samsung's
argument that jurors appear to have actually bought based on what was a very
mixed ruling of infringement on the patent that covers the look of that
feature.
As far as the criticism that Ilagan also said there was no hometown bias.
"We weren't going for Apple," Ilagan said. "We were going by the judge's
instructions on how we should go about it, and we stuck to that. We weren't
thinking Apple or Samsung."
As far as the deliberation process was concerned, each of the jurors had
some kind of expertise or played some role that helped the process go
smoothly. Hogan, the jury's foreman, owned a company that went through the
lengthy process of obtaining a patent. He was also on a jury three prior
times.
The two women on the jury, Luzviminda Rougieri and Aarti Mathur, helped keep
the discussion on track and within the rules, Ilagan said. One of the
jurors, believed to be Peter Catherwood, is a project manager with AT&T and
he helped the group add up damages, Ilagan said.
Complete coverage: Apple v. Samsung, a battle over billions
"I was vocal about the technical [issues], about the power controls, because
I know that stuff," Ilagan said. "I work on that."
Ilagan has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering and worked as a
systems engineer for Western Electronic and as an applications engineer for
Stanford Telecom.
Four of the nine jury members, which all lived in the area around San Jose,
Calif., where the trial was held, had experience working for technology
companies, including Intel and AT&T. Hogan worked for a hard-drive company.
CNET reporter Josh Lowensohn contributed to this story.
I*4
4 楼
这个很好笑~哈哈哈
张艺谋的蛋!
你说你要谁的蛋!
张艺谋的蛋!
你说你要谁的蛋!
w*g
5 楼
聪明和悟性有一定的交集， 但还很不一样。 聪明和脚踏实地往往又不喜欢呆在一起。
另外， 聪明的人心气都很难低下来， 尤其是人与人之间。 所以很难说聪明对修行来
说是好是坏。。
另外， 聪明的人心气都很难低下来， 尤其是人与人之间。 所以很难说聪明对修行来
说是好是坏。。
g*o
6 楼
果然陪审团里面好多龟公马工，哈哈
N*m
7 楼
一堆小市民
【在 g****n 的大作中提到】
【在 g****n 的大作中提到】
d*r
8 楼
这种小时了了。。。的，算个鸟神童，
宁铂后来考研，考了三次都没考上。
莫扎特那种才是真正是的神童。
【在 M*****8 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 Military 讨论区 】
: 发信人: MB80528 (肥猫(Contrarian)[食MM而肥]), 信区: Military
: 标 题: Re: 中国大陆第一神童宁铂出家成为高僧
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Jun 25 02:23:41 2012, 美东)
: 这是他的真正兴趣，我热忱支持。
: 如果多几个聪明绝顶的入道家佛家，
: 中华的传统实践文化的复兴发扬有望。
: 上次还有个北大还是清华的高才数学生，
: 也是半途决定放弃大学教育，去钻研玄学。
: 这些都是好事，道家佛家虽被马列教迫害，
宁铂后来考研，考了三次都没考上。
莫扎特那种才是真正是的神童。
【在 M*****8 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 Military 讨论区 】
: 发信人: MB80528 (肥猫(Contrarian)[食MM而肥]), 信区: Military
: 标 题: Re: 中国大陆第一神童宁铂出家成为高僧
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Jun 25 02:23:41 2012, 美东)
: 这是他的真正兴趣，我热忱支持。
: 如果多几个聪明绝顶的入道家佛家，
: 中华的传统实践文化的复兴发扬有望。
: 上次还有个北大还是清华的高才数学生，
: 也是半途决定放弃大学教育，去钻研玄学。
: 这些都是好事，道家佛家虽被马列教迫害，
E*1
9 楼
莫道出家容易得，皆因累世种菩提
相关阅读
请问ipad2的卡可以不可以用牛排上which one is the new ipad？比较了video，还是有进步的[合集] 关于iPad配件的友情提示及iPad FAQapple online store 又当了Fedex 真恶心【用户反馈】Satisfaction, Thy Name Is iPhone网上订的iPad用签收吗（UPS）买IPAD回国送人，要买3G的吗？澳洲用户已经拿到牛排了要了returning service 还能退回店里吗？新ipad的高分屏还是有副作用啊有什么给国内老人用的app呀？ups真tmd的无耻不爽，ipad3屏幕一角/一边颜色黄多了new ipad上手体验谁给咱关于分辨率扫扫忙？网上电话订了一个白的牛排请推荐一个听中文歌的app明天牛排开苞自拍大会对西部人民很不利!