Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Innovation and special treatment.
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Alan Baker
May 23, 2013, 1:05:25 PM5/23/13
to
Remember when the trolls were trying to claim that the iPad wasn't
orginal...
...because someone used a non-existent, and very different looking
device in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?
But now that Google Glass has been delivered, they're insisting that it
represents true innovation...
...while ignoring that IBM produced a non-existent device in a
commercial...
...that was pretty much identical to Google Glass.
Identical equals "innovative", but very different equals "copy"...
...where Apple is the one supposedly copying.
And the trolls try and tell people that they aren't the ones treating
Apple differently...
...because it's Apple.
:-)
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
orginal...
...because someone used a non-existent, and very different looking
device in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?
But now that Google Glass has been delivered, they're insisting that it
represents true innovation...
...while ignoring that IBM produced a non-existent device in a
commercial...
...that was pretty much identical to Google Glass.
Identical equals "innovative", but very different equals "copy"...
...where Apple is the one supposedly copying.
And the trolls try and tell people that they aren't the ones treating
Apple differently...
...because it's Apple.
:-)
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Justin
May 23, 2013, 5:47:02 PM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:05:25 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> Remember when the trolls were trying to claim that the iPad wasn't
> orginal...
>
> ...because someone used a non-existent, and very different looking
> device in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?
>
> But now that Google Glass has been delivered, they're insisting that it
> represents true innovation...
>
> ...while ignoring that IBM produced a non-existent device in a
> commercial...
Remember those AT&T "you will" commercials?
> Remember when the trolls were trying to claim that the iPad wasn't
> orginal...
>
> ...because someone used a non-existent, and very different looking
> device in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?
>
> But now that Google Glass has been delivered, they're insisting that it
> represents true innovation...
>
> ...while ignoring that IBM produced a non-existent device in a
> commercial...
Here we are 15 years later and "we aren't"
Flint
May 24, 2013, 9:05:07 AM5/24/13
to
On 5/23/2013 1:05 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> Remember when the trolls were trying to claim that the iPad wasn't
> orginal...
>
> ...because someone used a non-existent, and very different looking
> device in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?
Or how about the the prior art example used in Star Trek: Deep Space
> Remember when the trolls were trying to claim that the iPad wasn't
> orginal...
>
> ...because someone used a non-existent, and very different looking
> device in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?
Nine's Vorta commanders who controlled the Jem-Hadar starships with a
similar device?
http://www.google.com/imgres?start=106&client=firefox-a&hs=MRY&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1282&bih=604&tbm=isch&tbnid=paxC1iW4ZPOnMM:&imgrefurl=http://www.oocities.org/area51/nebula/4156/infirmary/xeno/vorta.html.tmp&docid=EHoLliaC1Q_pYM&imgurl=http://www.oocities.org/area51/nebula/4156/infirmary/xeno/dominion/weyounviewscreen.jpg&w=200&h=150&ei=GGWfUe-WDJen4APf0YGAAw&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:19,s:100,i:61&iact=rc&dur=6623&page=6&tbnh=120&tbnw=160&ndsp=17&tx=77&ty=73
> But now that Google Glass has been delivered, they're insisting that it
> represents true innovation...
>
> ...while ignoring that IBM produced a non-existent device in a
> commercial...
> ...that was pretty much identical to Google Glass.
> Identical equals "innovative", but very different equals "copy"...
> ...where Apple is the one supposedly copying.
>
> And the trolls try and tell people that they aren't the ones treating
> Apple differently...
>
> ...because it's Apple.
>
> :-)
>
--
jay birdsong
May 24, 2013, 5:08:56 PM5/24/13
to
"Justin" wrote in message
news:pan.2013.05...@fartsfartsandmorefarts.edu...
Alan Baker
May 24, 2013, 10:05:19 PM5/24/13
to
In article <knnoa1$juq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Flint <agen...@section-31.net> wrote:
> On 5/23/2013 1:05 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> > Remember when the trolls were trying to claim that the iPad wasn't
> > orginal...
> >
> > ...because someone used a non-existent, and very different looking
> > device in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?
>
> Or how about the the prior art example used in Star Trek: Deep Space
> Nine's Vorta commanders who controlled the Jem-Hadar starships with a
> similar device?
>
> http://www.google.com/imgres?start=106&client=firefox-a&hs=MRY&sa=X&rls=org.mo
> zilla:en-US:official&biw=1282&bih=604&tbm=isch&tbnid=paxC1iW4ZPOnMM:&imgrefurl
> =http://www.oocities.org/area51/nebula/4156/infirmary/xeno/vorta.html.tmp&doci
> d=EHoLliaC1Q_pYM&imgurl=http://www.oocities.org/area51/nebula/4156/infirmary/x
> eno/dominion/weyounviewscreen.jpg&w=200&h=150&ei=GGWfUe-WDJen4APf0YGAAw&zoom=1
> &ved=1t:3588,r:19,s:100,i:61&iact=rc&dur=6623&page=6&tbnh=120&tbnw=160&ndsp=17
> &tx=77&ty=73
>
>
>
> > But now that Google Glass has been delivered, they're insisting that it
> > represents true innovation...
> >
> > ...while ignoring that IBM produced a non-existent device in a
> > commercial...
>
>
> > ...that was pretty much identical to Google Glass.
>
> Link?
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xuk5ED5szSA>
> On 5/23/2013 1:05 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> > Remember when the trolls were trying to claim that the iPad wasn't
> > orginal...
> >
> > ...because someone used a non-existent, and very different looking
> > device in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?
>
> Or how about the the prior art example used in Star Trek: Deep Space
> Nine's Vorta commanders who controlled the Jem-Hadar starships with a
> similar device?
>
> http://www.google.com/imgres?start=106&client=firefox-a&hs=MRY&sa=X&rls=org.mo
> zilla:en-US:official&biw=1282&bih=604&tbm=isch&tbnid=paxC1iW4ZPOnMM:&imgrefurl
> =http://www.oocities.org/area51/nebula/4156/infirmary/xeno/vorta.html.tmp&doci
> d=EHoLliaC1Q_pYM&imgurl=http://www.oocities.org/area51/nebula/4156/infirmary/x
> eno/dominion/weyounviewscreen.jpg&w=200&h=150&ei=GGWfUe-WDJen4APf0YGAAw&zoom=1
> &ved=1t:3588,r:19,s:100,i:61&iact=rc&dur=6623&page=6&tbnh=120&tbnw=160&ndsp=17
> &tx=77&ty=73
>
>
>
> > But now that Google Glass has been delivered, they're insisting that it
> > represents true innovation...
> >
> > ...while ignoring that IBM produced a non-existent device in a
> > commercial...
>
>
> > ...that was pretty much identical to Google Glass.
>
> Link?
0 new messages