The ads are not just invisible. The space allocated to ads on the page is released; ads are simply completely wiped from the page. There is no white space on the page with hidden links where ads used to be. So there is no chance to click on such invisible ads.
And even if I would be able to click on such a non-exisiting link, I'd still be recognised as a real browser, as I do have Javascript enabled.
Latest quarterly figures that I heard were a profit of $0.12 per share. Profit that source said was stable, so previous quarters about the same profit per share.
That makes $0.48 per share per year. Mature companies are typically priced at 20-25 times profit, growing companies more, but Facebook can't grow that much anymore but has a lot of goodwill so let's be generous and make it 40 times profit. That'd make a fair value of the share price in the tune of $19.20 per share.
Facebook is currently at just over $23 a share, which doesn't sound that overpriced based on that profit measure.
It's opening price of over $42 per share would mean nearly 90 times profit, and is of course highly overpriced.
Now I'm not a stock investor, and I know the above is highly simplified, but I do know that share price reflects the value of a company, and the value of a company is determined by its assets and its yearly profits. Facebook doesn't have significant physical assets (no factories, pipeline networks, fleets of vessels, etc) so their value lies in their profits. It the company doesn't make profit and goes bankrupt, the remaining value is not much more than the value of its bank accounts.
Indeed, a good question. I've been thinking about that too and as yet no answers within the comments here.
In case of Google with it's content network - placing ads on third-party sites and paying those sites for clicks - there is an incentive for such third-party sites to boost their click numbers. That gives them extra income. From blogs with "please click the ads" notices, to actual bots.
In case of Facebook, afaik all those ads are on Facebook's own pages, so all click revenue goes to Facebook. None of that money is going to a third-party site, so there is no monetary incentive for anyone to do this.
In most if not all jurisdictions in this world, the law is always above any contract or agreement. And rightfully so, just think of the mess we would have if that is not the case. It's also why in all proper contracts you will find a "survivability clause", stating that if anything in the contract is overruled by another law, that the rest of the contract remains in force.
I have no idea whether such laws apply to, as I would rather call it, inappropriately aquired data. After all, theft, stolen goods and handling stolen goods normally refer to physical goods. This is data we are talking about: the victims have not physically lost anything. They had data copied from their devices - which as I understand is illegal in Korea - but the device itself was not stolen.
It's an interesting point anyway; anyone has any idea how this works in other jurisdictions? Any real-world examples?
All I have to do is to look back at the battle over broadcasting rights in this city (the rights holder doesn't have a free-to-air channel, and is obliged to broadcast some footage on free channels).
So yes, there's a lot of value in that. And no, I don' t care. I even completely missed the opening ceremony (the only one that I'd care to watch - it's usually a great spectacle) by completely forgetting when it was. If I remember I may try to hunt down a recording from TPB later. But for the rest, oh well, let them have their fun. I'm happy not to be in London now.
A geostationary satellite should have 0 ground speed (discounting collisions, tidal forces, whatever).
This as when there is a geostationary satellite, I can point my dish to that point in the sky, and that point is not going to change. So, by the very definition of speed (change in distance per time), the speed of that satellite relative to me on the ground is 0.
For a geostationary satellite, ground velocity is zero. So roughly the same as the speed of the balloon this person jumped from (not taking wind speeds into account). Jumping off a geostationary would involve pushing oneself down towards earth, slowly picking up vertical speed (now I have heard before that it doesn't work exactly like that but I'm not a rocket scientist and it's not important for the sake of the argument). And you would also start to pick up horizontal speed compared to the Earth's surface during your descent down. Basically to go in a straight line down from geostationary to the surface, one would have to lose a lot of angular velocity in the process. Calculating entry speeds is getting more tricky now.
Now such a balloon is only a tiny way up to geostationary orbit, so this won't have much of an effect.
And another point that I start to wonder: how high above the surface would one have to go before reaching sufficient speeds to become a human torch during free-fall? Terminal velocity will increase rapidly with higher altitude due to lower air resistance.
Anyone reading/. and not knowing the reference to THHGTTG has to hand in their nerd card and GTFO. For those remaining, providing a reference link is redundant.
I was going to say that college is a waste of money, but the real waste is in K-12 - at least in College you mostly take only the classes you care about.
If you only learn what you care about already, you will never broaden your horizons let alone come anywhere near reaching your full potential. You don't know what's out there, that's why you get so many classes also about things you don't currently care about (but may start caring about later). This shop class you seem to resent being cancelled is an excellent example of that.
Every single lock will not have to be changed. There are several ways to fix this without replacing the entire lock. Fill the hole.
And you can't recharge the battery any more - so sooner or later your lock is going to be out of service.
Cover the whole with an exterior lock.
Probably impossible as the current casing has not been designed for that; and anyway they all will end up with a single physical key: copy that and you're good. And anyway this requires a physical modification to the lock, likely the whole outer casing, not much less work than replacing the whole lock.
Put a more secure circuit between the exterior plug and the lock's main board. That more secure circuit only need to handle NOT letting you read the memory.
That is equivalent to changing out the main board of the lock. Which is probably more practical: it is not likely this lock has any space inside to install an extra board inside. Besides considering how modern devices are designed, replacing the lock is probably easier to do than replacing or adding a circuit board. Which is definitely not something your run-of-the-mill handyman can do.
I noticed that too. Especially considering the vast breast size differences between women. TFA focussed very much on how to make it fit nicely around a woman's waist... which I don't think is the key problem spot.
Also reading this story, my first reaction was "don't they have that already?" Long time ago I remember watching a documentary about civilian type body armour, bullet proof vests, typically for use by private security guards or police. The host also asked the manufacturer about vests for women. The answer was simply: yes, we have those as well, they come with cups.
Torso length and shoulder width tend to scale together and there will be various sizes as even men come in different sizes, the fact that women have a problem for shoulder width and torso length is probably mainly because they wear oversized so that their boobs fit in. That is also an issue with general combat uniforms, which tend to be designed for male figures, so women have to take too big sizes.
A few years ago we discussed that already here. A key difference is that for Android there are lots and lots of free (ad-supported) apps available, while for iOS the norm is that apps are paid for (at least that was then; I don't know the current situation on the iOS side). As such the amount of money spent by iOS users is orders of magnitudes higher than that spent by Android users; Apple generally targeting the up-market users with more cash to spend helps as well.
As of now, I have many apps on my Android phone, all legal, and all free. I don't see a reason to pay, nor to try to pirate any. There are several free games (e.g. Angry Birds which I've played a lot and now only keep for my kid as I'm done with it, Unblock Me, Bubble Blast, and a few more) and a handful of utility apps like Locus for mapping and C:Geo for geocaching which are all excellent apps and free of charge.
None of those, with the exception of Locus and C:Geo, I would even consider paying for. All have plenty of alternatives; if one goes paid-only there'll be another one in their stead.
Sure that mindset it makes it hard for developers to make a living on those platform, but I'm not using my phone to support someone else's life. If they want to allow me to use their app for free (and maybe look at some ads if I am connected to the Internet) I'm happy to use it. If they want me to pay for it, I'll likely drop it. If they want me to pay for it without providing a try-out version, I'll not even try it.
Maybe thanks to the piracy? Maybe it doesn't matter? It's the scale that counts as well, especially for apps that actually get popular.
Imagine you put out an app that's doing something useful, or a game that's actually fun to play, and it becomes popular even though 90% of the users pirates it. That would still mean 10% paying users. Now 10% may sound low, but for a popular app it's nowadays easily 10% of five million users which makes for 500,000 users. If those pay just $0.99 a pop, and Google takes half of that (I forgot the actual rate) that'd still leave $250,000 in the bank for you. Not bad. And those 4.5 mln pirates will help to increase the awareness of the app with other users.
Or, what I would do, is put out a free ad-supported version for those would-be pirates to use, and a $0.99 version without the ads. Again maybe only 10% pays for the pro version (probably less) but you have a few pennies a pop extra for the ads.
You should try Locus, an excellent mapping app with good GPS support. Supports off-line maps as well. And if you really like it you can upgrade to the paid Pro version (if only to support the maker).
Open source software is not necessarily free software. Having the source available to look at doesn't necessarily mean you're allowed to redistribute it. Or that you can get it without paying.
And that while you were so nice to them by announcing your departure three months in advance, giving them plenty of time to find a replacement (and optionally have you train him/her).
If you're interested, there was a study done into the effects of the French law (Hadopi) using iTunes sales provided by the major record companies. The full study is here if you're interested and it found a 50% relative increase in iTunes sales... when the law was being debated in the French Parliament, but no change when letters or disconnections were taking place.
iTunes music store launched in France on 15 June 2004.
iTunes started offering movies in France on 30 April 2009.
Hadopi was being discussed in parliament in April/May 2009, which coincides with the launch of the movies section of iTunes. And as such product launches are usually accompanied by major marketing pushes, I'm not surprised that the iTunes sales went up a lot in that period. Having more on offer - a complete new product line in this case - is usually a recipe for increasing sales, too. That it happened while Hadopi was being discussed may be mere coincidence.
there are signs on every McDonald's across europe (no pictures/no dogs/no smoking)
Yes, restaurants usually hate dogs on premises, but even in France, a restaurant can be fined from 150 to 450 Euros for refusing service to a disabled person because of their service dog
Pretty much all over the world guide dogs are exempted from being "dog" so to say. They're allowed on public transport, in public buildings, in restaurants - anywhere regular pet dogs are not allowed.
And besides being very useful for the person they guide, these dogs are also always highly trained so not likely to cause any problems, this in contrast to your regular pet dog...
But what holds it back is not as much the recovery technology, but the labour needed to collect and dismantle the scrap. Collection is a major issue actually, as this scrap appears all over the place. There is no "gold mine" type concentration, it has to be scavenged from households - and most have such waste only now and then.
Slashdot Mirror
The ads are not just invisible. The space allocated to ads on the page is released; ads are simply completely wiped from the page. There is no white space on the page with hidden links where ads used to be. So there is no chance to click on such invisible ads.
And even if I would be able to click on such a non-exisiting link, I'd still be recognised as a real browser, as I do have Javascript enabled.
Or are they?
Latest quarterly figures that I heard were a profit of $0.12 per share. Profit that source said was stable, so previous quarters about the same profit per share.
That makes $0.48 per share per year. Mature companies are typically priced at 20-25 times profit, growing companies more, but Facebook can't grow that much anymore but has a lot of goodwill so let's be generous and make it 40 times profit. That'd make a fair value of the share price in the tune of $19.20 per share.
Facebook is currently at just over $23 a share, which doesn't sound that overpriced based on that profit measure.
It's opening price of over $42 per share would mean nearly 90 times profit, and is of course highly overpriced.
Now I'm not a stock investor, and I know the above is highly simplified, but I do know that share price reflects the value of a company, and the value of a company is determined by its assets and its yearly profits. Facebook doesn't have significant physical assets (no factories, pipeline networks, fleets of vessels, etc) so their value lies in their profits. It the company doesn't make profit and goes bankrupt, the remaining value is not much more than the value of its bank accounts.
Indeed, a good question. I've been thinking about that too and as yet no answers within the comments here.
In case of Google with it's content network - placing ads on third-party sites and paying those sites for clicks - there is an incentive for such third-party sites to boost their click numbers. That gives them extra income. From blogs with "please click the ads" notices, to actual bots.
In case of Facebook, afaik all those ads are on Facebook's own pages, so all click revenue goes to Facebook. None of that money is going to a third-party site, so there is no monetary incentive for anyone to do this.
I wouldn't know, I have AdBlockPlus.
My Facebook has no ads.
In most if not all jurisdictions in this world, the law is always above any contract or agreement. And rightfully so, just think of the mess we would have if that is not the case. It's also why in all proper contracts you will find a "survivability clause", stating that if anything in the contract is overruled by another law, that the rest of the contract remains in force.
I have no idea whether such laws apply to, as I would rather call it, inappropriately aquired data. After all, theft, stolen goods and handling stolen goods normally refer to physical goods. This is data we are talking about: the victims have not physically lost anything. They had data copied from their devices - which as I understand is illegal in Korea - but the device itself was not stolen.
It's an interesting point anyway; anyone has any idea how this works in other jurisdictions? Any real-world examples?
But how can you contact them? Or get to know them for starters? After all they don't have a Facebook account!
Finding value in that is not too hard.
All I have to do is to look back at the battle over broadcasting rights in this city (the rights holder doesn't have a free-to-air channel, and is obliged to broadcast some footage on free channels).
So yes, there's a lot of value in that. And no, I don' t care. I even completely missed the opening ceremony (the only one that I'd care to watch - it's usually a great spectacle) by completely forgetting when it was. If I remember I may try to hunt down a recording from TPB later. But for the rest, oh well, let them have their fun. I'm happy not to be in London now.
A geostationary satellite should have 0 ground speed (discounting collisions, tidal forces, whatever).
This as when there is a geostationary satellite, I can point my dish to that point in the sky, and that point is not going to change. So, by the very definition of speed (change in distance per time), the speed of that satellite relative to me on the ground is 0.
For a geostationary satellite, ground velocity is zero. So roughly the same as the speed of the balloon this person jumped from (not taking wind speeds into account). Jumping off a geostationary would involve pushing oneself down towards earth, slowly picking up vertical speed (now I have heard before that it doesn't work exactly like that but I'm not a rocket scientist and it's not important for the sake of the argument). And you would also start to pick up horizontal speed compared to the Earth's surface during your descent down. Basically to go in a straight line down from geostationary to the surface, one would have to lose a lot of angular velocity in the process. Calculating entry speeds is getting more tricky now.
Now such a balloon is only a tiny way up to geostationary orbit, so this won't have much of an effect.
And another point that I start to wonder: how high above the surface would one have to go before reaching sufficient speeds to become a human torch during free-fall? Terminal velocity will increase rapidly with higher altitude due to lower air resistance.
Anyone reading /. and not knowing the reference to THHGTTG has to hand in their nerd card and GTFO. For those remaining, providing a reference link is redundant.
I was going to say that college is a waste of money, but the real waste is in K-12 - at least in College you mostly take only the classes you care about.
If you only learn what you care about already, you will never broaden your horizons let alone come anywhere near reaching your full potential. You don't know what's out there, that's why you get so many classes also about things you don't currently care about (but may start caring about later). This shop class you seem to resent being cancelled is an excellent example of that.
Every single lock will not have to be changed. There are several ways to fix this without replacing the entire lock. Fill the hole.
And you can't recharge the battery any more - so sooner or later your lock is going to be out of service.
Cover the whole with an exterior lock.
Probably impossible as the current casing has not been designed for that; and anyway they all will end up with a single physical key: copy that and you're good. And anyway this requires a physical modification to the lock, likely the whole outer casing, not much less work than replacing the whole lock.
Put a more secure circuit between the exterior plug and the lock's main board. That more secure circuit only need to handle NOT letting you read the memory.
That is equivalent to changing out the main board of the lock. Which is probably more practical: it is not likely this lock has any space inside to install an extra board inside. Besides considering how modern devices are designed, replacing the lock is probably easier to do than replacing or adding a circuit board. Which is definitely not something your run-of-the-mill handyman can do.
The hacker has announced that the complete hack will be revealed, source code and all, on his web site soon.
I noticed that too. Especially considering the vast breast size differences between women. TFA focussed very much on how to make it fit nicely around a woman's waist... which I don't think is the key problem spot.
Also reading this story, my first reaction was "don't they have that already?" Long time ago I remember watching a documentary about civilian type body armour, bullet proof vests, typically for use by private security guards or police. The host also asked the manufacturer about vests for women. The answer was simply: yes, we have those as well, they come with cups.
Torso length and shoulder width tend to scale together and there will be various sizes as even men come in different sizes, the fact that women have a problem for shoulder width and torso length is probably mainly because they wear oversized so that their boobs fit in. That is also an issue with general combat uniforms, which tend to be designed for male figures, so women have to take too big sizes.
I think the situation will be fixed soon after the first Jelly Bean devices are on the market, and DRM'ed apps start to be available.
Or do they have a DRM scheme that really can't be cracked and circumvented?
A few years ago we discussed that already here. A key difference is that for Android there are lots and lots of free (ad-supported) apps available, while for iOS the norm is that apps are paid for (at least that was then; I don't know the current situation on the iOS side). As such the amount of money spent by iOS users is orders of magnitudes higher than that spent by Android users; Apple generally targeting the up-market users with more cash to spend helps as well.
As of now, I have many apps on my Android phone, all legal, and all free. I don't see a reason to pay, nor to try to pirate any. There are several free games (e.g. Angry Birds which I've played a lot and now only keep for my kid as I'm done with it, Unblock Me, Bubble Blast, and a few more) and a handful of utility apps like Locus for mapping and C:Geo for geocaching which are all excellent apps and free of charge.
None of those, with the exception of Locus and C:Geo, I would even consider paying for. All have plenty of alternatives; if one goes paid-only there'll be another one in their stead.
Sure that mindset it makes it hard for developers to make a living on those platform, but I'm not using my phone to support someone else's life. If they want to allow me to use their app for free (and maybe look at some ads if I am connected to the Internet) I'm happy to use it. If they want me to pay for it, I'll likely drop it. If they want me to pay for it without providing a try-out version, I'll not even try it.
Maybe thanks to the piracy? Maybe it doesn't matter? It's the scale that counts as well, especially for apps that actually get popular.
Imagine you put out an app that's doing something useful, or a game that's actually fun to play, and it becomes popular even though 90% of the users pirates it. That would still mean 10% paying users. Now 10% may sound low, but for a popular app it's nowadays easily 10% of five million users which makes for 500,000 users. If those pay just $0.99 a pop, and Google takes half of that (I forgot the actual rate) that'd still leave $250,000 in the bank for you. Not bad. And those 4.5 mln pirates will help to increase the awareness of the app with other users.
Or, what I would do, is put out a free ad-supported version for those would-be pirates to use, and a $0.99 version without the ads. Again maybe only 10% pays for the pro version (probably less) but you have a few pennies a pop extra for the ads.
You should try Locus, an excellent mapping app with good GPS support. Supports off-line maps as well. And if you really like it you can upgrade to the paid Pro version (if only to support the maker).
Open source software is not necessarily free software. Having the source available to look at doesn't necessarily mean you're allowed to redistribute it. Or that you can get it without paying.
And that while you were so nice to them by announcing your departure three months in advance, giving them plenty of time to find a replacement (and optionally have you train him/her).
If you're interested, there was a study done into the effects of the French law (Hadopi) using iTunes sales provided by the major record companies. The full study is here if you're interested and it found a 50% relative increase in iTunes sales ... when the law was being debated in the French Parliament, but no change when letters or disconnections were taking place.
iTunes music store launched in France on 15 June 2004.
iTunes started offering movies in France on 30 April 2009.
Hadopi was being discussed in parliament in April/May 2009, which coincides with the launch of the movies section of iTunes. And as such product launches are usually accompanied by major marketing pushes, I'm not surprised that the iTunes sales went up a lot in that period. Having more on offer - a complete new product line in this case - is usually a recipe for increasing sales, too. That it happened while Hadopi was being discussed may be mere coincidence.
Remember: correlation is not causation!
Not sure about the arches (have refused to eat there for the last 36 years - that's my right, don't mod me down because you eat there)
I have just had my lunch there, but would mod you UP in admiration of your steadfastiness instead!
there are signs on every McDonald's across europe (no pictures/no dogs/no smoking)
Yes, restaurants usually hate dogs on premises, but even in France, a restaurant can be fined from 150 to 450 Euros for refusing service to a disabled person because of their service dog
Pretty much all over the world guide dogs are exempted from being "dog" so to say. They're allowed on public transport, in public buildings, in restaurants - anywhere regular pet dogs are not allowed.
And besides being very useful for the person they guide, these dogs are also always highly trained so not likely to cause any problems, this in contrast to your regular pet dog...
Old electronic scrap is big business already.
But what holds it back is not as much the recovery technology, but the labour needed to collect and dismantle the scrap. Collection is a major issue actually, as this scrap appears all over the place. There is no "gold mine" type concentration, it has to be scavenged from households - and most have such waste only now and then.