the traditional method of CPU usage is a hact by that standard as well. BIOS loads the CPU information, CUDA just add another layer.
which leads me to wonder, do we really needs multi core CPUs? perhaps we just need a CPU that can handle the throughput for running the OS and its most basic functions, and actually pass off all other processes to dedicated components.
not saying there wasnt, but what trade secrets were given away here? the reveal we were given shows only (arguably minor) aesthetic differences with a few trivial substantive changes (i.e. front facing camera) which are neither innovative nor unique. I've heard the "trade Secrets thing bandied about quite a bit over this, but i fail to see what Trade Secrets* were revealed
*as Wikipedia defines it: A trade secret is a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable, by which a business can obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers. In some jurisdictions, such secrets are referred to as "confidential information" or "classified information". (emphasis mine)
it all comes down to intent. with some deft legal maneuvering, a case can be made that:
1. the seller had tried to contact Apple to return the phone (i'm sure some sort of cellphone record could corroborate this) unsuccessfully. 2. the seller gave the phone to Gawker as guarantor of its safe return, and that the seller in fact, sold rights to a story for the sum of $5000
now maybe my half drunk ass is missing all sorts of 'facts' and whatnot and IANAL but i'm really courious to see what NYCL thinks about this.
while i agree the guy who found the phone could have handled it better, IIRC the phone was wiped within hours of Gray losing it. its therefore very conceivable that he was unable to find the name of the owner. Also do you know how many Chinese knock-offs there are? just because it says Apple, doesnt mean they own it.
not that stupidity is an excuse (though it can be a defense) keep in mind people are stupid, i highly doubt the seller was of 'formidable mental prowess'
funny, i thought i remember something about anonymous sources being protected. and if indeed they had some sort of paperwork drawn up to indicate the person who gave them the phone was making them a trustee of it, to see its safe return, and the $5000 was for the privilage of doing so (read: story) it would stand up in court.
now, did it really go down like that? idk, but with as crazy as this saga has been, nothing would surprise me.
this is probably the heart of the matter. Apple wants to abuse somebody for this, and at this point it seems the only person that can be culpable is the guy who sold the phone. With Gawkers very cooperative attitude toward Apple a court would have a hard time proving any illegal activity on Gawkers part, in fact a good defense could make the case that their procuring the phone for $5000 was merely to ensure that it was returned to its rightful owner (which it was indeed). Also since other parties had already attempted to make a good faith effort to return the phone by calling Apple the only way Gawker could ascertain the genuineness of the phone was to post a notice saying it was found (which they indeed did). they bought a story not a phone, afterall the phone was returned before police involvement, and they have documentation posted on their site as well as others i'm sure that specifically point out their cooperation and probably exemption from prosecution by returning the phone in good faith. Additionally a sound case can be made that no harm came to Apple in the manner that Gawker displayed the phone. they in esence treated it no differently than any other hardware they review, they did not commit libel and they did not give away any trade secrets.
IANAL but as far as i can see Apple wouldnt have a leg to stand on if they tried to prosecure Gawker (which to my knowledge they have not)
im not starting a war with trousers, but lets just say, my ambassador treats trousers with a certain disdain and contempt so that trousers knows its place.
i just hate the word "Trousers" i loathe it with a bitter reviling, and an unbridled passion with wanton disregard for the consequences of such merciless rage.
if its for home use i dont see why the form facto is so big of a deal. i understand space constraints in JP but in the US anyway, a battery the size of a trashcan could probably be stored in a suburban garage with no concern whatsoever. i would think that even in Japan you could get away with a battery the size of a microwave oven without too much hassle. in these instances we would be talking about kWh rates that would be sufficiently large to make a significant impact on global warming. yes you heard me right global warming. peak usage at power plants could be streamlined dramatically. this would also decrease load on power plants giving them longer uptime, and you could probably see cost for electricity drop as a by product.
it struck me that the author intent was "40cm of rock eroded per day, while waterleved rose bay as much as 10meters per day at its peak..." that being the case 40cm or rock erosion per day is pretty huge
well they do provide other services. Microsoft makes lots of things, including Operating Systems in case you forgot. and yahoo? well there needs to be something other than Google out there to dodge monopoly issues. and Wolfram Alpha doesnt count.
this whole notion that Google is "privacy evil" [sic] kinda bothers me. i dont understand where the issue is. even at their worst if they were data-mining and targeting your habbits to your IP address their ultimate goal is to make it more valuable for their advertisers to advertise there becasue the vendor knows they are likely to et their product in front of somebody thats interested in it.
personally i think its a good thing. i'm going to be bombarded with ads wherever i go on the web or in real life, its just a fact. Google is like NPR, there are ads, but they're not nearly as annoying as listening to whatever top40 clap-trap station is on. additionally, since i've accepted the fact there will be ads foisted upon me wherever i go i'd at least like to be exposed to advertising of products i might actually use. Tampons? dont need em. New Tech? tell me more!
as a typical/. reader i didnt read the article, but what makes you think they're gonna get rid of any gear? i could possibly se a few jobs lost, but i dont think they're holding hands to streamline their models, rather they want to try and lay the smack down on the big 'G'
i could see their collaborative effort, sharing source code and such, may yield some sort of search tool that is more of a threat than Google, but tbh they have a steep hill to climb, even jointly. perhaps the venture will allow the two to stop worrying about each other (which i suspect was the intent behind the bid to purchase) so that they can do waht they do best.
i'm actually more interested in the paint on the aircraf, FTA:
Many questions remain about the aircraft’s use. If it is a high-altitude aircraft it is painted an unusual color – medium grey overall, like Predator or Reaper, rather then the dark gray or overall black that provides the best concealment at very high altitudes.
i know theyve developed asome sort of "radar absorbant" type materials and coatings in the past and i wonder what special coating this thing has. my assumption is that this will probably see lots of service over places like North Korea and possibly China, where these countries spend a good bundle on defense technology. why sacrifice the visual camouflage?
so, essentially what youre saying is, "why invest in healthcare when you can make a bomb that will kill everyone so that there is no need for heatlhcare ever?" sounds like a plan!
Slashdot Mirror
we prefer "bags of meat"
affect
the traditional method of CPU usage is a hact by that standard as well. BIOS loads the CPU information, CUDA just add another layer.
which leads me to wonder, do we really needs multi core CPUs? perhaps we just need a CPU that can handle the throughput for running the OS and its most basic functions, and actually pass off all other processes to dedicated components.
not saying there wasnt, but what trade secrets were given away here? the reveal we were given shows only (arguably minor) aesthetic differences with a few trivial substantive changes (i.e. front facing camera) which are neither innovative nor unique. I've heard the "trade Secrets thing bandied about quite a bit over this, but i fail to see what Trade Secrets* were revealed
*as Wikipedia defines it: A trade secret is a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable, by which a business can obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers. In some jurisdictions, such secrets are referred to as "confidential information" or "classified information". (emphasis mine)
it all comes down to intent. with some deft legal maneuvering, a case can be made that:
1. the seller had tried to contact Apple to return the phone (i'm sure some sort of cellphone record could corroborate this) unsuccessfully.
2. the seller gave the phone to Gawker as guarantor of its safe return, and that the seller in fact, sold rights to a story for the sum of $5000
now maybe my half drunk ass is missing all sorts of 'facts' and whatnot and IANAL but i'm really courious to see what NYCL thinks about this.
while i agree the guy who found the phone could have handled it better, IIRC the phone was wiped within hours of Gray losing it. its therefore very conceivable that he was unable to find the name of the owner. Also do you know how many Chinese knock-offs there are? just because it says Apple, doesnt mean they own it.
not that stupidity is an excuse (though it can be a defense) keep in mind people are stupid, i highly doubt the seller was of 'formidable mental prowess'
in California it is. unless your evicting Native Americans.
funny, i thought i remember something about anonymous sources being protected. and if indeed they had some sort of paperwork drawn up to indicate the person who gave them the phone was making them a trustee of it, to see its safe return, and the $5000 was for the privilage of doing so (read: story) it would stand up in court.
now, did it really go down like that? idk, but with as crazy as this saga has been, nothing would surprise me.
MOD PARENT UP >>>> Insightful
this is probably the heart of the matter. Apple wants to abuse somebody for this, and at this point it seems the only person that can be culpable is the guy who sold the phone. With Gawkers very cooperative attitude toward Apple a court would have a hard time proving any illegal activity on Gawkers part, in fact a good defense could make the case that their procuring the phone for $5000 was merely to ensure that it was returned to its rightful owner (which it was indeed). Also since other parties had already attempted to make a good faith effort to return the phone by calling Apple the only way Gawker could ascertain the genuineness of the phone was to post a notice saying it was found (which they indeed did). they bought a story not a phone, afterall the phone was returned before police involvement, and they have documentation posted on their site as well as others i'm sure that specifically point out their cooperation and probably exemption from prosecution by returning the phone in good faith. Additionally a sound case can be made that no harm came to Apple in the manner that Gawker displayed the phone. they in esence treated it no differently than any other hardware they review, they did not commit libel and they did not give away any trade secrets.
IANAL but as far as i can see Apple wouldnt have a leg to stand on if they tried to prosecure Gawker (which to my knowledge they have not)
no, im just a narcissist. i dont need to be that important.
im not starting a war with trousers, but lets just say, my ambassador treats trousers with a certain disdain and contempt so that trousers knows its place.
i just hate the word "Trousers" i loathe it with a bitter reviling, and an unbridled passion with wanton disregard for the consequences of such merciless rage.
damn straight, thats why you get paid.
in theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice its not. you're job is to make it that way.
replace theory with lab and you see the fundamental flaw with the false sense of security a lab provides.
even the fridge can be run from gas. been done for a long time... look, pictures!
http://images.google.com/images?q=gas%20fridge&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi
true true, sorry if i sounded harsh.
Panasonic acquired Sanyo, not Sharp, dont repeat facts unless you're gonna get them right
if its for home use i dont see why the form facto is so big of a deal. i understand space constraints in JP but in the US anyway, a battery the size of a trashcan could probably be stored in a suburban garage with no concern whatsoever. i would think that even in Japan you could get away with a battery the size of a microwave oven without too much hassle. in these instances we would be talking about kWh rates that would be sufficiently large to make a significant impact on global warming. yes you heard me right global warming. peak usage at power plants could be streamlined dramatically. this would also decrease load on power plants giving them longer uptime, and you could probably see cost for electricity drop as a by product.
it struck me that the author intent was "40cm of rock eroded per day, while waterleved rose bay as much as 10meters per day at its peak..." that being the case 40cm or rock erosion per day is pretty huge
what part of "Invisible Stealth Plane" dont you get?
here try this:
http://images.google.com/images?client=opera&rls=en&q=wonder+woman+plane&sourceid=opera&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=abQaS92xKo7clAeKucHyCQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQsAQwAA
that "$" is soooo clever!
well they do provide other services. Microsoft makes lots of things, including Operating Systems in case you forgot. and yahoo? well there needs to be something other than Google out there to dodge monopoly issues. and Wolfram Alpha doesnt count.
this whole notion that Google is "privacy evil" [sic] kinda bothers me. i dont understand where the issue is. even at their worst if they were data-mining and targeting your habbits to your IP address their ultimate goal is to make it more valuable for their advertisers to advertise there becasue the vendor knows they are likely to et their product in front of somebody thats interested in it.
personally i think its a good thing. i'm going to be bombarded with ads wherever i go on the web or in real life, its just a fact. Google is like NPR, there are ads, but they're not nearly as annoying as listening to whatever top40 clap-trap station is on. additionally, since i've accepted the fact there will be ads foisted upon me wherever i go i'd at least like to be exposed to advertising of products i might actually use. Tampons? dont need em. New Tech? tell me more!
as a typical /. reader i didnt read the article, but what makes you think they're gonna get rid of any gear? i could possibly se a few jobs lost, but i dont think they're holding hands to streamline their models, rather they want to try and lay the smack down on the big 'G'
i could see their collaborative effort, sharing source code and such, may yield some sort of search tool that is more of a threat than Google, but tbh they have a steep hill to climb, even jointly. perhaps the venture will allow the two to stop worrying about each other (which i suspect was the intent behind the bid to purchase) so that they can do waht they do best.
i'm actually more interested in the paint on the aircraf, FTA:
Many questions remain about the aircraft’s use. If it is a high-altitude aircraft it is painted an unusual color – medium grey overall, like Predator or Reaper, rather then the dark gray or overall black that provides the best concealment at very high altitudes.
i know theyve developed asome sort of "radar absorbant" type materials and coatings in the past and i wonder what special coating this thing has. my assumption is that this will probably see lots of service over places like North Korea and possibly China, where these countries spend a good bundle on defense technology. why sacrifice the visual camouflage?
so, essentially what youre saying is, "why invest in healthcare when you can make a bomb that will kill everyone so that there is no need for heatlhcare ever?" sounds like a plan!