That is where the concept of intent comes in. They "intended" for an illegal action to occur. Just because it didn't happen does not let them off the hook. Maybe they others that would have shown up were late and left when they saw the police.
I was a customer service rep for a US cellular company and a number of times I had similar calls from irate parents. "Why is my bill that high? There is no way by daughter could have sent those messages. She was in school at the time. Some are being sent at 2AM. She was asleep." When shown evidence that the numbers texted to were common on her phone and a suggestion made that they talk to the daughter they never call back. Unlimited plans are there to eliminate the overages and subsequent CS calls cause by users who do not pay the bills over using their device and don't keep track of their usage.
Would four years be unreasonable if they were caught breaking into and looting a store? I believe that someone who instigates an illegal action should be punished as if they committed that action themselves.
One of the stipulations about citizens' arrest is that a suspect must be turned over to authorities at the earliest opportunity. Citizens are not allowed to hold someone in custody. Police have a different standard than citizens. They are trained to deal with suspects and have rules they must abide by. If they go beyond those rules they are charged with excessive force. It is understandable to fight against a gang of hooligans. The police have a different authority so don't fight against them. If you fight you are turning an unpleasant night into a horror show by your own decisions. Fighting won't get you out any earlier it will just lead to escalated force. If you want to protest afterwards go ahead.
You should check the laws about cavity searches. They can only be done under specific circumstances and only by medical personnel. For example, the laws in California would not allow a cavity search on a person at a riot.
First point is that police are not lawyers. Police just need to be reasonably sure an offence has or will be committed for an arrest to occur. Someone can be arrested for purpose of verifying identity.
What if someone matches the description of a suspect that just committed a crime. They get arrested and when seen by the victim they are released. What about the drunk friends who fight in the street? They both get arrested and when sober refuse to press charges. What about the alcoholic who is so inebriated that he can not talk? He gets arrested and released when sober.
There are many valid reasons arrests that do not lead to charges or convictions. There are many petty crimes, usually alcohol related, that need not be prosecuted.
There was no "pro-democratic protests". Where were the banners? Where were the slogans? Where were the orderly marches and sit ins? Where were the calls to change the political landscape. None of that happened. There is nothing "pro-democratic" about a water fight.
What occurred was gang of people committing crimes of vandalism, theft, battery, destruction of public and private property and in one case murder. This was not "protest" it was pure anarchy.
Any assembly over a certain number requires a permit because the following needs to be done; 1. Extra policing arranged in case things get out of hand. 2. Extra clean up to deal with the mass of garbage left behind by many people. 3. Extra paramedics to deal with injuries. 4. Restroom facilities for such a large number of people. 5. Blocking off streets so people do not get run over.
The article is also misleading in showing two people with small water pistols. What was being organized was hundreds, if not thousands, of people converging in downtown public streets to in effect take over the area and have a water fight. Any business in their right mind would close their doors to protect themselves from the mayhem. Don't the shops and business have a right to do business? Who will pay for the policing, Who will pay for the cleanup? Who will pay for damages?
A water fight is not illegal; hundreds of people taking over a city centre without proper planning and a permit for what ever reason, even a water fight, is illegal.
You seem to have missed the original point of my post. The headline seems to indicate that Apple's sale of software has caused it's market cap to exceed that of oil. If one removed the market cap attributable to hardware sales Apple's total market cap would be much lower. It is misleading in that if you took the market cap attributable to software from all companies and compare it to the market cap of all oil companies I bet oil would come out ahead.
iPod sales based on the software? I doubt it. Even tablets, laptops and desktops; if the hardware sucks the software will not sell no matter how good it is. Would you buy a MacBook that ran OSX, weighted 5 pounds, had a 20 meg hard drive, 640X480 screen, ran for 1 hour on batteries and cost $2000? I doubt it very much. Hardware and software are a synergy; for both to survive both must be good. Apple's market cap is large because they sell both the hardware and the software.
Tell that to the designers of the MacBook Air and be prepared to get your face slapped. Apple marketed the first viable tablet. Did people buy it because of iOS or because it was a tablet? Same thing with the iPhone (who happens to be losing market share to Android phones). The bottom line is that most people don't care about the software; they mainly care about who is first.
OSX is still run on only about 5.6% of computers. It doesn't seem that people are clamouring for the software.
Why does Apple have such a big market cap? It is because they manufacture desktop computers, laptops, tablets, mp3 players,smart phones, etc. They also sell the operating systems to run them and music and app stores to supply them. They have their fingers in many big pies so they are very big.
Missed it by that much. The emails are coming from union members and not the union itself so blocking @hotmail.com, @yahoo.com, etc may not be such a good idea.
Apple does not make any of those devices. A company in China makes them. Apple supposedly designs them, and definitely Apple markets and distributes them.
Semantics is a poor argument. Does Ford make cars or just assemble them as the parts are made by non-Ford companies? You know what I meant but decided to be cute.
Exxon does not "make" oil either. They're pretty hot stuff at finding it, and coordinating the work of subcontractors to pump it out, assuming the country owning the land allows them to work instead of using their own nationalized company (petrobras, etc). In a world of declining oil production, I'm not sure how useful Exxon is. Kind of like a middleman. Does transocean really need exxon anymore if all the worlds oil is already found, mostly remains in far away lands where exxon isn't allowed to work, and TO is already pumping it?
It looks like you have it backwards; Transocean is an offshore drilling company and ExxonMobile is the producer. TO doesn't pump oil, they just drill holes to get at it. If all the oil was found it would be Transocean in trouble and not ExxonMobile. By the way, all the oil has not been found. That is why oil companies are spending billions searching for it.
Here are some issues with filters: "filter to customer folders based on known from from addresses" 1. What about new customers who have not yet been identified? How do they get filtered? 2. This is a large company with thousands of customers each of which have thousands of employees. How long would it take to create the millions of rules to be sure all legitimate email got through. 3. What about email sent from a different address? The customer's usual address is their work address but this time they sent from their home address.
"filter by subject and/or body content" 1. False positives. What about the email from a supplier stating that "the material will be delayed due to a "labor dispute". The more words you filter for the greater the possibility of false positives. 2. What if the emails contain just nonsense and do not refer to "labor dispute"?
I use filters to move things around but occasionally check my spam folder to be sure no false positives have occurred. It is impossible to check a folder that contains thousands of emails.
The issue here is that the union intended to make business difficult for a company and to cost them money. In my mind it is the same as union members throwing rocks at a company's windows. Sure the company could spend thousands of dollars on stronger windows. It is a simple solution but that is not the point; the union shouldn't be throwing rocks in the first place as it is illegal.
Apple makes much more than just software. iPhones, iPads and Mac's are not software. I truly hate blanket statements like this. All the happened was the market cap of an information technology firm exceeded the market cap of an oil company. These numbers reflect the value of the companies not the value of the underlying commodities.
You try to sift through 10,000 emails and see if they does not diminish your ability to use data in the legitimate emails you were sent. The damage is the time wasted doing the sifting and the lost business due to customers not being able to communicate with the company; damage does not need to be to the computer.
It is not a "public call to action". It is a Union orchestrating a campaign with the intent of making it impossible for a company to do business until the business complies with the the union's demands. It is a basic DoS attack with the intent of intimidation; do what we want or we will ruin your business.
"Sound Computer" All mail servers have a limit on the number of emails it can handle. Overload that limit and there can be issues. Thousands of emails a day and phone calls every few minutes can easily reach that limit. The other issue is attempting to sift through the thousands of emails to find the ones from customers. That takes hours and money. By the time one works through the first thousand there is another few thousand waiting.Even if the server is still running that mailbox is unusable.
Spam The difference between this action and a company sending out millions of emails to millions of people is as follows; 1. The recipient if spam is not denied access to their regular mail due to spam. Most good mail readers sort spam into another folder so the recipient does not see it. Email from thousands of different legitimate addresses can not be sorted in this manner. 2. Spam is illegal in many countries. In the US CAN-SPAM covers commercial emails. 3. The intent of SPAM is not for one organization to put another organization out of business.
Email campaigns to public officials An email campaign to a public official has the intent of showing support for a position and influence the official toward that position. Without that kind of support an official has no way of knowing how the public feels or thinks about a policy. It is in effect a vote by the constituency and very democratic.
The intent of the union campaign was merely to disrupt normal business and intimidate a company into doing what they want. A business is not a democracy where the workers vote for what the company does. There is a grievance process for this kind of issue that does not include damage, harassment and intimidation.
Physical mailboxes Yes, physical mailboxes do get stuffed with useless mail. The difference is that the companies that send the junk mail did not get together and target a mailbox with the intent of filling it up with junk so that real mail will be lost. If you leave a physical mailbox unattended for a couple of weeks it will fill up. In the case of the union action, they filled the mailbox in a day. Coordination and intent is the difference.
A company that sent thousands of emails and phone calls per day for a period of days would be in trouble. The issue is not who did it but the volume and intent.
We have the same point. There are some people who are taking the statement by Google that the car was being driven manually when the accident occurred at face value. I was just putting forward an alternate scenario in which the basic statement was true but may not tell the whole story. There is not enough information in the articles to make an informed judgment on what happened.
Even when the car is being driven by computer there is always someone in the driver's seat in case something goes wrong. In my scenario the car is driven "autonomously" right up until the driver takes over control. At that point the car is not being driven autonomously.
How do we know that the following condition didn't happen;
The car was in automatic drive. A problem occurred and it appeared that a crash was about to occur. The driver took control of the vehicle There was not enough time to avoid the crash and the crash occurred.
Google can truthfully say that at the time of the crash the car was in manual control but the crash was still caused by the computer.
1. Covers 10 square meters which is effectively a circle of radius of 1.6 meters. That is not very far at all. 2. One way communication. There would have to be a transmitter and receiver at both ends pointed at each other. 3. Line of sight only. What happens when someone stands between the receiver and transmitter? No signal. 4. Crosstalk; How well does this system work when there are several transmitters in the room? What about incandescent lights or florescent lights? If one wanted to have full coverage for a room a transmitter would be needed every 2.25 meters. That is a lot of transmitters. 5. Range; There is no mention of range. Considering that light power drops off at a rate relative to the square of the distance that might not be very far.
From the description it is a short range, easily interrupted broadcast device. There is a much simpler, more reliable, less expensive two way solution already in existence; CAT 5 cable.
Why do so many of recent "technology breakthrough" articles follow the same pattern. 1. Take an experiment that shows some minor interesting results (in this case the ability to pull microwatts from radio waves) 2. Extrapolate it into unproven areas (in this case the ability to pull a milliwatt) 3. Combine it with another theoretical, non commercial technology like superconducting motors, lithium air batteries or in this case super-capacitors. 4. call it a breakthrough
In my mind it is not a breakthrough until the technology is scaleable and commercially viable. Until then it is interesting science and only that.
Guess you should read the article. "XP's share of the infection pie was much larger than Windows 7's, which accounted for only 12% of the malware-plagued machines -- even though the 2009 OS now powers 31% of all Windows PCs."
Slashdot Mirror
That is where the concept of intent comes in. They "intended" for an illegal action to occur. Just because it didn't happen does not let them off the hook. Maybe they others that would have shown up were late and left when they saw the police.
I was a customer service rep for a US cellular company and a number of times I had similar calls from irate parents.
"Why is my bill that high? There is no way by daughter could have sent those messages. She was in school at the time. Some are being sent at 2AM. She was asleep."
When shown evidence that the numbers texted to were common on her phone and a suggestion made that they talk to the daughter they never call back. Unlimited plans are there to eliminate the overages and subsequent CS calls cause by users who do not pay the bills over using their device and don't keep track of their usage.
Would four years be unreasonable if they were caught breaking into and looting a store? I believe that someone who instigates an illegal action should be punished as if they committed that action themselves.
One of the stipulations about citizens' arrest is that a suspect must be turned over to authorities at the earliest opportunity. Citizens are not allowed to hold someone in custody. Police have a different standard than citizens. They are trained to deal with suspects and have rules they must abide by. If they go beyond those rules they are charged with excessive force. It is understandable to fight against a gang of hooligans. The police have a different authority so don't fight against them. If you fight you are turning an unpleasant night into a horror show by your own decisions. Fighting won't get you out any earlier it will just lead to escalated force. If you want to protest afterwards go ahead.
You should check the laws about cavity searches. They can only be done under specific circumstances and only by medical personnel. For example, the laws in California would not allow a cavity search on a person at a riot.
First point is that police are not lawyers. Police just need to be reasonably sure an offence has or will be committed for an arrest to occur. Someone can be arrested for purpose of verifying identity.
What if someone matches the description of a suspect that just committed a crime. They get arrested and when seen by the victim they are released.
What about the drunk friends who fight in the street? They both get arrested and when sober refuse to press charges.
What about the alcoholic who is so inebriated that he can not talk? He gets arrested and released when sober.
There are many valid reasons arrests that do not lead to charges or convictions. There are many petty crimes, usually alcohol related, that need not be prosecuted.
There was no "pro-democratic protests". Where were the banners? Where were the slogans? Where were the orderly marches and sit ins? Where were the calls to change the political landscape. None of that happened. There is nothing "pro-democratic" about a water fight.
What occurred was gang of people committing crimes of vandalism, theft, battery, destruction of public and private property and in one case murder. This was not "protest" it was pure anarchy.
Any assembly over a certain number requires a permit because the following needs to be done;
1. Extra policing arranged in case things get out of hand.
2. Extra clean up to deal with the mass of garbage left behind by many people.
3. Extra paramedics to deal with injuries.
4. Restroom facilities for such a large number of people.
5. Blocking off streets so people do not get run over.
The article is also misleading in showing two people with small water pistols. What was being organized was hundreds, if not thousands, of people converging in downtown public streets to in effect take over the area and have a water fight. Any business in their right mind would close their doors to protect themselves from the mayhem. Don't the shops and business have a right to do business? Who will pay for the policing, Who will pay for the cleanup? Who will pay for damages?
A water fight is not illegal; hundreds of people taking over a city centre without proper planning and a permit for what ever reason, even a water fight, is illegal.
Look to the bottom of this page. They are licensed.
According to this article the upgrade costs $50.
The download is free. The pin you need to do the upgrade costs money.
They sell an upgrade card with a one use Pin. The download is free the card costs.
You seem to have missed the original point of my post. The headline seems to indicate that Apple's sale of software has caused it's market cap to exceed that of oil. If one removed the market cap attributable to hardware sales Apple's total market cap would be much lower. It is misleading in that if you took the market cap attributable to software from all companies and compare it to the market cap of all oil companies I bet oil would come out ahead.
iPod sales based on the software? I doubt it. Even tablets, laptops and desktops; if the hardware sucks the software will not sell no matter how good it is. Would you buy a MacBook that ran OSX, weighted 5 pounds, had a 20 meg hard drive, 640X480 screen, ran for 1 hour on batteries and cost $2000? I doubt it very much. Hardware and software are a synergy; for both to survive both must be good. Apple's market cap is large because they sell both the hardware and the software.
Tell that to the designers of the MacBook Air and be prepared to get your face slapped. Apple marketed the first viable tablet. Did people buy it because of iOS or because it was a tablet? Same thing with the iPhone (who happens to be losing market share to Android phones). The bottom line is that most people don't care about the software; they mainly care about who is first.
OSX is still run on only about 5.6% of computers. It doesn't seem that people are clamouring for the software.
Why does Apple have such a big market cap? It is because they manufacture desktop computers, laptops, tablets, mp3 players,smart phones, etc. They also sell the operating systems to run them and music and app stores to supply them. They have their fingers in many big pies so they are very big.
Missed it by that much. The emails are coming from union members and not the union itself so blocking @hotmail.com, @yahoo.com, etc may not be such a good idea.
Apple does not make any of those devices. A company in China makes them. Apple supposedly designs them, and definitely Apple markets and distributes them.
Semantics is a poor argument. Does Ford make cars or just assemble them as the parts are made by non-Ford companies? You know what I meant but decided to be cute.
Exxon does not "make" oil either. They're pretty hot stuff at finding it, and coordinating the work of subcontractors to pump it out, assuming the country owning the land allows them to work instead of using their own nationalized company (petrobras, etc). In a world of declining oil production, I'm not sure how useful Exxon is. Kind of like a middleman. Does transocean really need exxon anymore if all the worlds oil is already found, mostly remains in far away lands where exxon isn't allowed to work, and TO is already pumping it?
It looks like you have it backwards; Transocean is an offshore drilling company and ExxonMobile is the producer. TO doesn't pump oil, they just drill holes to get at it. If all the oil was found it would be Transocean in trouble and not ExxonMobile. By the way, all the oil has not been found. That is why oil companies are spending billions searching for it.
Here are some issues with filters:
"filter to customer folders based on known from from addresses"
1. What about new customers who have not yet been identified? How do they get filtered?
2. This is a large company with thousands of customers each of which have thousands of employees. How long would it take to create the millions of rules to be sure all legitimate email got through.
3. What about email sent from a different address? The customer's usual address is their work address but this time they sent from their home address.
"filter by subject and/or body content"
1. False positives. What about the email from a supplier stating that "the material will be delayed due to a "labor dispute". The more words you filter for the greater the possibility of false positives.
2. What if the emails contain just nonsense and do not refer to "labor dispute"?
I use filters to move things around but occasionally check my spam folder to be sure no false positives have occurred. It is impossible to check a folder that contains thousands of emails.
The issue here is that the union intended to make business difficult for a company and to cost them money. In my mind it is the same as union members throwing rocks at a company's windows. Sure the company could spend thousands of dollars on stronger windows. It is a simple solution but that is not the point; the union shouldn't be throwing rocks in the first place as it is illegal.
Apple makes much more than just software. iPhones, iPads and Mac's are not software. I truly hate blanket statements like this. All the happened was the market cap of an information technology firm exceeded the market cap of an oil company. These numbers reflect the value of the companies not the value of the underlying commodities.
You try to sift through 10,000 emails and see if they does not diminish your ability to use data in the legitimate emails you were sent. The damage is the time wasted doing the sifting and the lost business due to customers not being able to communicate with the company; damage does not need to be to the computer.
It is not a "public call to action". It is a Union orchestrating a campaign with the intent of making it impossible for a company to do business until the business complies with the the union's demands. It is a basic DoS attack with the intent of intimidation; do what we want or we will ruin your business.
"Sound Computer"
All mail servers have a limit on the number of emails it can handle. Overload that limit and there can be issues. Thousands of emails a day and phone calls every few minutes can easily reach that limit. The other issue is attempting to sift through the thousands of emails to find the ones from customers. That takes hours and money. By the time one works through the first thousand there is another few thousand waiting.Even if the server is still running that mailbox is unusable.
Spam
The difference between this action and a company sending out millions of emails to millions of people is as follows;
1. The recipient if spam is not denied access to their regular mail due to spam. Most good mail readers sort spam into another folder so the recipient does not see it. Email from thousands of different legitimate addresses can not be sorted in this manner.
2. Spam is illegal in many countries. In the US CAN-SPAM covers commercial emails.
3. The intent of SPAM is not for one organization to put another organization out of business.
Email campaigns to public officials
An email campaign to a public official has the intent of showing support for a position and influence the official toward that position. Without that kind of support an official has no way of knowing how the public feels or thinks about a policy. It is in effect a vote by the constituency and very democratic.
The intent of the union campaign was merely to disrupt normal business and intimidate a company into doing what they want. A business is not a democracy where the workers vote for what the company does. There is a grievance process for this kind of issue that does not include damage, harassment and intimidation.
Physical mailboxes
Yes, physical mailboxes do get stuffed with useless mail. The difference is that the companies that send the junk mail did not get together and target a mailbox with the intent of filling it up with junk so that real mail will be lost. If you leave a physical mailbox unattended for a couple of weeks it will fill up. In the case of the union action, they filled the mailbox in a day. Coordination and intent is the difference.
A company that sent thousands of emails and phone calls per day for a period of days would be in trouble. The issue is not who did it but the volume and intent.
We have the same point. There are some people who are taking the statement by Google that the car was being driven manually when the accident occurred at face value. I was just putting forward an alternate scenario in which the basic statement was true but may not tell the whole story. There is not enough information in the articles to make an informed judgment on what happened.
Even when the car is being driven by computer there is always someone in the driver's seat in case something goes wrong. In my scenario the car is driven "autonomously" right up until the driver takes over control. At that point the car is not being driven autonomously.
How do we know that the following condition didn't happen;
The car was in automatic drive.
A problem occurred and it appeared that a crash was about to occur.
The driver took control of the vehicle
There was not enough time to avoid the crash and the crash occurred.
Google can truthfully say that at the time of the crash the car was in manual control but the crash was still caused by the computer.
1. Covers 10 square meters which is effectively a circle of radius of 1.6 meters. That is not very far at all.
2. One way communication. There would have to be a transmitter and receiver at both ends pointed at each other.
3. Line of sight only. What happens when someone stands between the receiver and transmitter? No signal.
4. Crosstalk; How well does this system work when there are several transmitters in the room? What about incandescent lights or florescent lights? If one wanted to have full coverage for a room a transmitter would be needed every 2.25 meters. That is a lot of transmitters.
5. Range; There is no mention of range. Considering that light power drops off at a rate relative to the square of the distance that might not be very far.
From the description it is a short range, easily interrupted broadcast device. There is a much simpler, more reliable, less expensive two way solution already in existence; CAT 5 cable.
Why do so many of recent "technology breakthrough" articles follow the same pattern.
1. Take an experiment that shows some minor interesting results (in this case the ability to pull microwatts from radio waves)
2. Extrapolate it into unproven areas (in this case the ability to pull a milliwatt)
3. Combine it with another theoretical, non commercial technology like superconducting motors, lithium air batteries or in this case super-capacitors.
4. call it a breakthrough
In my mind it is not a breakthrough until the technology is scaleable and commercially viable. Until then it is interesting science and only that.
Guess you should read the article.
"XP's share of the infection pie was much larger than Windows 7's, which accounted for only 12% of the malware-plagued machines -- even though the 2009 OS now powers 31% of all Windows PCs."
There are move versions of Win than XP and 7.