she was good at estimating cube roots of 4 digit numbers in her head too.
No great trick given there only a dozen or so integers that produce 4 digit results... some basic gut feel for a cubic function will get you pretty close every time.
I was suggesting what I'd do in the OP's situation ie worried about network lock-in...
If network and eco-system lock-in were both a concern, then you move onto a Google Nexus or potentially even a Nokia depending on your world view.
Really, a phone is just a phone - just find the one that best suits and move on - it shouldn't define who you are nor cause the amount of distress it seems to cause some people
I travel overseas and like to purchase a local SIM to avoid enormous roaming charges. I still pay my monthly fee and I don't end up using my included minutes on my plan.
Of course you do... everyone does.. and switch to a cheaper local network to where it suits
But you also like the subsidised handset upfront...
It is pick one-or-the-other in this case.
I do agree its unfortunate that some phone are not offered unsubsidised/unlocked or that some networks do not have 'bring your own phone' / un-contracted plans... most other countries have evolved well past this behavior long ago
There is nothing in the contract about an installment plan.
Is that normal is the US?
I thought most contracts had an early termination costs which represents the rest of the installments? Certainly in Australia that is the case - sometimes as explicit handset/plan items (where you pay the remaining handset installments) but sometimes as a single bundled cost (where you pay a percentage break-cost like 50%)
You don't really have a hope of being able to hear the different between any of the audio chipsets under any typical circumstances, hence why they don't bother spec'ing it. For any serious audio work, you wouldn't be using an analog output anyway and in most cases wouldn't be using a standard consumer laptop.
Audio impedance is a reasonable question but ipod drives are not (officially) user-replaceable so you will never get an answer on that.
Perhaps if you have special requirements, you just aren't Apple's target market ??
All of that is true, but what is the trade this trademark is applied to? It is not computers and technology. The trade in question is a storefront, so technically, any retail store front that has those features come into conflict with the trademark regardless of whether they sell computers or not.
Retail store services featuring computers, computer software, computer peripherals, mobile phones, consumer electronics and related accessories, and demonstration of products relating thereto
...slapping Apple logos all over the place and dressing staff in apple branded clothes...
If only there was some way Apple could prevent others from using the marks that identify them in their trade...
...trademark is just about the only way of protecting against this...
Yeah, that!
Hmmm... they were 2 separate thoughts
Thought #1: Apple have ALREADY had issues with confusion via authorised resellers Thought #2: Apple do not want people tricked into fake Apple stores but unfortunately trademark is just about the only way of protecting against this
It should have been relatively clear (but maybe wasn't) that I was not suggesting trademarking store design was to stop misuse of other trademarked properties like the Apple logo. The point was Apple already has issues with brand confusion and should not let another area of brand confusion creep in - that is, they should ensure current trademarks are enforced and implement trademarks on other current/future brand specific areas.
Why is it that joint wear only happens to the "exercise" runners?
Because it is not joint wear but a symptom of prior joint damage.
Serious runners run within their limits and typically run with good form... Exercise runners are more prone to 'over-train' relative to their ability and are typically in worse shape than serious runners (eg. more body weight, poorer running form, less conditioning of muscles and ligaments).
Hence, exercise runners are more prone to do damage that will later develop into osteoarthritis.
I think there is reasonable evidence that amateurs in most sports have higher injury rates than professionals, despite the professionals undertaking physically more demanding activities.
Likewise, plenty is evidence that knees (and joint in general) do not just "wear out" as you correctly suggest.
Come on... almost no-one (if anyone) has even the first point...
It's a specific arrangement of vertical glass panels from floor to door height across the full frontage of the store and supplemented by horizontal glass panels from top of the door to the ceiling and 2 narrow panels either side of the store front.
Cantilevered shelves along the walls are pretty rare. Flush-mounted video screen less so and tables are pretty much the common one (although they need to running solely front to back which is quite a bit less common).
And other items include the VERY specific lighting which is extremely uncommon.
As pointed out, it is the COMBINATION of 6-8 very specific things... not just having any type of glass front, tables, video screens and shelves which would be stupidly generic.
Firstly, FYI its a trademark not a patent. And definitely not applicable in Australia.
Secondly, the aspects that are trademarked have nothing in common with our phone stores... they are the combination of very specific glass frontage features, the lighting pattern, cantilevered wall displays, location of video displays, etc, etc
The general layout of tables and display isn't really what it being trademarked despite the beat-up in the article summary.
Same social stigma as driving 100mph everywhere... you may have the energy, ability and preference to do it - but safety (not jealousy) suggests moderation in many situations is the social norm
I think there is a more subtle point to the study...
Energy expenditure for walking above 2m/s (7.2kph / 4.5mph) increases quite dramatically and for above 3m/s (10.8kph / 6.8/mph) you physically need to be running.
In the transition (between 2-3 m/s) it seems to be more economical to access the low energy walking at low speed supplemented by whatever limited running is needed. For example, to average 2.5 m/s (9kph or 5.6mph) it is better walk half of it at 2m/s and run half at 3m/s rather than power-walk or slow-jog at 2.5 m/s consistently.
Point of the study is that people tend to naturally optimise this... or conversely i would argue that people are poor at judging speeds and have to increase/decrease to make the time limit - it would be interesting to repeat but give people a pace-indicator and see if people still maintained alternating speeds or changed instead to a steady pace.
Obviously the title is stupid and really should been focused on how WELL people optimise their energy output not whether people do.
Yes they are certainly covered against direct fraud - definitely can not claim to be an apple store.
But in many countries (and mine, Australia, is one of them) there have certainly been instances of resellers copying the look and feel of a store in a deliberate attempt to allow naive consumers to be confused into thinking it is an official Apple store. There are no direct claims so it is not fraud.
One solution is to eliminate those resellers - but grey market channels and non-resellers are always a problem.
I think the US system truly sucks but it is also EXACTLY what the trademark system is in place for.. Fortunately for the rest of the civilized world we have better consumer protection laws in place that directly cover practices that deceive and confuse - more so than the FTC would encompass.
Perhaps, stronger and more uniform Trade Practices Acts would be a better start?
You think that their store layout is somehow unique? Except that there are iToys on the tables instead of painted miniatures and dungeon layouts, and the posters on the wall are made with LCD screens instead of paper this is the exact same layout as the game shop down the hill from my house. Well, except that the Apple store doesn't have a carpet full of Doritos crumbs and spilled Mountain Dew.
Yes it is in the context of the trademark application... Have a read of it
It covers a very specific COMBINATION of Apple's glass frontage design, lighting and shelving NOT THE BASIC LAYOUT... it is a combination that you would not stumble upon unless you were DELIBERATELY trying to pass yourself off as an Apple store.
Your local games shop is not pretending to be an Apple store (and certainly does not have that specific combination of elements) so is not covered my the trademark - no drama !
Having said that I am certainly no fan of Apple but do understand they want protection against obvious fraudsters who try to pass themselves off Apple stores.
So somebody should be able to set up an exact replica of an Apple store?
Previously there was nothing stopping resellers from doing exactly that, slapping Apple logos all over the place and dressing staff in apple branded clothes.
You can understand why Apple do not want people tricked into fake Apple stores but unfortunately trademark is just about the only way of protecting against this.
Thanks dude - not only do I have a Masters in Maths, I also spend many years working in these markets.
If you want to be completely and unreasonably anal (and clearly you do posting as AC), then yes you are technically correct
All banks SHOULD be giving the same rate given they are all submitting the same market price (unless they are deliberately manipulating)- ie they are not submitting what THEY WOULD trade at given their position/risk but where the MARKET IS trading at.
It is not like a market consensus of a CPI forecast or a companies earning forecast that has a noticeable distribution. This is more like asking 18 banks what the USD/EUR market exchange rate is at exactly midday - you will get answers that vary only on a little based on timing
So yes there will can be just a little variation in practice but not always and even then typically not enough to really notice or bother with unless the market is in free-fall (eg the GFC days)
Hence the important part of the article - they need to encourage/coerce/COLLUDE WITH OTHERS to manipulate the market
Each bank gives their answer, none are discarded as outliers, and the figures are averaged
Rubbish... no-one would be THAT stupid...
It is the average of the middle 10 out of 18 responses, with the upper and lower 4 eliminated.
So you need AT LEAST 5 out of 18 banks manipulating in a single direction to have any impact AND you need an asymmetric level of manipulation (low and high) so that the competing manipulations are not averaged out.
I only said "drive national macro-economic outcomes"... I never said anything about benefiting any individual, middle class or otherwise
But, of course, you can interpret that however you want and turn it into a politic debate on which "macro-economic outcomes" are the right ones if you wish...
But in this case it was not the US markets at play... but I do tend to agree with the general point
However, I think the bigger problem is asymmetric risk/reward these markets provide to the individuals vs the corporations. For the most part, these guys are playing with other people's money and a win results in big bonuses, while a loss really has limited consequences to the individual - it really is set up to encourage individuals to push the boundaries.
It's really the same lesson as Lance Armstrong... don't break the rules and you'll be a nobody - do break the rules and there is untold riches, as well as a pretty good chance you'll never be caught... even if you do get caught, you are still better off than if you hadn't broken the rules to start with...
Only two solutions really - reduce the rewards or increase the cost of getting caught... either requires regulation.
In a practical sense, it results in the same outcome for sure...
But fundamentally? Central banks move rates to drive national macro-economic outcomes whilst LIBOR contributors were contributing to a surveys for individual gain (either as a person or corporation)... those fundamentals are quite different.
Slashdot Mirror
she was good at estimating cube roots of 4 digit numbers in her head too.
No great trick given there only a dozen or so integers that produce 4 digit results ... some basic gut feel for a cubic function will get you pretty close every time.
How does that logic hold?
I lose my wallet in the street but because my income for the year is still net positive I didn't actually lose anything after all?
Don't think so - a loss is a loss even is the long term impact is just less profit.
Now - whether there was a $5M loss - that is a whole different question ;-)
huh?
I was suggesting what I'd do in the OP's situation ie worried about network lock-in ...
If network and eco-system lock-in were both a concern, then you move onto a Google Nexus or potentially even a Nokia depending on your world view.
Really, a phone is just a phone - just find the one that best suits and move on - it shouldn't define who you are nor cause the amount of distress it seems to cause some people
I travel overseas and like to purchase a local SIM to avoid enormous roaming charges. I still pay my monthly fee and I don't end up using my included minutes on my plan.
Of course you do ... everyone does .. and switch to a cheaper local network to where it suits
But you also like the subsidised handset upfront ...
It is pick one-or-the-other in this case.
I do agree its unfortunate that some phone are not offered unsubsidised/unlocked or that some networks do not have 'bring your own phone' / un-contracted plans ... most other countries have evolved well past this behavior long ago
How do you suggest I proceed?
How do you want to proceed? You bought a phone that is locked to Sprint ... It is still locked to Sprint
Personally, I would be buying an unlocked phone and if Samsung does not make them available, then Samsung would lose my business to Apple.
There is nothing in the contract about an installment plan.
Is that normal is the US?
I thought most contracts had an early termination costs which represents the rest of the installments? Certainly in Australia that is the case - sometimes as explicit handset/plan items (where you pay the remaining handset installments) but sometimes as a single bundled cost (where you pay a percentage break-cost like 50%)
I'm genuinely curious why?
You don't really have a hope of being able to hear the different between any of the audio chipsets under any typical circumstances, hence why they don't bother spec'ing it. For any serious audio work, you wouldn't be using an analog output anyway and in most cases wouldn't be using a standard consumer laptop.
Audio impedance is a reasonable question but ipod drives are not (officially) user-replaceable so you will never get an answer on that.
Perhaps if you have special requirements, you just aren't Apple's target market ??
All of that is true, but what is the trade this trademark is applied to? It is not computers and technology. The trade in question is a storefront, so technically, any retail store front that has those features come into conflict with the trademark regardless of whether they sell computers or not.
Retail store services featuring computers, computer software, computer peripherals, mobile phones, consumer electronics and related accessories, and demonstration of products relating thereto
...slapping Apple logos all over the place and dressing staff in apple branded clothes...
If only there was some way Apple could prevent others from using the marks that identify them in their trade...
...trademark is just about the only way of protecting against this...
Yeah, that!
Hmmm ... they were 2 separate thoughts
Thought #1: Apple have ALREADY had issues with confusion via authorised resellers
Thought #2: Apple do not want people tricked into fake Apple stores but unfortunately trademark is just about the only way of protecting against this
It should have been relatively clear (but maybe wasn't) that I was not suggesting trademarking store design was to stop misuse of other trademarked properties like the Apple logo. The point was Apple already has issues with brand confusion and should not let another area of brand confusion creep in - that is, they should ensure current trademarks are enforced and implement trademarks on other current/future brand specific areas.
Why is it that joint wear only happens to the "exercise" runners?
Because it is not joint wear but a symptom of prior joint damage.
Serious runners run within their limits and typically run with good form ... Exercise runners are more prone to 'over-train' relative to their ability and are typically in worse shape than serious runners (eg. more body weight, poorer running form, less conditioning of muscles and ligaments).
Hence, exercise runners are more prone to do damage that will later develop into osteoarthritis.
I think there is reasonable evidence that amateurs in most sports have higher injury rates than professionals, despite the professionals undertaking physically more demanding activities.
Likewise, plenty is evidence that knees (and joint in general) do not just "wear out" as you correctly suggest.
Come on ... almost no-one (if anyone) has even the first point ...
It's a specific arrangement of vertical glass panels from floor to door height across the full frontage of the store and supplemented by horizontal glass panels from top of the door to the ceiling and 2 narrow panels either side of the store front.
Cantilevered shelves along the walls are pretty rare. Flush-mounted video screen less so and tables are pretty much the common one (although they need to running solely front to back which is quite a bit less common).
And other items include the VERY specific lighting which is extremely uncommon.
As pointed out, it is the COMBINATION of 6-8 very specific things ... not just having any type of glass front, tables, video screens and shelves which would be stupidly generic.
Firstly, FYI its a trademark not a patent. And definitely not applicable in Australia.
Secondly, the aspects that are trademarked have nothing in common with our phone stores ... they are the combination of very specific glass frontage features, the lighting pattern, cantilevered wall displays, location of video displays, etc, etc
The general layout of tables and display isn't really what it being trademarked despite the beat-up in the article summary.
Completely not the point of the article ...
It's not about slection of speed to get somewhere, but instead about how people optimise for whatever average speed they select
Spot on ...
Same social stigma as driving 100mph everywhere ... you may have the energy, ability and preference to do it - but safety (not jealousy) suggests moderation in many situations is the social norm
I think there is a more subtle point to the study ...
Energy expenditure for walking above 2m/s (7.2kph / 4.5mph) increases quite dramatically and for above 3m/s (10.8kph / 6.8/mph) you physically need to be running.
In the transition (between 2-3 m/s) it seems to be more economical to access the low energy walking at low speed supplemented by whatever limited running is needed. For example, to average 2.5 m/s (9kph or 5.6mph) it is better walk half of it at 2m/s and run half at 3m/s rather than power-walk or slow-jog at 2.5 m/s consistently.
Point of the study is that people tend to naturally optimise this ... or conversely i would argue that people are poor at judging speeds and have to increase/decrease to make the time limit - it would be interesting to repeat but give people a pace-indicator and see if people still maintained alternating speeds or changed instead to a steady pace.
Obviously the title is stupid and really should been focused on how WELL people optimise their energy output not whether people do.
Err... you do know that Australia has alpine areas right?
All good and well but what is a snowballs chance of surviving there?
5 months at most absolute most under the best 'snowball' conditions
Approximately how long an all renewables energy system would last perhaps? Or is that too skepitcal ?
Yes they are certainly covered against direct fraud - definitely can not claim to be an apple store.
But in many countries (and mine, Australia, is one of them) there have certainly been instances of resellers copying the look and feel of a store in a deliberate attempt to allow naive consumers to be confused into thinking it is an official Apple store. There are no direct claims so it is not fraud.
One solution is to eliminate those resellers - but grey market channels and non-resellers are always a problem.
I think the US system truly sucks but it is also EXACTLY what the trademark system is in place for .. Fortunately for the rest of the civilized world we have better consumer protection laws in place that directly cover practices that deceive and confuse - more so than the FTC would encompass.
Perhaps, stronger and more uniform Trade Practices Acts would be a better start?
You think that their store layout is somehow unique? Except that there are iToys on the tables instead of painted miniatures and dungeon layouts, and the posters on the wall are made with LCD screens instead of paper this is the exact same layout as the game shop down the hill from my house. Well, except that the Apple store doesn't have a carpet full of Doritos crumbs and spilled Mountain Dew.
Yes it is in the context of the trademark application ... Have a read of it
It covers a very specific COMBINATION of Apple's glass frontage design, lighting and shelving NOT THE BASIC LAYOUT ... it is a combination that you would not stumble upon unless you were DELIBERATELY trying to pass yourself off as an Apple store.
Your local games shop is not pretending to be an Apple store (and certainly does not have that specific combination of elements) so is not covered my the trademark - no drama !
Having said that I am certainly no fan of Apple but do understand they want protection against obvious fraudsters who try to pass themselves off Apple stores.
Are you daft?
No ... and I can be polite and courteous in a discussion
So somebody should be able to set up an exact replica of an Apple store?
Previously there was nothing stopping resellers from doing exactly that, slapping Apple logos all over the place and dressing staff in apple branded clothes.
You can understand why Apple do not want people tricked into fake Apple stores but unfortunately trademark is just about the only way of protecting against this.
Thanks dude - not only do I have a Masters in Maths, I also spend many years working in these markets.
If you want to be completely and unreasonably anal (and clearly you do posting as AC), then yes you are technically correct
All banks SHOULD be giving the same rate given they are all submitting the same market price (unless they are deliberately manipulating)- ie they are not submitting what THEY WOULD trade at given their position/risk but where the MARKET IS trading at.
It is not like a market consensus of a CPI forecast or a companies earning forecast that has a noticeable distribution. This is more like asking 18 banks what the USD/EUR market exchange rate is at exactly midday - you will get answers that vary only on a little based on timing
So yes there will can be just a little variation in practice but not always and even then typically not enough to really notice or bother with unless the market is in free-fall (eg the GFC days)
Hence the important part of the article - they need to encourage/coerce/COLLUDE WITH OTHERS to manipulate the market
Each bank gives their answer, none are discarded as outliers, and the figures are averaged
Rubbish ... no-one would be THAT stupid ...
It is the average of the middle 10 out of 18 responses, with the upper and lower 4 eliminated.
So you need AT LEAST 5 out of 18 banks manipulating in a single direction to have any impact AND you need an asymmetric level of manipulation (low and high) so that the competing manipulations are not averaged out.
I only said "drive national macro-economic outcomes" ... I never said anything about benefiting any individual, middle class or otherwise
But, of course, you can interpret that however you want and turn it into a politic debate on which "macro-economic outcomes" are the right ones if you wish ...
But in this case it was not the US markets at play ... but I do tend to agree with the general point
However, I think the bigger problem is asymmetric risk/reward these markets provide to the individuals vs the corporations. For the most part, these guys are playing with other people's money and a win results in big bonuses, while a loss really has limited consequences to the individual - it really is set up to encourage individuals to push the boundaries.
It's really the same lesson as Lance Armstrong ... don't break the rules and you'll be a nobody - do break the rules and there is untold riches, as well as a pretty good chance you'll never be caught ... even if you do get caught, you are still better off than if you hadn't broken the rules to start with ...
Only two solutions really - reduce the rewards or increase the cost of getting caught ... either requires regulation.
How do you figure that?
In a practical sense, it results in the same outcome for sure ...
But fundamentally? Central banks move rates to drive national macro-economic outcomes whilst LIBOR contributors were contributing to a surveys for individual gain (either as a person or corporation) ... those fundamentals are quite different.