For the minority of/. readers who care about the details, I highly recommend downloading the COTS 2 Press Kit from SpaceX. It provides tons of details and graphics describing the mission objectives, schedule, cargo manifest, vehicle specs, and much more...
I'm amazed at how many writers in the press, and on/., seem to think that Facebook Inc. was the sole seller in the IPO, and furthermore that they sold all of their shares. Unbelievable cluelessness.
As a public service, here are the numbers:
2,559,318,652 total FB shares (100%) 421,233,615 shares (16.5%) were sold in IPO 180,000,000 shares (7%) were sold by Facebook Inc (43% of IPO) 241,233,615 shares (9.4%) were sold by investors/founders (57% of IPO)
In the earlier filings, the investors/founders were going to sell fewer of their shares. But at the last minute, on May 16, they increased their take by more than 53%, dumping another 83,818,263 shares because the risk profile is waaaay too high for any smart money.
Writers who say "Facebook raised $16B in this IPO" are either disingenuous, or clueless. Facebook Inc raised less than $7B. The other $9B went into the pockets of the pre-IPO investors/founders.
This IPO was clearly overpriced, for the benefit of investors & founders who want to get out while they still can. The numbers don't lie.
The people who will get most screwed by this are Facebook employees, and pre-IPO private-share-exchange buyers, who have a 6-month or more "lockout" period before they can sell FB shares to whomever wants to catch a falling knife.
Last I checked, machine recognition of handwritten zip codes was better than 99.5%.
That was about 5 years ago. Presumably it has improved since.
So, there is no need for special machine codes. They can read your writing as-is, or pass the rare piece of mail to a human sorter if the confidence margin is too low.
...by waving his or her hands, the surgeon can sift through medical images, such as CT scans or real-time X-rays, while in the middle of an operation
I know that everyone has different UI proclivities, but I have trouble understanding this one.
Seems to me, the ideal interface would allow the surgeon to use it without removing their hands from their work, or wasting energy flailing their hands around to get the info they want, or moving their vision elsewhere, etc.
If voice control doesn't work for them, I'd suggest a set of foot pedals to keep their hands free. That works well for guitarists, who also have to make precision hand movements.
Also perhaps a heads-up display. That works for fighter pilots, who need to stay absolutely focused on task.
That said, since my life could be quite literally in a surgeon's hands, I want them to be as comfortable as possible with whatever UI they choose. So having another option is good.:)
Seriously? An announcer being surprised by the abort and not being able to follow what was happening for a second is the evidence you present for your idiotic, triumphalist neoliberal beliefs? Fuck right off.
Erm...no. My perceptions of NASA are based on the NASA bureaucracy's historical behavior over the last 4 decades.
This was just an amusing anecdote that I thought might be modded up "Funny", not "Insightful", as it was. Apparently other folks agree with my perception of traditional NASA behavior.
I am sorry that you're having a bad day, but please don't take it out on me.
The initial research, back in the mid-1980s, with technical users, showed that Trackpoints were radically more efficient than moving your hand off the keyboard to access a pointing device.
Subsequent research, with mainstream consumers, showed that most people had trouble learning how to use it.
It isn't the technology; it's the ability of most people to get over a learning curve when they have another option readily available.
Try the Trackpoint again...try a little harder...and I bet you'll never go back to a mouse.:)
I don't agree that the keyboard on a high-end Thinkpad is much better than the keyboard any other high-end model of another brand.
I see this comment in paid reviews very often, but it seems to me it's just parroting a marketing line, a carryover from the days of the excellent old IBM keyboards.
FWIW my main machine (on which I'm writing this) is a Thinkpad X-series, and my desktop machine uses a Thinkpad external keyboard. I've owned/used about 20 different laptops over the years, and still own/use a couple of Dell Latitudes, MacBooks, and old Compaqs.
The Trackpoint, however...THAT is radically better than other brands. The Latitudes, the older Compaq, an external Samsung keyboard, and a Keyspan presentation remote, all have point-sticks too. But there is something distinctly better about the response and accuracy of the Trackpoint on the Thinkpads. I'm guessing they patented something about the acceleration algorithms. Hope the patent runs out soon.
I would love to see a MacBook Pro with a 3-button Trackpoint. Never happen though.
I'm assuming the OP's problem with a USB keypad is that it requires a cable or dongle. A bluetooth keypad does not.
I have a couple of MS bluetooth keypads that I use with my X-series Thinkpads. These bluetooth keypads are very thin & light, work for many months on a single AAA, and just simply work every time I pull them out. Personally I think it's the best product ever sold by MS.
One huge benefit of a wireless external keypad is that you can place it in the most ergonomic position for your data-entry arm. Or remote-control arm. Or whatever task you're using it for.
With a built-in keypad, you either have a behemoth of a foldable computer (not really a laptop), or a squashed set of keys (not full size) or both.
Even NASA's most seasoned launch commentator was taken off-guard. "Three, two, one, zero and liftoff," announced commentator George Diller, his voice trailing as the rocket failed to budge.
They just keep following the old script, even when things change. Fresh blood, in the form of the private space industry, is great.
Aborting a launch automatically based on sensor data is not a failure; it is a success.
I'm sure the folks on the ISS have enough toilet paper and freeze-dried icecream to make it through the weekend, until the next launch window.
If I have a choice of investing in a blockbuster cancer drug that will pay me nothing for ten years, at best, whereas social media will go big in two years, what do you think I'm going to pick?
Remember the spectacularly huge Netscape IPO in 1995. Then this quote would've been:
If I have a choice of investing in a blockbuster cancer drug that will pay me nothing for ten years, at best, whereas web browsers will go big in two years, what do you think I'm going to pick?
Observe spectacular failure of VCs who failed to think for themselves, and just followed the herd long after the peak had passed.
Same story, different year. The smart money is still investing in biotech, which actually has a real impact on our lives. Nothing to see here...move along...
...the legal system currently has no proportional-metric penalty on the size of suits. "Let's sue for 15 billion! Let's make Defense counterprove each and every one of 87 points down, and we only spend $3,000,000 on legal fees."
A lawsuit does not have a "size" in terms of damages, until damages are actually awarded. Until then, the size of the suit is determined by its costs.
If you are sued, spend $100K defending the suit, the judge dismisses the suit as frivolous, and the judge awards you 2x your defense costs ($200K)...that seems more than fair.
If you don't agree, you can sue for whatever other damages (loss of business, etc) you may have incurred as a result of the lawsuit.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff.
There is plenty of precedent, at least in the US, for the courts awarding 2x or more costs to the defendant, or requiring the plaintiff to post a contempt bond before filing any other lawsuit, when the plaintiff files a frivolous suit.
The tricky bit is determining what is truly frivolous.
Ask: Why did the early investors/founders in FB increase the number of shares they floated in the last few days (to 15% of the company, iirc), and radically overprice the IPO instead of pricing for investor excitement/momentum/growth?
That's right. They know that the end game is right now. This is just one reason.
On a related tangent...anyone heard anything about the latest with Paul Ceglia?
Ceglia was briefly represented by a huge global law firm (DLA Piper), claiming a contract with Zuck showed that he owned half the shares of FB. DLA Piper mysteriously dropped off the case. But other lawyers have been happy to pick it up, and then mysteriously drop off the case. Hmmm. What's the definition of "strongarm"?;)
Simply loading the little F icon/image from facebook.com gives them your IP address and a pretty good fingerprint of your browser, as part of the HTTP request.
Turning off scripts is not the solution. You need to keep prevent your browser from making any request to a site that you don't want to track you.
Some day, someone can explain to m what's wrong with that. Every ad network in the history of ever has done that, and even so, nobody has suffered a single ill consequence of it... that I know of.
When your credit rating drops and your insurance premiums rise, because of your browsing patterns, or the post contents, or the risk-profile of your social-network acquaintances, you won't know that this is the reason.
The corporations will only tell you your new lower credit rating, and only tell you that insurance rates went up. No explanation required.
Actually.. oddly enough that would mean that facebook priced its IPO perfectly. Ideally an IPO comes out at near or at the price the market will pay for the stock -- that is -- maximizes the value to the company for selling its shares.
In some weird hypothetical situation, this could be true, if the entire company was sold in one day, and then entirely removed from the market.
But that's not how it works.
They floated about 15% of the shares. Bear in mind, this IPO was for the founders & early investors, not for Facebook Inc. I'm constantly amazed how many people don't understand the difference between a corporation and its shareholders.
Anyway, that left about 85% of the shares unsold. In theory, the shareholders want to sell those shares at the highest price possible. But to do that, you have to generate market momentum. Underprice the IPO so the share value starts with an upward curve.
Instead, the founders & early investors OVERpriced the IPO, and in the last few days decided to dump MORE of their shares (which is a galaxy-class warning flag to anyone with half a brain).
This IPO was pure profit taking. The founders & early investors want to get out with what they can, while they still can.
Pity the facebook employees and private-exchange traders who can't sell their stocks during their 6+ month "lockup" periods. By the time they can dump the shares, it will be too late to make much, if anything.
Or they spend $100K on it because they have to spend the money somewhere, and isn't it better to give that money to a group of precision craftsmen, who probably exercise their skills in other areas, than to spend it on several thousand gallons of diesel for the pleasure yacht?
Luxury goods are a rare example of trickle-down economics that works.
There are some mechanical watches with see-through backs -- and some with see through fronts -- so you can mesmerize your friends with the whirly, clicky stuff going on inside without disassembly.
Absolutely, those watches do exist. Pretty hard to find a precision, purely mechanical one though. The vast majority use electronic movements, or low-quality mechanical movements.
In any case, the same issues apply. A $10 digital LCD watch is more accurate and durable than most $1000 purely mechanical art watches.
How about respect for mechanical watches? They are true marvels of engineering and work very well. Just because it's electronic doesn't make it any better.
Actually, yes, it does make it better.
Well, at least, if more accurate, more durable, and radically cheaper add up to "better".
That said, mechanical watches can be very beautiful pieces of precision art. The downside is, you typically have to disassemble the watch to appreciate that hidden art.
Most "analog" watches actually use an electronic (aka quartz) movement, not a mechanical movement. Purely mechanical watches are extremely rare now.
Slashdot Mirror
You can always use the Ronald Reagan defense: "I don't recall"
When you steal 600 million, you can buy the cops and politicians for 10 million, and keep the rest.
For the minority of /. readers who care about the details, I highly recommend downloading the COTS 2 Press Kit from SpaceX.
It provides tons of details and graphics describing the mission objectives, schedule, cargo manifest, vehicle specs, and much more...
http://www.spacex.com/downloads/COTS-2-Press-Kit-5-14-12.pdf
(I am not affiliated with SpaceX, but I like what they are doing)
I'm amazed at how many writers in the press, and on /., seem to think that Facebook Inc. was the sole seller in the IPO, and furthermore that they sold all of their shares. Unbelievable cluelessness.
As a public service, here are the numbers:
2,559,318,652 total FB shares (100%)
421,233,615 shares (16.5%) were sold in IPO
180,000,000 shares (7%) were sold by Facebook Inc (43% of IPO)
241,233,615 shares (9.4%) were sold by investors/founders (57% of IPO)
In the earlier filings, the investors/founders were going to sell fewer of their shares. But at the last minute, on May 16, they increased their take by more than 53%, dumping another 83,818,263 shares because the risk profile is waaaay too high for any smart money.
Writers who say "Facebook raised $16B in this IPO" are either disingenuous, or clueless. Facebook Inc raised less than $7B. The other $9B went into the pockets of the pre-IPO investors/founders.
This IPO was clearly overpriced, for the benefit of investors & founders who want to get out while they still can. The numbers don't lie.
The people who will get most screwed by this are Facebook employees, and pre-IPO private-share-exchange buyers, who have a 6-month or more "lockout" period before they can sell FB shares to whomever wants to catch a falling knife.
Last I checked, machine recognition of handwritten zip codes was better than 99.5%.
That was about 5 years ago. Presumably it has improved since.
So, there is no need for special machine codes. They can read your writing as-is, or pass the rare piece of mail to a human sorter if the confidence margin is too low.
Or else he doesn't like a keypad that slides around everywhere, since the portable ones weigh less than a mouse's sneeze
Perhaps.
I've never had that problem with the MS keypads that I use.
If I did, I'd just glue a silicone sticky-pad to the back of the keypad. Only adds a few grams. Problem solved.
...by waving his or her hands, the surgeon can sift through medical images, such as CT scans or real-time X-rays, while in the middle of an operation
I know that everyone has different UI proclivities, but I have trouble understanding this one.
Seems to me, the ideal interface would allow the surgeon to use it without removing their hands from their work, or wasting energy flailing their hands around to get the info they want, or moving their vision elsewhere, etc.
If voice control doesn't work for them, I'd suggest a set of foot pedals to keep their hands free. That works well for guitarists, who also have to make precision hand movements.
Also perhaps a heads-up display. That works for fighter pilots, who need to stay absolutely focused on task.
That said, since my life could be quite literally in a surgeon's hands, I want them to be as comfortable as possible with whatever UI they choose. So having another option is good. :)
Seriously? An announcer being surprised by the abort and not being able to follow what was happening for a second is the evidence you present for your idiotic, triumphalist neoliberal beliefs? Fuck right off.
Erm...no. My perceptions of NASA are based on the NASA bureaucracy's historical behavior over the last 4 decades.
This was just an amusing anecdote that I thought might be modded up "Funny", not "Insightful", as it was. Apparently other folks agree with my perception of traditional NASA behavior.
I am sorry that you're having a bad day, but please don't take it out on me.
Trackpoints are 100% useless.
The initial research, back in the mid-1980s, with technical users, showed that Trackpoints were radically more efficient than moving your hand off the keyboard to access a pointing device.
Subsequent research, with mainstream consumers, showed that most people had trouble learning how to use it.
It isn't the technology; it's the ability of most people to get over a learning curve when they have another option readily available.
Try the Trackpoint again...try a little harder...and I bet you'll never go back to a mouse. :)
Thinkpad only laptops with decent keyboards
I don't agree that the keyboard on a high-end Thinkpad is much better than the keyboard any other high-end model of another brand.
I see this comment in paid reviews very often, but it seems to me it's just parroting a marketing line, a carryover from the days of the excellent old IBM keyboards.
FWIW my main machine (on which I'm writing this) is a Thinkpad X-series, and my desktop machine uses a Thinkpad external keyboard. I've owned/used about 20 different laptops over the years, and still own/use a couple of Dell Latitudes, MacBooks, and old Compaqs.
The Trackpoint, however...THAT is radically better than other brands. The Latitudes, the older Compaq, an external Samsung keyboard, and a Keyspan presentation remote, all have point-sticks too. But there is something distinctly better about the response and accuracy of the Trackpoint on the Thinkpads. I'm guessing they patented something about the acceleration algorithms. Hope the patent runs out soon.
I would love to see a MacBook Pro with a 3-button Trackpoint. Never happen though.
Someone please mod parent up, Funny or Insightful.
external bluetooth or usb numeric keypad
I'm assuming the OP's problem with a USB keypad is that it requires a cable or dongle. A bluetooth keypad does not.
I have a couple of MS bluetooth keypads that I use with my X-series Thinkpads. These bluetooth keypads are very thin & light, work for many months on a single AAA, and just simply work every time I pull them out. Personally I think it's the best product ever sold by MS.
One huge benefit of a wireless external keypad is that you can place it in the most ergonomic position for your data-entry arm. Or remote-control arm. Or whatever task you're using it for.
With a built-in keypad, you either have a behemoth of a foldable computer (not really a laptop), or a squashed set of keys (not full size) or both.
From TFA:
Even NASA's most seasoned launch commentator was taken off-guard.
"Three, two, one, zero and liftoff," announced commentator George Diller, his voice trailing as the rocket failed to budge.
They just keep following the old script, even when things change. Fresh blood, in the form of the private space industry, is great.
Aborting a launch automatically based on sensor data is not a failure; it is a success.
I'm sure the folks on the ISS have enough toilet paper and freeze-dried icecream to make it through the weekend, until the next launch window.
If I have a choice of investing in a blockbuster cancer drug that will pay me nothing for ten years, at best, whereas social media will go big in two years, what do you think I'm going to pick?
Remember the spectacularly huge Netscape IPO in 1995. Then this quote would've been:
If I have a choice of investing in a blockbuster cancer drug that will pay me nothing for ten years, at best, whereas web browsers will go big in two years, what do you think I'm going to pick?
Observe spectacular failure of VCs who failed to think for themselves, and just followed the herd long after the peak had passed.
Same story, different year. The smart money is still investing in biotech, which actually has a real impact on our lives. Nothing to see here...move along...
...the legal system currently has no proportional-metric penalty on the size of suits. "Let's sue for 15 billion! Let's make Defense counterprove each and every one of 87 points down, and we only spend $3,000,000 on legal fees."
A lawsuit does not have a "size" in terms of damages, until damages are actually awarded. Until then, the size of the suit is determined by its costs.
If you are sued, spend $100K defending the suit, the judge dismisses the suit as frivolous, and the judge awards you 2x your defense costs ($200K)...that seems more than fair.
If you don't agree, you can sue for whatever other damages (loss of business, etc) you may have incurred as a result of the lawsuit.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff.
Fair enough, but if he meant what he wrote, it was entirely off-topic and should be modded down.
I assumed it just was a lame reference to Ed Saverin, in which case "renounced" is the right word.
There is plenty of precedent, at least in the US, for the courts awarding 2x or more costs to the defendant, or requiring the plaintiff to post a contempt bond before filing any other lawsuit, when the plaintiff files a frivolous suit.
The tricky bit is determining what is truly frivolous.
Ask: Why did the early investors/founders in FB increase the number of shares they floated in the last few days (to 15% of the company, iirc), and radically overprice the IPO instead of pricing for investor excitement/momentum/growth?
That's right. They know that the end game is right now. This is just one reason.
On a related tangent...anyone heard anything about the latest with Paul Ceglia?
Ceglia was briefly represented by a huge global law firm (DLA Piper), claiming a contract with Zuck showed that he owned half the shares of FB. DLA Piper mysteriously dropped off the case. But other lawyers have been happy to pick it up, and then mysteriously drop off the case. Hmmm. What's the definition of "strongarm"? ;)
It's not just about scripts.
Simply loading the little F icon/image from facebook.com gives them your IP address and a pretty good fingerprint of your browser, as part of the HTTP request.
Turning off scripts is not the solution. You need to keep prevent your browser from making any request to a site that you don't want to track you.
Some day, someone can explain to m what's wrong with that. Every ad network in the history of ever has done that, and even so, nobody has suffered a single ill consequence of it... that I know of.
When your credit rating drops and your insurance premiums rise, because of your browsing patterns, or the post contents, or the risk-profile of your social-network acquaintances, you won't know that this is the reason.
The corporations will only tell you your new lower credit rating, and only tell you that insurance rates went up. No explanation required.
denounced citizenship just in time...
Did you mean "renounced"?
Actually.. oddly enough that would mean that facebook priced its IPO perfectly. Ideally an IPO comes out at near or at the price the market will pay for the stock -- that is -- maximizes the value to the company for selling its shares.
In some weird hypothetical situation, this could be true, if the entire company was sold in one day, and then entirely removed from the market.
But that's not how it works.
They floated about 15% of the shares. Bear in mind, this IPO was for the founders & early investors, not for Facebook Inc. I'm constantly amazed how many people don't understand the difference between a corporation and its shareholders.
Anyway, that left about 85% of the shares unsold. In theory, the shareholders want to sell those shares at the highest price possible. But to do that, you have to generate market momentum. Underprice the IPO so the share value starts with an upward curve.
Instead, the founders & early investors OVERpriced the IPO, and in the last few days decided to dump MORE of their shares (which is a galaxy-class warning flag to anyone with half a brain).
This IPO was pure profit taking. The founders & early investors want to get out with what they can, while they still can.
Pity the facebook employees and private-exchange traders who can't sell their stocks during their 6+ month "lockup" periods. By the time they can dump the shares, it will be too late to make much, if anything.
Or they spend $100K on it because they have to spend the money somewhere, and isn't it better to give that money to a group of precision craftsmen, who probably exercise their skills in other areas, than to spend it on several thousand gallons of diesel for the pleasure yacht?
Luxury goods are a rare example of trickle-down economics that works.
There are some mechanical watches with see-through backs -- and some with see through fronts -- so you can mesmerize your friends with the whirly, clicky stuff going on inside without disassembly.
Absolutely, those watches do exist. Pretty hard to find a precision, purely mechanical one though. The vast majority use electronic movements, or low-quality mechanical movements.
In any case, the same issues apply. A $10 digital LCD watch is more accurate and durable than most $1000 purely mechanical art watches.
How about respect for mechanical watches? They are true marvels of engineering and work very well. Just because it's electronic doesn't make it any better.
Actually, yes, it does make it better.
Well, at least, if more accurate, more durable, and radically cheaper add up to "better".
That said, mechanical watches can be very beautiful pieces of precision art. The downside is, you typically have to disassemble the watch to appreciate that hidden art.
Most "analog" watches actually use an electronic (aka quartz) movement, not a mechanical movement. Purely mechanical watches are extremely rare now.