Okay, so HTC took a 43% hit on total units shipped in the Autumn quarter...the same quarter that the iPhone 5 came out. How heavy a hit did they have in Summer and Spring? It's happened before that when a new iPhone comes out, that's pretty much all anyone buys for a short while. Nokia's decline, on the other hand, has been going on consistently for some years now. A 23% drop for them means, what...that they delivered 23 less phones than the previous quarter?
When he landed they should have given him a "Red Bull" rather than a bottle of water.
I think he was probably so hopped up on adrenaline after landing that if they gave him a Red Bull he would have detonated like a water balloon filled with ketchup.
Yeah, no kidding...going up higher than anyone has ever gone in a balloon, past the maximum height of any plane...and then opening this huge hatch in front of you to look outside into an environment with.03 PSI where you can actually see the curvature of the Earth a bit.
And THEN, to climb OUT THAT HOLE and stand on a step the size of a skateboard, holding onto two handrails...and then just jump. Absolutely incredible.
Actually, China is going in the other direction. Car ownership in China has exploded in the last decade, and where once bicycles were everywhere, now traffic jams are prevalent. The level of pollution that comes from the cars is skyrocketing (on top of other forms as well) and the enormous numbers of novice drivers are causing major accidents. There are some people who are filing an insurance claim a month.
It's dangerous in some cases to designate a group as having the power to state that one thing or another should be stopped. Stopped according to what criteria? Who gets to choose? What happens if they abuse that power?
So you believe that governments shouldn't exist, then?
Free speech that drives most people out of their freaking minds is another example...the 'reverend' Jim Phelps is an unmitigated asshole. But his loudly being such in public is a small price to pay for everyone's ability to say things that need to be said, and should be said.
If you mean Fred Phelps... I disagree. It's not a small price by any means; hate speech such as that incites violence against innocent people.
To the first point, of course not. It's idiotic to equate putting limits on something with thinking that thing shouldn't exist at all. I don't think a doctor should be able to decide on his own whether or not to treat me for a life-threatening condition; that doesn't mean I'm against medicine. You aren't seriously that much of a nutjob, are you, to not see that?
To the second thing, you think that it'd be preferable to open the door for a world like Burma, Ethiopia, Iran, Russia or Syria where you can be incarcerated (in prisons worse than ours) for validly speaking out against a corrupt government? Phelps is an asshole, but his actions pale in comparison to what happens in any country where free speech is not protected by law.
The basis behind the distinction focuses on the slippery slope that the rights issue brings up. It's dangerous in some cases to designate a group as having the power to state that one thing or another should be stopped. Stopped according to what criteria? Who gets to choose? What happens if they abuse that power? That's the key behind such things as the 1st amendment. It's an overwhelming majority view that certain religions are a bit wacky. But as soon as you give anyone the actual power to punish them for being wacky, you open up the door for all kinds of bad things. Free speech that drives most people out of their freaking minds is another example...the 'reverend' Jim Phelps is an unmitigated asshole. But his loudly being such in public is a small price to pay for everyone's ability to say things that need to be said, and should be said.
So with smoking, where do you draw the line? Do you take everyone's blood cholesterol too? Check their sedentary pulse? What if they have a genetic predisposition for high cholesterol? Who gets the final say on things?
Actually, this isn't exactly right. The question isn't about pollution as a 1 or 0, but about how much pollution (and what types) is produced to move the contents of the car (with the car itself, of course) a certain distance. For a standard internal combusion or hybrid (non-pluggable) car, this is all about the engine. For an electric car, however, this is all about the power plants that feed that particular part of the grid the car plugs into. (The weight of the car matters in both cases, as does the mass being transported, but I'm doing an 'all other things being equal' analysis here.) And there's a huge amount of variation there. An electric car in China, where the coal plants are hastily constructed and incredibly dirty, is not the same as that same model car in San Antonio, TX, where the local utility is actually so clean (and I'm talking about coal there too) that they often sell credits to other utilities. And I'm not taking into account nuclear energy production, since that's largely a guess about future impacts, but also shows a near-zero carbon footprint that would skew the results. I don't see any accounting for any of that in this study, and don't know where he's getting his figures on how much pollution is generated in providing electricity to the cars.
More modern (in design and construction) coal plants have multiple levels of pollution control as well as optimizing features to increase burn and heat-scavenging efficiency, which increases the power output you get from each ton of coal burned. What I have seen is that for power plants in the Western world, the carbon footprint of using an electric car is significantly lower than with standard internal combustion cars. But again, it depends on where you're plugging in.
Congress has no Constitutional authority to authorise or not authorise technology for its use.
Whip up a batch of ricin or sarin at home, then tell Congress you did it. Let me know what prison you end up in so I can come by to verify that you still believe this.
Balancing Authority interconnectivity, for example...that's a whole other organization. You think people run dedicated lines that are, in some cases, hundreds of miles long? When you're talking about the really big ones, like WECC, you could be talking about a thousand miles of distance between the ADMS/EMS systems and the Balancing Authority. And the link needs to be reliable. So nope, not an option. If the utility is in a market that permits energy trading, then you also need other interconnections..again, over long distances, and that means the Internet all over again. I do security in the power industry for a living...these systems are never put just on the Internet at a power company, but it's always just a couple of hops away. And nation-state attackers have little trouble hopscotching their way through to the target. The problem isn't the connectivity, it's the lack of good patch management/antimalware/security monitoring systems and processes. And that's pretty much what the problem is when it comes to most breaches.
Look into the following acronyms, and keep digging. After a week of it, you might understand this better.
NERC ERCOT PJM WECC ERO NERC-BAL NERC-CIP NERC-PRC NERC-EOP ISA99
Telvent is the world's leader in what's known as "ADMS" systems. Advanced Distribution Management Systems. This is, for lack of a better way to put it, the "Smart" in "Smart Grid." By definition, it requires broad and extensive connectivity with many other systems.
In the old days, power plants...a few big ones...made power. And that power kind of spread outwards in straight lines to substations, and then to homes/businesses/etc. Well, now, smart grid is going into place. So you get more information from the homes/businesses/etc about what power they are using, and you will have more sources...small sources...of power all over the place. The power grid will look more like the Internet...interlaced, routable, managed. But you need a monolithic "God System" to keep track of what's going on, and control the changes that need to be made. Examples of systems that ADMS ties into are AMI, where the connectivity indirectly extends out to literally millions of collectors and meters attached to homes, to wind farms, to solar farms, to hydroelectric turbines, to coal-powered generation facility, and to CT (combustion turbine) generators. Oh, also...substations, protective relay systems...I think I'm forgetting some. Oh! I forgot...your local Balancing Authority, who is responsible for the stability of the larger power grid.
So yeah...this whole "Oh, you just need to air gap it because it's a control system" is ignorant. That hasn't been realistic in the power industry for about a decade now. Before you call a whole industry "fools," maybe you should first learn about how the industry functions, hm?
I'm more "anti-Republican" than I am "pro-Democrat," but I didn't see an immediate repeal of the PATRIOT Act after Obama was inaugurated, and was greatly disappointed that he not only didn't pursue justice for Bush and Cheney, but continued the warrantless wiretapping initiative. At this point, I see Obama as a slightly darker skin toned, slightly lesser evil Bush. In both senses, there's only shades of difference between them, and America is not better off for it.
You might want to read up a bit on the whole "checks and balances" thing. Last I saw, the legislative branch repeals laws, not the executive one. And I don't think that the President is called the "Prosecutor-in-Chief." It seems to me that a man in charge who has inherited a country in disarray that's caught up in wars on two fronts would have better things to do than try to repeat the inanity of the Kenneth Starr debacle.
Yes and no. You're right; they can kill. But it's not because they are considered poisonous; they are not actually poisons. And it's not the argon or helium that kills you either...it's the absence of oxygen. Poisons are what I was discussing. Drinking too much water can kill you too...but water is not a posion to us. Wood can kill you if you get beaten with a 2x4, without being a poison. There are other ways in which substances may incur lethality besides toxicity.
Which is actually correct. What makes a poison poisonous isn't the inherent nature of being a chemical; it is the interaction that it has with an organism's chemistry. That's why chocolate is safe for humans, and poison to dogs. It's the same component (theobromine) in chocolate that stimulates humans and poisons dogs; the nature of that chemical interaction is what is different, and thus makes all the different.
In this case, however, there's a difference in types of electromagnetic stimulus. X-rays are nothing like radio signals emanated from consumer electronics. Not at all similar. So, what mcgrew was really saying was more like "that's a whole other kind of chemical than the one that the OP is talking about. Just because warfarin is lethal at relatively small doses doesn't mean that table salt is, even though they are both technically chemicals."
In other news...actual users criticize design of the majority of systems they use, wondering why they can't be more like IOS or the experience of using a Mac...
People who yell the loudest often have the most to hide. He's simply a drug addict who hates himself, his ego won't allow that so he projects his behavior onto others.
It's also messages they handed over...which were MEANT to be public in the first place. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that something will be held in confidence when you put it on Twitter, for christ's sake. I applaud Twitter fighting back, and at least setting some precedent, but this isn't at all like what Yahoo! did when they handed of the identities behind the accounts. That's a wholly different thing. (And it's also worth noting that unlike this case, Yahoo! could pretty much be assured that China would get the information come hell or high water. It's not a free society over there.)
I'm a sailor myself, having done a lot of time on the Atlantic up near New England, and having had my share of surprises out there. And I can tell you this: Slashdot is not where you should get your advice. I'm seeing things like "Satellite internet, so you can read/. in the middle of the Pacific Ocean," listed under "Easy." Really? REALLY? You're asking about gear which will help you do one of a few things: 1, find your way so that you reach land on the other side instead of going off into the wild blue yonder, 2, keep your boat operating so that you can continue to direct your own fate, and 3, not sink and/or die. And you're getting answers like that.
There are communities of sailors who have actually done long-distance sailing. Speak with them. The question is not about the tech, it's about the problems you're likely to encounter, and what to expect. The choices you make will literally affect your chances of survival; you really want to have one-on-one discussions with people to get a sense of what you need to know, to make your own decisions. Circumnavigation is no joke, even in an 18-meter yacht. You're going to have disasters. Speak to some people who have actually had to deal with those disasters, not a population that is full of people who think this is some kind of cool game.
RTFA. He's right: child porn is one of the situtations where mens rea is not necessary. You are absolutely 100% wrong on this one. Possession, regardless of means, circumstance or intent, is a criminal act. I know this first-hand, from engagements where we deployed network-centric DLP solutions in a consulting role and were briefed in advance by a law enforcement official AND a lawyer as to what to do if we came across child porn in our systems. It's you who needs to learn about criminal law, not him.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so HTC took a 43% hit on total units shipped in the Autumn quarter...the same quarter that the iPhone 5 came out. How heavy a hit did they have in Summer and Spring? It's happened before that when a new iPhone comes out, that's pretty much all anyone buys for a short while. Nokia's decline, on the other hand, has been going on consistently for some years now. A 23% drop for them means, what...that they delivered 23 less phones than the previous quarter?
When he landed they should have given him a "Red Bull" rather than a bottle of water.
I think he was probably so hopped up on adrenaline after landing that if they gave him a Red Bull he would have detonated like a water balloon filled with ketchup.
Hah, I couldn't blame him. ;)
For anyone who missed the live stream, here is the video of the jump.
http://youtu.be/g4nJF9JFleI
Yeah, no kidding...going up higher than anyone has ever gone in a balloon, past the maximum height of any plane...and then opening this huge hatch in front of you to look outside into an environment with .03 PSI where you can actually see the curvature of the Earth a bit.
And THEN, to climb OUT THAT HOLE and stand on a step the size of a skateboard, holding onto two handrails...and then just jump. Absolutely incredible.
Actually, China is going in the other direction. Car ownership in China has exploded in the last decade, and where once bicycles were everywhere, now traffic jams are prevalent. The level of pollution that comes from the cars is skyrocketing (on top of other forms as well) and the enormous numbers of novice drivers are causing major accidents. There are some people who are filing an insurance claim a month.
I thought the Muslim version of hell was that they get their 72 virgins...and they're all ugly overweight male otaku.
It's dangerous in some cases to designate a group as having the power to state that one thing or another should be stopped. Stopped according to what criteria? Who gets to choose? What happens if they abuse that power?
So you believe that governments shouldn't exist, then?
Free speech that drives most people out of their freaking minds is another example...the 'reverend' Jim Phelps is an unmitigated asshole. But his loudly being such in public is a small price to pay for everyone's ability to say things that need to be said, and should be said.
If you mean Fred Phelps... I disagree. It's not a small price by any means; hate speech such as that incites violence against innocent people.
To the first point, of course not. It's idiotic to equate putting limits on something with thinking that thing shouldn't exist at all. I don't think a doctor should be able to decide on his own whether or not to treat me for a life-threatening condition; that doesn't mean I'm against medicine. You aren't seriously that much of a nutjob, are you, to not see that?
To the second thing, you think that it'd be preferable to open the door for a world like Burma, Ethiopia, Iran, Russia or Syria where you can be incarcerated (in prisons worse than ours) for validly speaking out against a corrupt government? Phelps is an asshole, but his actions pale in comparison to what happens in any country where free speech is not protected by law.
The basis behind the distinction focuses on the slippery slope that the rights issue brings up. It's dangerous in some cases to designate a group as having the power to state that one thing or another should be stopped. Stopped according to what criteria? Who gets to choose? What happens if they abuse that power? That's the key behind such things as the 1st amendment. It's an overwhelming majority view that certain religions are a bit wacky. But as soon as you give anyone the actual power to punish them for being wacky, you open up the door for all kinds of bad things. Free speech that drives most people out of their freaking minds is another example...the 'reverend' Jim Phelps is an unmitigated asshole. But his loudly being such in public is a small price to pay for everyone's ability to say things that need to be said, and should be said.
So with smoking, where do you draw the line? Do you take everyone's blood cholesterol too? Check their sedentary pulse? What if they have a genetic predisposition for high cholesterol? Who gets the final say on things?
Actually, this isn't exactly right. The question isn't about pollution as a 1 or 0, but about how much pollution (and what types) is produced to move the contents of the car (with the car itself, of course) a certain distance. For a standard internal combusion or hybrid (non-pluggable) car, this is all about the engine. For an electric car, however, this is all about the power plants that feed that particular part of the grid the car plugs into. (The weight of the car matters in both cases, as does the mass being transported, but I'm doing an 'all other things being equal' analysis here.) And there's a huge amount of variation there. An electric car in China, where the coal plants are hastily constructed and incredibly dirty, is not the same as that same model car in San Antonio, TX, where the local utility is actually so clean (and I'm talking about coal there too) that they often sell credits to other utilities. And I'm not taking into account nuclear energy production, since that's largely a guess about future impacts, but also shows a near-zero carbon footprint that would skew the results. I don't see any accounting for any of that in this study, and don't know where he's getting his figures on how much pollution is generated in providing electricity to the cars.
More modern (in design and construction) coal plants have multiple levels of pollution control as well as optimizing features to increase burn and heat-scavenging efficiency, which increases the power output you get from each ton of coal burned. What I have seen is that for power plants in the Western world, the carbon footprint of using an electric car is significantly lower than with standard internal combustion cars. But again, it depends on where you're plugging in.
Congress has no Constitutional authority to authorise or not authorise technology for its use.
Whip up a batch of ricin or sarin at home, then tell Congress you did it. Let me know what prison you end up in so I can come by to verify that you still believe this.
Actually, it does require the Internet.
Balancing Authority interconnectivity, for example...that's a whole other organization. You think people run dedicated lines that are, in some cases, hundreds of miles long? When you're talking about the really big ones, like WECC, you could be talking about a thousand miles of distance between the ADMS/EMS systems and the Balancing Authority. And the link needs to be reliable. So nope, not an option. If the utility is in a market that permits energy trading, then you also need other interconnections..again, over long distances, and that means the Internet all over again. I do security in the power industry for a living...these systems are never put just on the Internet at a power company, but it's always just a couple of hops away. And nation-state attackers have little trouble hopscotching their way through to the target. The problem isn't the connectivity, it's the lack of good patch management/antimalware/security monitoring systems and processes. And that's pretty much what the problem is when it comes to most breaches.
Look into the following acronyms, and keep digging. After a week of it, you might understand this better.
NERC
ERCOT
PJM
WECC
ERO
NERC-BAL
NERC-CIP
NERC-PRC
NERC-EOP
ISA99
YOU. HAVE. NO. CHOICE.
Telvent is the world's leader in what's known as "ADMS" systems. Advanced Distribution Management Systems. This is, for lack of a better way to put it, the "Smart" in "Smart Grid." By definition, it requires broad and extensive connectivity with many other systems.
In the old days, power plants...a few big ones...made power. And that power kind of spread outwards in straight lines to substations, and then to homes/businesses/etc. Well, now, smart grid is going into place. So you get more information from the homes/businesses/etc about what power they are using, and you will have more sources...small sources...of power all over the place. The power grid will look more like the Internet...interlaced, routable, managed. But you need a monolithic "God System" to keep track of what's going on, and control the changes that need to be made. Examples of systems that ADMS ties into are AMI, where the connectivity indirectly extends out to literally millions of collectors and meters attached to homes, to wind farms, to solar farms, to hydroelectric turbines, to coal-powered generation facility, and to CT (combustion turbine) generators. Oh, also...substations, protective relay systems...I think I'm forgetting some. Oh! I forgot...your local Balancing Authority, who is responsible for the stability of the larger power grid.
So yeah...this whole "Oh, you just need to air gap it because it's a control system" is ignorant. That hasn't been realistic in the power industry for about a decade now. Before you call a whole industry "fools," maybe you should first learn about how the industry functions, hm?
Now I can finally find some porn on the Internet. It's been so difficult before now...
I'm more "anti-Republican" than I am "pro-Democrat," but I didn't see an immediate repeal of the PATRIOT Act after Obama was inaugurated, and was greatly disappointed that he not only didn't pursue justice for Bush and Cheney, but continued the warrantless wiretapping initiative. At this point, I see Obama as a slightly darker skin toned, slightly lesser evil Bush. In both senses, there's only shades of difference between them, and America is not better off for it.
You might want to read up a bit on the whole "checks and balances" thing. Last I saw, the legislative branch repeals laws, not the executive one. And I don't think that the President is called the "Prosecutor-in-Chief." It seems to me that a man in charge who has inherited a country in disarray that's caught up in wars on two fronts would have better things to do than try to repeat the inanity of the Kenneth Starr debacle.
Yes and no. You're right; they can kill. But it's not because they are considered poisonous; they are not actually poisons. And it's not the argon or helium that kills you either...it's the absence of oxygen. Poisons are what I was discussing. Drinking too much water can kill you too...but water is not a posion to us. Wood can kill you if you get beaten with a 2x4, without being a poison. There are other ways in which substances may incur lethality besides toxicity.
Which is actually correct. What makes a poison poisonous isn't the inherent nature of being a chemical; it is the interaction that it has with an organism's chemistry. That's why chocolate is safe for humans, and poison to dogs. It's the same component (theobromine) in chocolate that stimulates humans and poisons dogs; the nature of that chemical interaction is what is different, and thus makes all the different.
In this case, however, there's a difference in types of electromagnetic stimulus. X-rays are nothing like radio signals emanated from consumer electronics. Not at all similar. So, what mcgrew was really saying was more like "that's a whole other kind of chemical than the one that the OP is talking about. Just because warfarin is lethal at relatively small doses doesn't mean that table salt is, even though they are both technically chemicals."
It'll be right at home in Alabama and Missouri, next to the science textbooks that contain no science...
In other news...actual users criticize design of the majority of systems they use, wondering why they can't be more like IOS or the experience of using a Mac...
People who yell the loudest often have the most to hide. He's simply a drug addict who hates himself, his ego won't allow that so he projects his behavior onto others.
So...he's secretly a woman who smokes pole, too?
It's also messages they handed over...which were MEANT to be public in the first place. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that something will be held in confidence when you put it on Twitter, for christ's sake. I applaud Twitter fighting back, and at least setting some precedent, but this isn't at all like what Yahoo! did when they handed of the identities behind the accounts. That's a wholly different thing. (And it's also worth noting that unlike this case, Yahoo! could pretty much be assured that China would get the information come hell or high water. It's not a free society over there.)
Razgorov,
I'm a sailor myself, having done a lot of time on the Atlantic up near New England, and having had my share of surprises out there. And I can tell you this: Slashdot is not where you should get your advice. I'm seeing things like "Satellite internet, so you can read /. in the middle of the Pacific Ocean," listed under "Easy." Really? REALLY? You're asking about gear which will help you do one of a few things: 1, find your way so that you reach land on the other side instead of going off into the wild blue yonder, 2, keep your boat operating so that you can continue to direct your own fate, and 3, not sink and/or die. And you're getting answers like that.
There are communities of sailors who have actually done long-distance sailing. Speak with them. The question is not about the tech, it's about the problems you're likely to encounter, and what to expect. The choices you make will literally affect your chances of survival; you really want to have one-on-one discussions with people to get a sense of what you need to know, to make your own decisions. Circumnavigation is no joke, even in an 18-meter yacht. You're going to have disasters. Speak to some people who have actually had to deal with those disasters, not a population that is full of people who think this is some kind of cool game.
...their latest model, the "Romney," gets elected!
No...in the original experiment, they used a gorilla. A very charming one, but still...
People should gain civic rights gradually and at an individual pace, much like your car insurance premiums.
Sounds like a good plan if you're aiming for a police state.
Or if you're L. Ron Hubbard...
RTFA. He's right: child porn is one of the situtations where mens rea is not necessary. You are absolutely 100% wrong on this one. Possession, regardless of means, circumstance or intent, is a criminal act. I know this first-hand, from engagements where we deployed network-centric DLP solutions in a consulting role and were briefed in advance by a law enforcement official AND a lawyer as to what to do if we came across child porn in our systems. It's you who needs to learn about criminal law, not him.
Hey, Ubisoft...
FUCK. YOU.