This is yet another opportunity to remind you that redefining the meaning of "the cloud" in a tautological manner to to feed your manufactured outrage is not insightful.
"So what we can take away from this is that so long as the State is already Blue, voter I.D. laws are OK"
No, what we can take away is that some states seem more likely to try to implement a poll tax via voter ID, which is illegal, and other states are just implementing identification of properly registered voters, which is legal.
Protip: if you wan't to hide the fact you are implementing a poll tax, don't go on record that having fewer poor and minority voters is a goal.
Except the actual usage in industry still fits the earlier meaning. It's only those feigning shock who are redefining the word and pointing to their redefinition to justify their feigned shock. A tautology is not insightful.
The trouble with just going back to an old process is that there has been a lot of learning in how to make a useable process since then. (The trouble with newer processes being that you needed that learning just to stay afloat.)
There has been interest of late in "retroscaling", where you take all the techniques and equipment that had to be developed for the smaller processes and select from that to make a new process at a larger node. That way you can chose what's easy to fabricate and design with for the intended customers, e.g. make metal 2 through 6 have exactly the same design rules.
...and then you look stupid when that person points out an example where the machines in "the cloud" are owned by the organization using them.
The actual meaning of "the cloud" is the part of the network diagram whose specific location and provenance are not important to the service being described, and which was literally down as a cloud with no details.
"Ordinarily I think these national boundary constraints would limit the reach of US courts and warrants"
Please note I am not making any claim that the US Court has any authority outside of the US national boundary. My point is that the US Court is not trying to assert any such authority and those claiming that the US Court is claiming that authority are wrong.
That means that Microsoft US disposed of the data in a way contrary to the claims they made to the US courts and their customers. They lied to the US court and they are lying to their customers.
"Using your logic it would be possible to order Microsoft to carry out a citizens arrest of any individual in another country and transport them to the court."
A) It would not be possible to order Microsoft to carry out a citizens arrest of any individual and transport them to the court, so adding the modifier "in another country" doesn't change anything.
B) Microsoft has not claimed to be able to carry out a citizens arrest of any individual and transport them to the court. They did claim to be able to retrieve the data, and any customer of theirs would expect then to be able to retrieve that data.
Have you ever seen Japanese game shows? Half are basically "Ow My Balls" with a hyperactive announcer and scrolling text on all four edges of the screen. The other half are basically "Ow YOUR Balls".
'"dancing with ow my balls"'
See Eurovision, which is basically "Dancing with Ow My Balls" with bribery.
The US court is issuing an order to the Microsoft US corporate entity, which is constrained by US laws, to produce data that the Microsoft US corporate entity previously told the court it could produce. However, the Microsoft US corporate entity at some point handed the data off to the Microsoft IE corporate entity, which is constrained by IE laws. It turns out that the Microsoft IE corporate entity is constrained by IE laws for sending that data back to the Microsoft US corporate entity to comply with the US court order.
Imagine if you were a customer of the Microsoft US corporate entity and stored some data with them that they they then handed of to the Microsoft IE corporate entity. If it was data that IE laws prohibited the Microsoft IE corporate entity from sending back to the Microsoft US corporate entity when you wanted to retrieve the data, would you shrug it off or would you sue the crap out of the Microsoft US corporate entity?
Multinational companies reap benefits by having various corporate entities in various jurisdictions to a degree infeasible for lesser companies. This is reasonable as long as they are also willing to pay the costs of having these various corporate entities, among which are keeping track of the overlapping obligations. No one makes these companies operate like this.
No one forces a multinational company into the shenanigans they play with moving things between jurisdictions. They could have considered beforehand whether they were painting themselves into a corner by doing something other than straightforward offering of services in different places.
The laws of Ireland are not the concern of the courts of the USA, nor vice versa. The US court has issued an order on the US corporate entity which that corporate entity had stipulated that it could meet. Either the US corporate entity was lying before when the said they could satisfy the order or they are lying now when they say they cannot. One way or another the US corporate entity lied to the US court.
If a multinational company wants to reap the benefits of having distinct corporate entities in different jurisdictions they also have the pay the costs, which consist of keeping track of when the obligations between the distinct corporate entities are constrained by the the different jurisdictions they were created to run in.
"Because you are confused and think that drives all standardized on the same number of sectors per track"
I specifically mentioned that not only is there no standardization on sectors per track, there may be different sectors per track on the same device. To wit: "Heck it has been twenty years since the number of sectors per track has been constant across the platter."
In thermodynamics we used steam tables in units of British Thermal Units per pound. I don't think the "stupid sounding units" argument will get very far.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not a network share. The files are replicated on the local disk, then the changes are synchronized.
This is yet another opportunity to remind you that redefining the meaning of "the cloud" in a tautological manner to to feed your manufactured outrage is not insightful.
The best part is that Kris Kobach as Kansas Secretary of State has denied in part the request from Kris Kobach as vice-chair of of the Commission.
Even he doesn't think responding on total is a good idea.
"So what we can take away from this is that so long as the State is already Blue, voter I.D. laws are OK"
No, what we can take away is that some states seem more likely to try to implement a poll tax via voter ID, which is illegal, and other states are just implementing identification of properly registered voters, which is legal.
Protip: if you wan't to hide the fact you are implementing a poll tax, don't go on record that having fewer poor and minority voters is a goal.
Except the actual usage in industry still fits the earlier meaning. It's only those feigning shock who are redefining the word and pointing to their redefinition to justify their feigned shock. A tautology is not insightful.
"And where do you think this $10M comes from? It is being added to the price of the product."
If they market would bear a higher price, they'd already be charging it.
The trouble with just going back to an old process is that there has been a lot of learning in how to make a useable process since then. (The trouble with newer processes being that you needed that learning just to stay afloat.)
There has been interest of late in "retroscaling", where you take all the techniques and equipment that had to be developed for the smaller processes and select from that to make a new process at a larger node. That way you can chose what's easy to fabricate and design with for the intended customers, e.g. make metal 2 through 6 have exactly the same design rules.
...and then you look stupid when that person points out an example where the machines in "the cloud" are owned by the organization using them.
The actual meaning of "the cloud" is the part of the network diagram whose specific location and provenance are not important to the service being described, and which was literally down as a cloud with no details.
"an award that you get simply by meeting some criteria"
Name an award that you get other than by meeting some criteria.
"vinyl was replaced with plastic"
Polyvinyl Chloride is a plastic.
"blogger agrees to stop unlawfully using copyrighted images without license"
As Zillow does not own the copyright to the images, it would have no standing to bring a copyright case and it could not itself offer a license.
"my not being on the platform"
Oh, you're on the platform. You just can't sign in to do anything about it.
"Why dont crypto currency exchanges learn from the history of stock markets? "
Cryptocurrency exchanges are favored by anticapitalists that don't know the difference between a free market and an unregulated market.
"Ordinarily I think these national boundary constraints would limit the reach of US courts and warrants"
Please note I am not making any claim that the US Court has any authority outside of the US national boundary. My point is that the US Court is not trying to assert any such authority and those claiming that the US Court is claiming that authority are wrong.
That means that Microsoft US disposed of the data in a way contrary to the claims they made to the US courts and their customers. They lied to the US court and they are lying to their customers.
"Using your logic it would be possible to order Microsoft to carry out a citizens arrest of any individual in another country and transport them to the court."
A) It would not be possible to order Microsoft to carry out a citizens arrest of any individual and transport them to the court, so adding the modifier "in another country" doesn't change anything.
B) Microsoft has not claimed to be able to carry out a citizens arrest of any individual and transport them to the court. They did claim to be able to retrieve the data, and any customer of theirs would expect then to be able to retrieve that data.
'the US Where We have basically "ow my balls" '
Have you ever seen Japanese game shows? Half are basically "Ow My Balls" with a hyperactive announcer and scrolling text on all four edges of the screen. The other half are basically "Ow YOUR Balls".
'"dancing with ow my balls"'
See Eurovision, which is basically "Dancing with Ow My Balls" with bribery.
The US court is issuing an order to the Microsoft US corporate entity, which is constrained by US laws, to produce data that the Microsoft US corporate entity previously told the court it could produce. However, the Microsoft US corporate entity at some point handed the data off to the Microsoft IE corporate entity, which is constrained by IE laws. It turns out that the Microsoft IE corporate entity is constrained by IE laws for sending that data back to the Microsoft US corporate entity to comply with the US court order.
Imagine if you were a customer of the Microsoft US corporate entity and stored some data with them that they they then handed of to the Microsoft IE corporate entity. If it was data that IE laws prohibited the Microsoft IE corporate entity from sending back to the Microsoft US corporate entity when you wanted to retrieve the data, would you shrug it off or would you sue the crap out of the Microsoft US corporate entity?
Multinational companies reap benefits by having various corporate entities in various jurisdictions to a degree infeasible for lesser companies. This is reasonable as long as they are also willing to pay the costs of having these various corporate entities, among which are keeping track of the overlapping obligations. No one makes these companies operate like this.
No, the order is to the US corporate entity. The US corporate entity previously stipulated they could comply with such an order.
No one forces a multinational company into the shenanigans they play with moving things between jurisdictions. They could have considered beforehand whether they were painting themselves into a corner by doing something other than straightforward offering of services in different places.
The laws of Ireland are not the concern of the courts of the USA, nor vice versa. The US court has issued an order on the US corporate entity which that corporate entity had stipulated that it could meet. Either the US corporate entity was lying before when the said they could satisfy the order or they are lying now when they say they cannot. One way or another the US corporate entity lied to the US court.
If a multinational company wants to reap the benefits of having distinct corporate entities in different jurisdictions they also have the pay the costs, which consist of keeping track of when the obligations between the distinct corporate entities are constrained by the the different jurisdictions they were created to run in.
"Because you are confused and think that drives all standardized on the same number of sectors per track"
I specifically mentioned that not only is there no standardization on sectors per track, there may be different sectors per track on the same device. To wit: "Heck it has been twenty years since the number of sectors per track has been constant across the platter."
a) MORE than 90%
b) Meeting funding goal is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for success.
In thermodynamics we used steam tables in units of British Thermal Units per pound. I don't think the "stupid sounding units" argument will get very far.
"The lawsuit is likely focused on"
The complaints are linked. We don't have to consider why they are "likely" focused on; we can read what they are actually focused on.
Hint: it's not the third dimension.
Cellphones already have two processors running separate OSes. The cellular modem has it's own ARM cores.