Sure, not many professionals upgrade their CPU, but RAM and GPUs on the other hand do get upgraded. Only four RAM slots doesn't leave much room for upgrade, and the GPUs in this thing are on customised and proprietary boards. I can't imagine Apple keeping up with the GPU upgrade cycle in producing these boards. Of course it all comes down to what you are doing on this system at a professional level. In my opinion, Apple's shift to an almost completely proprietary design is a bad thing.
As for Apple owning Thunderbolt: they do, in conjunction with Intel (and I never stated they owned it outright). They own enough patents on the technology that you can't make a Thunderbolt-based product without paying some money to Apple.
Yes, Intel orginally developed Thunderbolt (then codenamed LightPeak), but then they approached Apple with it. Apple and Intel have technically collaborated on Thunderbolt. Unsurprisingly, Apple now have quite a number of patents on Thunderbolt technology (and I'd speculate even more on Thunderbolt 2). Yes, the connector may be royalty free, but what is inside it isn't: Thunderbolt uses active cables.
So, while Intel did create the original tech behind Thunderbolt, it isn't solely owned by them anymore. If you want to make Thunderbolt-based kit, you will need to pay the tax to Intel *and* Apple.
The point I was trying to make is that Apple have a distinct financial interest in killing PCIe and replacing it with Thunderbolt / Thunderbolt 2.
Sorry, but there is nothing professional about the new Mac Pro. It is Eye Candy; nothing more. Its proprietary layout means that there is very little that will be upgradeable (save for maxing out its measly four RAM slots, or swapping out the SSD). CPU not fast enough anymore? Graphics cards out-of-date? Sorry, time to buy a new Mac Pro. But of course that is what Apple want. Heaven forbid that someone would actually want to upgrade their CPU or change to the latest generation GPU.
What is really anti-Professional about the Mac Pro? Dumping Internal storage bays and PCIe slots moving everything to external interfaces. SSDs have their place and so too do spinning disks. I could choose what I wanted, but with this new Mac Pro I have no choice. I would now have to have a stack of external drives sitting at my workstation. It won't look so pretty then.
On top of that, plenty of companies have invested in PCIe-based hardware (Audio DAW cards and HD-SDI interface cards are just two examples of many). Companies who have invested heavily in such hardware are now SOL. What will they do? Buy an overpriced Mac Pro and reinvest in all new Thunderbolt-based hardware (that most likely doesn't exist yet given the slow uptake of Thunderbolt), or switch to PC based hardware?
I have to look at the reason for the redesign, and it is very easy to see: Apple (and Intel) own Thunderbolt. They make a cut of every Thunderbolt device sold. Of course, they are going to push Thunderbolt over everything else. Did Apple actually listen to what their professional clients need?
Others have correctly pointed out that you were most likely in a situation of work-for-hire and do not have a copyright claim to the work. However you may have a claim under Author's Rights (also referred to as Moral Rights). Author's Rights are separate and distinct from Copyright, and cannot be transferred. It doesn't grant you that much, but (amongst other things) it does grant you the right to be named as author (or co-author) in a work.
Your best course of action to to write the client a friendly letter or email (I'd lean towards letter in a situation like this), relay your situation to them, and inform them that you wish to be named as author (or co-author) in the work. Be clear you are not claiming any kind of copyright! You also may wish to point out that the other developer is incorrectly claiming copyright, when that belongs to the client. Just be careful of not making this an attack on the other developer. You just want some way of having your work recognised. If you do send a letter, be sure to get a notarized copy before you send it, in case you have to escalate things.
If you do need to take it further, then I'd suggest to just cut your losses and walk away. The other developer claiming your work as theirs is Libel: it has already harmed your reputation. It will be expensive, and chances are you wouldn't get enough to cover your expenses (not to mention the damage it would do to your reputation even if you are right).
What exactly do you need this system for? Seriously, if you are needing internet access to save people, there is something wrong. Sure, there may be a situation where an Incident Commander may need to look up something like an MSDS on a hazardous material, but in that situation a tablet with 3G access is all you need.
If you're wanting this for comms, then you really need to think again. For Emergency Services, any comms system need to be robust (ie. not built on cheap consumer grade hardware), reliable (ie. able to work when parts of the system fail, and it must be easy to fix or replace) but most importantly it need to be able to work with the systems of other Emergency Services. If you go ahead and do your own thing, it could potentially cripple your response capability. If your Fire Department was first to attend a Mass Casualy Incident, would you be absolutely sure that your system, built on 'cheap wireless routers', would be 100% effective? Would you be prepared to stake your life, the lives of other firefighters, and the lives of multiple casualties on this system working? If the answer is not an absolute yes, then walk away now.
Don't get me wrong, it is a cool idea, but it is not something that you or your Volunteer Fire Department should be looking into as a deployed solution. You cannot go from "hey, this sounds cool" to putting it into operational situations without doing some serious research and development as well as thorough testing. This may seem over the top, but this is for an Emergency Service: people's lives will depend on this.
All he has to do is publish his EDL (edit decision list) and just state his exact source material (in a commercially available form, of course).
As the editor, the EDL is Topher Grace's copyrighted work, and as the EDL doesn't actually contain any of the content of the movies there is no way Lucas et al. could claim copyright infringement.
It is then the fans who can rip the content from the sources and use the EDL to assemble their own copy of the fan edit.
By stating the source material in a commercially available form, he isn't inducing the fans to commit copyright infringement, so they can't really get him for anythng.
I heard about this some years ago, and the reason was rather sinister.
The way I heard it is that nuclear non-proliferation treaties that the US has signed to limit the number of warheads in its arsenal. However warheads in transit do not count towards this total, and in the interests of security the US is not obliged to reveal how many warheads it has in transit at any one time or where they are going. By keeping a percentage of it arsenal perpetually driving around the US, the US government can effectively sidestep nuclear warhead limits imposed by non-proliferation treaties.
Seriously, Apple seems to be grasping at straws for any edge over Android phones. I'm not going to make comparisons between Siri and Google Voice Search, as plenty of others are doing that. What I will say is that Siri (and other voice command systems) are gimmicks at best. Unless their entire client base is visually impaired, I doubt that it will see any serious day-to-day use once the novelty has worn off. Texting and twitter are growing because people aren't talking into their phones. What makes Apple think that Siri will change that trend?
1) F/RAND doesn't mean free. Apple effectively wants to pay nothing, and Samsung aren't willing to roll over. Nokia had the same issue and Apple settled with them before anything could be established in case law (for which no details have been made public - which has lead some to believe that Apple would have lost). Samsung have entered into patent cross-licensing arrangements with other manufacturers who license their patents. Samsung are claiming (amongst other things) that such cross-licensing deals are an established norm and can be considered both Fair and Reasonable in the industry.
2) Apple haven't brought licenses from Samsung. Just because their suppliers may have a license to produce components that are subject to those patents, doesn't automatically mean that that license carries on to Apple. It depends on the terms of the license the component manufacturers have. Samsung claim that Infineon didn't have any license, so if Apple used Infineon 3G chips how can they have a license?
Given that Apple have known about GSM/3G patents since before they released the first iPhone, yet continue to release products without sorting this license issue out doesn't give them as much of a leg to stand on as people think they do.
This could potentially work against Apple if Samsung go after the iPhone 4S on Oz. Precedent has been set, and it would be quite difficult for Apple to argue that an injunction shouldn't block the iPhone4S if Samsung decide to assert their hardware patents.
But to Apple, the iPhone5 represets a massive part of their total product line. If the iPhone5 were to be blocked, it would be a huge financial hit for them and would deeply affect their share price. The fact that Apple does not pay dividends on their shares means that their share price is somewhat more volatile than shares in other companies (who do pay dividends).
By contrast, Samsung's product lineup is massive, and the Galaxy line (S, S2, Tabs) only represent a small part. If they are blocked, it would still be a financial hit, but not as massive as Apple's would be.
They come out with the most amazing game in the world, but if they insist on doing this, they won't be seeing any of my money.
Seriously, they wonder why people pirate their games. Yes, there are people wanting it for free, but there is a growing number of people who pirate it just to get away from the DRM.
It seems like the Hoverbike seems to be a lame attempt to cash in on the success of the Martin Jetpack.
To me, the Hoverbike looks like a deathtrap: the pilot is sitting above the lift propellers and with a centre of gravity higher than the centre of lift and no apparent method for lateral stabilization it will tip over the moment the pilot leans to far to one side. In their FAQ, they attempt to brush off the stability issue by talking about fixed-wing aircraft: aircraft that don't hover and that have a large tailplane for lateral stability. Also, saying that the aircraft is safer because the pilot can leap off and use their own parachute just seems wrong to me.
So, what they're saying is that the numbers didn't appear random enough to them. Maybe it selected a few too many undesirables for their liking. Sometimes random numbers can appear not to be random. That's the problem with randomness, you can never be sure.
Instead they are saying that:
"A new selection process will be conducted based on the original entries for the 2012 program."
I'm willing to bet that new selection process certainly won't be random.
But in order to enter, you have to apply and meet certain qualifying criteria.
Even if you win a lottery place, you don't automatically get a visa.
Instead you win an invitation to apply for a visa. Even then you can get turned down.
I'm fairly sure, but if you get turned down the lottery win just disappears: it doesn't mean that someone else then gets a chance.
This was a BlackOp. Why else were they using SEAL Team 6 (a team that supposedly didn't exist) and modified Blackhawks (that also supposedly didn't exist) unless this was a capture and go? A regular SEAL team and regular Blackhawks would have worked for a kill mission.
They left plenty of people alive in the compound, surely if this was a kill mission they'd all be dead so that no-one could point the finger back to the US. Plausible deniability.
If this was a kill mission, why would they have Chinooks? All the team, plus Bin Laden's corpse managed to fit in a single modified Blackhawk. Chinooks would have been unnecessary and even extremely risky given the small size of the LZ.
I'm willing to bet that the original plan was to capture everyone in the compound, including Bin Laden. I suspect that killing Bin Laden was the last thing they wanted to do. Yes, the US and most of the world has celebrated. But now they have effectively martyred Bin Laden and plenty of Muslim fundamentalists are now planning a retaliation. If this had been a covert capture, Bin Laden wouldn't have been martyred, they would have senior al-Quaeda captives to interrogate and there would be no rallying point for fundamentalists to retaliate.
Yes, I agree it would have been a three ring circus if Bin Laden had been publicly captured. The public would have demanded his execution, and he would have been martyred anyway. However, if he had been covertly captured he would just have disappeared into a CIA holding facility, and the world would know nothing. At some point, when it is most convenient for the Administration, his capture could have then been made public.
This mission was never a public mission. It was a BlackOp. They just fcuked it up.
I wonder if the world would have heard of this event if that helicopter hadn't have crashed. When that helicopter crashed and left a section of somewhat identifiable wreckage, the US lost capability for plausible denial. They had to tell the world.
I also have to wonder if, given the number of helicopters (two modified Black Hawks and two Chinooks), the original mission was just a capture mission. With this kind of carrying capacity, they could have removed everyone in the compound that wasn't killed in the initial raid. They would have landed the SEAL team first with the stealth Black Hawks, pulled out the Black Hawks and then followed that up a while later with a Chinook or two to pull out captives and the SEAL team. With no-one alive in the compound, the US would have had some degree of plausible deniability. On top of that, they'd have a large number of presumably senior al-Quaeda members to interrogate.
Instead, the crashed helicopter would have taken out a large chunk of the LZ (leaving no landing space for a Chinook), it would have taken up crew to dispose of the wreckage and tend to any wounded from the crash. Combine this with an already limited timeframe and being stuck with only one aircraft to remove the SEAL team and Bin Laden, and this may have suddenly become a kill mission.
e911 requires mobile phones to be capable of identifying their location. No-one is suing the government about that.
Telecommunication companies have been about to identify individual phones (through IMEI) and track their movements through cell tower triangulation. No-one is suing them about that.
Yet Google make a phone when location services have to be activated by the user, and they get sued. The key difference between them an Apple is that activation of the location services. It seems Apple users don't get a choice. I suspect these two ladies a) haven't owned Android phones very long (they're just in it to make some money off Google); and b) have some kind of distant tie to Apple (extremely convenient that this happens right after Apple's Location Services scandal).
I'm willing to bet that, as this is an opt-in service, this lawsuit won't go far.
So they're rolling out a *new* two factor authentication system? That implies that there was an old one.... Was it RSA? Could the two events be linked?
I doubt he would have, especially if he has had legal advice. That is a sure way to lose the case, and get the book thrown at him, even if it is just a civil case.
On the other hand, as a security researcher, he would most likely have had everything encrypted (if he is smart). There is nothing I can see in the injunction that says he must turn over encryption keys (ie. the knowledge in his head - not a document). I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe he can be compelled to do that for a civil case and if he were compelled, he could plead the fifth. Sony would have a bunch of encrypted files that they would have to break into - performing the similar actions that they are accusing Geohot of.
He could follow the injunction to the letter and hand over his computer, and Sony would still get nothing effectively. He would have technically provided the data to them, and I cannot see anything an the injunction that says the data must be provided unencrypted and in a particular format. Sony would then have to convince the court why they have the right to break Geohot's encryption - not an easy proposal.
MS want to go after Android. With an ex-MS man at the helm of Nokia, I'm not surprised they have pushed this deal through (especially since MS have managed to piss of their other handset manufacturers, and they have in turn jumped to Android). It may hurt Android market share very briefly, but I'll wager it won't be for very long before Nokia dumps WinPhone7 if this deal even goes through.
MS is trying to play catch-up with Apple and Android, and is losing badly. Wasn't Elop complaining the other day that Nokia was stuck playing catch-up? How can throwing their lot in with MS help them? Unless Elop is playing this deal with MS, so he has a magic bullet against Apple, I can't see their market position getting any better.
I do have to wonder if this deal is more about solving Nokia's legal battles with Apple. Surely MS will happily hand over patent licenses if Nokia is going to make WInPhone7 devices. Not only would this potentially void some of Apple's patent claims against Nokia, but even if Apple won in the ITC, the devices it is seeking an injunction against will not be around much longer. On top of that, MS would see a handy market boost if the ITC found in favour of Nokia and placed an injunction against the GSM iPhone. There is a reason Apple is trying to kill GSM and pick up CDMA: they probably see they aren't going to win the GSM patent lawsuits that Nokia have filed against them. In terms of the Apple vs Nokia battle, Nokia aligning themselves with Microsoft is an almost perfect match. I'd say that there is a whole lot more going on behind the scenes of this deal, in terms of patent cross-licensing, but Nokia won't reveal that until they get in a courtroom.
Given the sharholder and employee revolt against this decision, Elop may not be around much longer to see it through.
I wonder what is going to become of Nokia's battle with Apple. Will Nokia and MS enter into patent cross-licensing agreements? Presumably they would if Nokia was to make and sell WInPhone7 devices. Not only would this potentially void some of Apple's patent claims against Nokia, but even if Apple won in the ITC, the devices it is seeking an injunction against will not be around much longer.
MS want to go after Android, and with an MS man at the helm of Nokia, it is a pretty big win for WinPhone7. This may hurt Android market share for a little bit, but I'll wager it won't be for very long.
However, MS is playing catch-up with iOS and Android and is losing badly. Wasn't Elop complaining the other day that Nokia was stuck playing catch-up? How can throwing their lot in with MS help them? Unless Elop is playing this deal with MS, so he has a magic bullet against Apple, I can't see their market position getting any better.
Maybe this deal won't be around much longer if there is a shareholder revolt against this decision.
It is a known fact (maybe not widely known) that a very large propotion of engine wear occurs in the first few seconds after startup. When the engine is stopped, gravity pulls oil back down to the sump, and the oil pump takes thise seconds after startup to redistribute oil around the engine to vital moving parts. I also suspect that will increse the thermal shock loading on the engine, especially as the O rings will suffer a much greater number of heating/cooling cycles than in a regular engine.
The conspiracy theorist in me says that this is just a way for manufacturers to increase their revenues for ongoing maintenance (as these engines WILL need far more regular maintenance cycles) while selling it to consumers as being environmentally friendly. I doubt Ford will let anyone aside from their dealers touch these engines.
A far better solution would be to make the engines super efficient at idle (whether this is by shutting down cylinder firing or by other low friction means). This would keep the oil in the engine moving, and would keep the engine relatively warm.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, if you're happy with PCIe 4x.
Sure, not many professionals upgrade their CPU, but RAM and GPUs on the other hand do get upgraded. Only four RAM slots doesn't leave much room for upgrade, and the GPUs in this thing are on customised and proprietary boards. I can't imagine Apple keeping up with the GPU upgrade cycle in producing these boards. Of course it all comes down to what you are doing on this system at a professional level. In my opinion, Apple's shift to an almost completely proprietary design is a bad thing.
As for Apple owning Thunderbolt: they do, in conjunction with Intel (and I never stated they owned it outright). They own enough patents on the technology that you can't make a Thunderbolt-based product without paying some money to Apple.
Yes, Intel orginally developed Thunderbolt (then codenamed LightPeak), but then they approached Apple with it. Apple and Intel have technically collaborated on Thunderbolt. Unsurprisingly, Apple now have quite a number of patents on Thunderbolt technology (and I'd speculate even more on Thunderbolt 2). Yes, the connector may be royalty free, but what is inside it isn't: Thunderbolt uses active cables.
So, while Intel did create the original tech behind Thunderbolt, it isn't solely owned by them anymore. If you want to make Thunderbolt-based kit, you will need to pay the tax to Intel *and* Apple.
The point I was trying to make is that Apple have a distinct financial interest in killing PCIe and replacing it with Thunderbolt / Thunderbolt 2.
Sorry, but there is nothing professional about the new Mac Pro. It is Eye Candy; nothing more. Its proprietary layout means that there is very little that will be upgradeable (save for maxing out its measly four RAM slots, or swapping out the SSD). CPU not fast enough anymore? Graphics cards out-of-date? Sorry, time to buy a new Mac Pro. But of course that is what Apple want. Heaven forbid that someone would actually want to upgrade their CPU or change to the latest generation GPU.
What is really anti-Professional about the Mac Pro? Dumping Internal storage bays and PCIe slots moving everything to external interfaces. SSDs have their place and so too do spinning disks. I could choose what I wanted, but with this new Mac Pro I have no choice. I would now have to have a stack of external drives sitting at my workstation. It won't look so pretty then.
On top of that, plenty of companies have invested in PCIe-based hardware (Audio DAW cards and HD-SDI interface cards are just two examples of many). Companies who have invested heavily in such hardware are now SOL. What will they do? Buy an overpriced Mac Pro and reinvest in all new Thunderbolt-based hardware (that most likely doesn't exist yet given the slow uptake of Thunderbolt), or switch to PC based hardware?
I have to look at the reason for the redesign, and it is very easy to see: Apple (and Intel) own Thunderbolt. They make a cut of every Thunderbolt device sold. Of course, they are going to push Thunderbolt over everything else. Did Apple actually listen to what their professional clients need?
Others have correctly pointed out that you were most likely in a situation of work-for-hire and do not have a copyright claim to the work. However you may have a claim under Author's Rights (also referred to as Moral Rights). Author's Rights are separate and distinct from Copyright, and cannot be transferred. It doesn't grant you that much, but (amongst other things) it does grant you the right to be named as author (or co-author) in a work.
Your best course of action to to write the client a friendly letter or email (I'd lean towards letter in a situation like this), relay your situation to them, and inform them that you wish to be named as author (or co-author) in the work. Be clear you are not claiming any kind of copyright! You also may wish to point out that the other developer is incorrectly claiming copyright, when that belongs to the client. Just be careful of not making this an attack on the other developer. You just want some way of having your work recognised. If you do send a letter, be sure to get a notarized copy before you send it, in case you have to escalate things.
If you do need to take it further, then I'd suggest to just cut your losses and walk away. The other developer claiming your work as theirs is Libel: it has already harmed your reputation. It will be expensive, and chances are you wouldn't get enough to cover your expenses (not to mention the damage it would do to your reputation even if you are right).
What exactly do you need this system for? Seriously, if you are needing internet access to save people, there is something wrong. Sure, there may be a situation where an Incident Commander may need to look up something like an MSDS on a hazardous material, but in that situation a tablet with 3G access is all you need.
If you're wanting this for comms, then you really need to think again. For Emergency Services, any comms system need to be robust (ie. not built on cheap consumer grade hardware), reliable (ie. able to work when parts of the system fail, and it must be easy to fix or replace) but most importantly it need to be able to work with the systems of other Emergency Services. If you go ahead and do your own thing, it could potentially cripple your response capability. If your Fire Department was first to attend a Mass Casualy Incident, would you be absolutely sure that your system, built on 'cheap wireless routers', would be 100% effective? Would you be prepared to stake your life, the lives of other firefighters, and the lives of multiple casualties on this system working? If the answer is not an absolute yes, then walk away now.
Don't get me wrong, it is a cool idea, but it is not something that you or your Volunteer Fire Department should be looking into as a deployed solution. You cannot go from "hey, this sounds cool" to putting it into operational situations without doing some serious research and development as well as thorough testing. This may seem over the top, but this is for an Emergency Service: people's lives will depend on this.
All he has to do is publish his EDL (edit decision list) and just state his exact source material (in a commercially available form, of course).
As the editor, the EDL is Topher Grace's copyrighted work, and as the EDL doesn't actually contain any of the content of the movies there is no way Lucas et al. could claim copyright infringement.
It is then the fans who can rip the content from the sources and use the EDL to assemble their own copy of the fan edit.
By stating the source material in a commercially available form, he isn't inducing the fans to commit copyright infringement, so they can't really get him for anythng.
I heard about this some years ago, and the reason was rather sinister.
The way I heard it is that nuclear non-proliferation treaties that the US has signed to limit the number of warheads in its arsenal. However warheads in transit do not count towards this total, and in the interests of security the US is not obliged to reveal how many warheads it has in transit at any one time or where they are going. By keeping a percentage of it arsenal perpetually driving around the US, the US government can effectively sidestep nuclear warhead limits imposed by non-proliferation treaties.
What they don't show you is the all of other iPads they did this to that didn't survive the fall. How many takes was it until they got the money shot?
Seriously, Apple seems to be grasping at straws for any edge over Android phones. I'm not going to make comparisons between Siri and Google Voice Search, as plenty of others are doing that. What I will say is that Siri (and other voice command systems) are gimmicks at best. Unless their entire client base is visually impaired, I doubt that it will see any serious day-to-day use once the novelty has worn off. Texting and twitter are growing because people aren't talking into their phones. What makes Apple think that Siri will change that trend?
1) F/RAND doesn't mean free. Apple effectively wants to pay nothing, and Samsung aren't willing to roll over. Nokia had the same issue and Apple settled with them before anything could be established in case law (for which no details have been made public - which has lead some to believe that Apple would have lost). Samsung have entered into patent cross-licensing arrangements with other manufacturers who license their patents. Samsung are claiming (amongst other things) that such cross-licensing deals are an established norm and can be considered both Fair and Reasonable in the industry.
2) Apple haven't brought licenses from Samsung. Just because their suppliers may have a license to produce components that are subject to those patents, doesn't automatically mean that that license carries on to Apple. It depends on the terms of the license the component manufacturers have. Samsung claim that Infineon didn't have any license, so if Apple used Infineon 3G chips how can they have a license?
Given that Apple have known about GSM/3G patents since before they released the first iPhone, yet continue to release products without sorting this license issue out doesn't give them as much of a leg to stand on as people think they do.
This could potentially work against Apple if Samsung go after the iPhone 4S on Oz. Precedent has been set, and it would be quite difficult for Apple to argue that an injunction shouldn't block the iPhone4S if Samsung decide to assert their hardware patents.
But to Apple, the iPhone5 represets a massive part of their total product line. If the iPhone5 were to be blocked, it would be a huge financial hit for them and would deeply affect their share price. The fact that Apple does not pay dividends on their shares means that their share price is somewhat more volatile than shares in other companies (who do pay dividends).
By contrast, Samsung's product lineup is massive, and the Galaxy line (S, S2, Tabs) only represent a small part. If they are blocked, it would still be a financial hit, but not as massive as Apple's would be.
Don't buy their games.
They come out with the most amazing game in the world, but if they insist on doing this, they won't be seeing any of my money.
Seriously, they wonder why people pirate their games. Yes, there are people wanting it for free, but there is a growing number of people who pirate it just to get away from the DRM.
It seems like the Hoverbike seems to be a lame attempt to cash in on the success of the Martin Jetpack.
To me, the Hoverbike looks like a deathtrap: the pilot is sitting above the lift propellers and with a centre of gravity higher than the centre of lift and no apparent method for lateral stabilization it will tip over the moment the pilot leans to far to one side. In their FAQ, they attempt to brush off the stability issue by talking about fixed-wing aircraft: aircraft that don't hover and that have a large tailplane for lateral stability. Also, saying that the aircraft is safer because the pilot can leap off and use their own parachute just seems wrong to me.
So, what they're saying is that the numbers didn't appear random enough to them. Maybe it selected a few too many undesirables for their liking. Sometimes random numbers can appear not to be random. That's the problem with randomness, you can never be sure.
Instead they are saying that:
"A new selection process will be conducted based on the original entries for the 2012 program."
I'm willing to bet that new selection process certainly won't be random.
Yes, there is a lottery.
But in order to enter, you have to apply and meet certain qualifying criteria.
Even if you win a lottery place, you don't automatically get a visa.
Instead you win an invitation to apply for a visa. Even then you can get turned down.
I'm fairly sure, but if you get turned down the lottery win just disappears: it doesn't mean that someone else then gets a chance.
This was a BlackOp. Why else were they using SEAL Team 6 (a team that supposedly didn't exist) and modified Blackhawks (that also supposedly didn't exist) unless this was a capture and go? A regular SEAL team and regular Blackhawks would have worked for a kill mission.
They left plenty of people alive in the compound, surely if this was a kill mission they'd all be dead so that no-one could point the finger back to the US. Plausible deniability.
If this was a kill mission, why would they have Chinooks? All the team, plus Bin Laden's corpse managed to fit in a single modified Blackhawk. Chinooks would have been unnecessary and even extremely risky given the small size of the LZ.
I'm willing to bet that the original plan was to capture everyone in the compound, including Bin Laden. I suspect that killing Bin Laden was the last thing they wanted to do. Yes, the US and most of the world has celebrated. But now they have effectively martyred Bin Laden and plenty of Muslim fundamentalists are now planning a retaliation. If this had been a covert capture, Bin Laden wouldn't have been martyred, they would have senior al-Quaeda captives to interrogate and there would be no rallying point for fundamentalists to retaliate.
Yes, I agree it would have been a three ring circus if Bin Laden had been publicly captured. The public would have demanded his execution, and he would have been martyred anyway. However, if he had been covertly captured he would just have disappeared into a CIA holding facility, and the world would know nothing. At some point, when it is most convenient for the Administration, his capture could have then been made public.
This mission was never a public mission. It was a BlackOp. They just fcuked it up.
I wonder if the world would have heard of this event if that helicopter hadn't have crashed. When that helicopter crashed and left a section of somewhat identifiable wreckage, the US lost capability for plausible denial. They had to tell the world.
I also have to wonder if, given the number of helicopters (two modified Black Hawks and two Chinooks), the original mission was just a capture mission. With this kind of carrying capacity, they could have removed everyone in the compound that wasn't killed in the initial raid. They would have landed the SEAL team first with the stealth Black Hawks, pulled out the Black Hawks and then followed that up a while later with a Chinook or two to pull out captives and the SEAL team. With no-one alive in the compound, the US would have had some degree of plausible deniability. On top of that, they'd have a large number of presumably senior al-Quaeda members to interrogate.
Instead, the crashed helicopter would have taken out a large chunk of the LZ (leaving no landing space for a Chinook), it would have taken up crew to dispose of the wreckage and tend to any wounded from the crash. Combine this with an already limited timeframe and being stuck with only one aircraft to remove the SEAL team and Bin Laden, and this may have suddenly become a kill mission.
e911 requires mobile phones to be capable of identifying their location. No-one is suing the government about that.
Telecommunication companies have been about to identify individual phones (through IMEI) and track their movements through cell tower triangulation. No-one is suing them about that.
Yet Google make a phone when location services have to be activated by the user, and they get sued. The key difference between them an Apple is that activation of the location services. It seems Apple users don't get a choice. I suspect these two ladies a) haven't owned Android phones very long (they're just in it to make some money off Google); and b) have some kind of distant tie to Apple (extremely convenient that this happens right after Apple's Location Services scandal).
I'm willing to bet that, as this is an opt-in service, this lawsuit won't go far.
So they're rolling out a *new* two factor authentication system? That implies that there was an old one.... Was it RSA? Could the two events be linked?
I doubt he would have, especially if he has had legal advice. That is a sure way to lose the case, and get the book thrown at him, even if it is just a civil case.
On the other hand, as a security researcher, he would most likely have had everything encrypted (if he is smart). There is nothing I can see in the injunction that says he must turn over encryption keys (ie. the knowledge in his head - not a document). I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe he can be compelled to do that for a civil case and if he were compelled, he could plead the fifth. Sony would have a bunch of encrypted files that they would have to break into - performing the similar actions that they are accusing Geohot of.
He could follow the injunction to the letter and hand over his computer, and Sony would still get nothing effectively. He would have technically provided the data to them, and I cannot see anything an the injunction that says the data must be provided unencrypted and in a particular format. Sony would then have to convince the court why they have the right to break Geohot's encryption - not an easy proposal.
MS want to go after Android. With an ex-MS man at the helm of Nokia, I'm not surprised they have pushed this deal through (especially since MS have managed to piss of their other handset manufacturers, and they have in turn jumped to Android). It may hurt Android market share very briefly, but I'll wager it won't be for very long before Nokia dumps WinPhone7 if this deal even goes through.
MS is trying to play catch-up with Apple and Android, and is losing badly. Wasn't Elop complaining the other day that Nokia was stuck playing catch-up? How can throwing their lot in with MS help them? Unless Elop is playing this deal with MS, so he has a magic bullet against Apple, I can't see their market position getting any better.
I do have to wonder if this deal is more about solving Nokia's legal battles with Apple. Surely MS will happily hand over patent licenses if Nokia is going to make WInPhone7 devices. Not only would this potentially void some of Apple's patent claims against Nokia, but even if Apple won in the ITC, the devices it is seeking an injunction against will not be around much longer. On top of that, MS would see a handy market boost if the ITC found in favour of Nokia and placed an injunction against the GSM iPhone. There is a reason Apple is trying to kill GSM and pick up CDMA: they probably see they aren't going to win the GSM patent lawsuits that Nokia have filed against them. In terms of the Apple vs Nokia battle, Nokia aligning themselves with Microsoft is an almost perfect match. I'd say that there is a whole lot more going on behind the scenes of this deal, in terms of patent cross-licensing, but Nokia won't reveal that until they get in a courtroom.
Given the sharholder and employee revolt against this decision, Elop may not be around much longer to see it through.
I wonder what is going to become of Nokia's battle with Apple. Will Nokia and MS enter into patent cross-licensing agreements? Presumably they would if Nokia was to make and sell WInPhone7 devices. Not only would this potentially void some of Apple's patent claims against Nokia, but even if Apple won in the ITC, the devices it is seeking an injunction against will not be around much longer.
MS want to go after Android, and with an MS man at the helm of Nokia, it is a pretty big win for WinPhone7. This may hurt Android market share for a little bit, but I'll wager it won't be for very long.
However, MS is playing catch-up with iOS and Android and is losing badly. Wasn't Elop complaining the other day that Nokia was stuck playing catch-up? How can throwing their lot in with MS help them? Unless Elop is playing this deal with MS, so he has a magic bullet against Apple, I can't see their market position getting any better.
Maybe this deal won't be around much longer if there is a shareholder revolt against this decision.
It is a known fact (maybe not widely known) that a very large propotion of engine wear occurs in the first few seconds after startup. When the engine is stopped, gravity pulls oil back down to the sump, and the oil pump takes thise seconds after startup to redistribute oil around the engine to vital moving parts. I also suspect that will increse the thermal shock loading on the engine, especially as the O rings will suffer a much greater number of heating/cooling cycles than in a regular engine.
The conspiracy theorist in me says that this is just a way for manufacturers to increase their revenues for ongoing maintenance (as these engines WILL need far more regular maintenance cycles) while selling it to consumers as being environmentally friendly. I doubt Ford will let anyone aside from their dealers touch these engines.
A far better solution would be to make the engines super efficient at idle (whether this is by shutting down cylinder firing or by other low friction means). This would keep the oil in the engine moving, and would keep the engine relatively warm.