And "GSM" stands for Global System for Mobile Telecommunications, which has many versions. The AT&T "2G" is one of these, but so is their "3G" and their "4G."
A Mac is a PC with an EFI BIOS. To run whatever you want you just need something to deal with EFI. Apple's bootcamp is targeted at Windows, but you can fairly easily install something else, or you can use a third party tool like rEFTIt.
The price of Mac hardware is irrelevant to what OS you can install on it. But there are quite a few developers, including prominent open source ones, who think it's worth it, even though they wipe OS X and install Linux.
And thus my point. The Blackberry system ranges from not very secure at all to almost as good as you could get making your own. It certainly isn't "unmatched."
Population density might not be such a great comparison. Science certainly allows more food to be grown. It's possible that the US hasn't reached it's non-science ability to feed itself yet, but I don't think that's a given.
Getting back to the original point though, I very much doubt that GDP per capita in eighteenth century France (or China in 1900, or eighteenth century USA) was 50% of GDP per capita in the US today.
"RIM hasn't (and can't) give away the BES keys because the enterprise has them not RIM."
Are you sure? What's to stop RIM from putting in their own backdoor? The security from a system like that is necessarily LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO, not MORE THAN (as the GP claimed) any other solution you install yourself. If you use a closed VPN or sIMAP server you get approximately equal security, if you use an open one you get better security.
"But complaining about RIM having the keys to BIS is as foolish as complaining google has access to the encryption keys to https://www.gmail.com/ [gmail.com]"
Not foolish at all. I don't use gmail for anything sensitive either (and I work in health research, so I do actually send sensitive data occasionally). In fact, it's contrary to US, European, Canadian and international law to use gmail for certain things, BECAUSE Google has the encryption keys.
Bull. The very fact that RIM CAN give away the keys to governments (or whoever they like) means their security wasn't very good. Not nearly as good as what you can get yourself with encrypted IMAP/SMTP and/or VPN on an iPhone or Android.
RIM offered a moderately nice install-it-and-it-works package along with some sweetheart deals with carriers back when data service was a strange concept. Then the reigning champion of install-it-and-it-works walked on the scene and RIM just kept on doing what they'd been doing, with a little bit of me too thrown in. Now a child can set up real e-mail security and RIM really doesn't offer anything, except maybe an existing user base for BBM.
My guess is that Microsoft is using it as an excuse to yank the Metro name, in line with the old theory that changing the name gets rid of the bad connotations.
If you want to buy a stock you say "I'd like this many shares of this stock, and I'll pay up to this much." Someone else, who has that stock, says "I'd like to sell so many shares of this stock, but I want at least this price for them. Technology is more than good enough to match up the buyer and the seller. BUT, in the current system, if you have a privileged connection and can slip in faster than everyone else you can buy from the seller and sell to the buyer before they know about each other.
It used to be that you'd telegraph (or mail) your order into a brokerage and they'd send it down to someone on the floor who would physically bid on stocks. THOSE guys were still middlemen, but necessary. I have yet to see good evidence that modern HFTs are anything other than parasites. The liquidity explanations seem to depend on technological barriers that are no longer in effect, and arguing that a reduction in order fulfillment time is always good, whether it's a reduction from days to minutes or milliseconds to nanoseconds.
Yes, they probably spread their updates randomly. On the other hand, from this story they don't appear to be the sharpest tools in the shed.
No, you wouldn't necessarily need a huge amount of capital. Short term and random investing against a financial services company shouldn't be overly risky. Their stock is unlikely to shoot up suddenly. And these events don't seem to be all that rare. It seems like there are usually two or three a year.
I don't think you're purposely being misleading, but I don't think the $440 million number actually makes any difference. Whether Knight lost $440 M and is on the hook for $440 M - X or if they lost $440 M + X and are on hook for $440 M doesn't affect the argument. The NYSE cancelling orders after the fact means that losses, almost certainly Knight's, are mitigated artificially.
And I was pointing out that that statement doesn't support your conclusion and is misleading. Regardless of how sound the rest of your argument is, that point weakens it.
"Lower priced Android tablets are going to create a whole new market and Apple is going to have a very hard time competing in that world."
Just like they have trouble competing in the smartphone world against lower priced Android phones? You do know Apple makes more money in the smartphone market than everyone else put together, right?
Just as with any other market there will be the high, middle and low ends. Apple has always gone after the high end, usually successfully, and they seem to have mastered capturing enough of it that they make money hand over fist.
It's just a repeat of what happened in the smartphone market, and, a long time ago, in the PC market.
Apple introduced a new product, captured a gigantic portion of the market they essentially created, then their marketshare slipped in response to competition from others. But despite the marketshare slip, Apple still makes most of the profits.
Microsoft taught everyone to worship marketshare because they used theirs to bully everyone into buying their other products. Apple seems to know that marketshare doesn't matter so long as you're still raking in money. They'd much rather sell half or a quarter of the devices at a nice profit than three quarters of the devices at a loss.
Others have estimated that the iPad costs around $375 to make, and sells for $729. That's a wee bit more than 20%.
So either Apple is committing massive fraud by not reporting more than half their profits, the manufacturing cost estimates are bull, or there are a few things you have to do to design, build and market a tablet other than build it.
If the extra costs are around 30% per device then Google IS going to have to subsidize the Nexus 7. If the extra costs are actually fixed in dollars, in whole or in part, then Google is going to have to subsidize the Nexus 7 even more.
It seems very likely that Google is subsidizing the Nexus 7 since it's similar to the Fire, at the same price point, and the Fire is almost certainly subsidized.
Given an unlimited budget, he'd just do what he was told, go to Mars, and not do anything else. No matter what else he's done, that makes it sound like NASA needs a leader with some vision, not an administrator who simply carries out political commands.
Bicameral legislatures are indeed seen as a way to make sure bills are properly considered. In many places the two houses also represent different viewpoints - one may be population weighted while the other is geographically representative, for instance.
But tacking random amendments onto bills seems to be used as much (or more?) for pushing through unpopular legislation (by tacking it onto very important bills) as it is for stalling things. The process must make the legal code extremely difficult to follow as well, which is most definitely counter to protecting the rights of the average citizen.
It's not. Some people's retirement savings might have taken a hit, unless their pension funds were properly distributed among several companies.
Knight itself might have trouble getting customers.
I wonder though... do you suppose these companies patch their software regularly? If they do, shorting them the day before patch days might be an excellent investment.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry about it. The AC is doing his best to confuse everybody.
"For various marketing reasons that don't make much objective sense, most of the world ended up standardizing on GSM long ago"
No, it makes a lot of objective sense. The single great thing about GSM... is removable SIMs. So you don't HAVE to roam... you just pop in a new SIM.
And "GSM" stands for Global System for Mobile Telecommunications, which has many versions. The AT&T "2G" is one of these, but so is their "3G" and their "4G."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM
You should google "bootcamp."
A Mac is a PC with an EFI BIOS. To run whatever you want you just need something to deal with EFI. Apple's bootcamp is targeted at Windows, but you can fairly easily install something else, or you can use a third party tool like rEFTIt.
The price of Mac hardware is irrelevant to what OS you can install on it. But there are quite a few developers, including prominent open source ones, who think it's worth it, even though they wipe OS X and install Linux.
"when ALL HOSTS work exactly the same way."
And thus my point. The Blackberry system ranges from not very secure at all to almost as good as you could get making your own. It certainly isn't "unmatched."
Clearly nobody actually did a statistical analysis.
In fact, an outlier that large, in two different samples, suggests foul play. Perhaps the number was far too small so they had to slip in a ringer.
Nope. It's just that I can read, apparently unlike most Slashdotters.
So far nobody has managed to give an example of an OS that will run on a PC but not on a Mac. Perhaps that's because a Mac IS a PC....
Population density might not be such a great comparison. Science certainly allows more food to be grown. It's possible that the US hasn't reached it's non-science ability to feed itself yet, but I don't think that's a given.
Getting back to the original point though, I very much doubt that GDP per capita in eighteenth century France (or China in 1900, or eighteenth century USA) was 50% of GDP per capita in the US today.
LARGE enterprises run their own BES.
"RIM hasn't (and can't) give away the BES keys because the enterprise has them not RIM."
Are you sure? What's to stop RIM from putting in their own backdoor? The security from a system like that is necessarily LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO, not MORE THAN (as the GP claimed) any other solution you install yourself. If you use a closed VPN or sIMAP server you get approximately equal security, if you use an open one you get better security.
"But complaining about RIM having the keys to BIS is as foolish as complaining google has access to the encryption keys to https://www.gmail.com/ [gmail.com]"
Not foolish at all. I don't use gmail for anything sensitive either (and I work in health research, so I do actually send sensitive data occasionally). In fact, it's contrary to US, European, Canadian and international law to use gmail for certain things, BECAUSE Google has the encryption keys.
All of those run just as well on a Mac as they do on a PC.
I wasn't able to find an OS called Sager.
MenuetOS runs just fine on a Mac.
"The security they once offered was unmatched."
Bull. The very fact that RIM CAN give away the keys to governments (or whoever they like) means their security wasn't very good. Not nearly as good as what you can get yourself with encrypted IMAP/SMTP and/or VPN on an iPhone or Android.
RIM offered a moderately nice install-it-and-it-works package along with some sweetheart deals with carriers back when data service was a strange concept. Then the reigning champion of install-it-and-it-works walked on the scene and RIM just kept on doing what they'd been doing, with a little bit of me too thrown in. Now a child can set up real e-mail security and RIM really doesn't offer anything, except maybe an existing user base for BBM.
Such as?
My guess is that Microsoft is using it as an excuse to yank the Metro name, in line with the old theory that changing the name gets rid of the bad connotations.
If you want to buy a stock you say "I'd like this many shares of this stock, and I'll pay up to this much." Someone else, who has that stock, says "I'd like to sell so many shares of this stock, but I want at least this price for them. Technology is more than good enough to match up the buyer and the seller. BUT, in the current system, if you have a privileged connection and can slip in faster than everyone else you can buy from the seller and sell to the buyer before they know about each other.
It used to be that you'd telegraph (or mail) your order into a brokerage and they'd send it down to someone on the floor who would physically bid on stocks. THOSE guys were still middlemen, but necessary. I have yet to see good evidence that modern HFTs are anything other than parasites. The liquidity explanations seem to depend on technological barriers that are no longer in effect, and arguing that a reduction in order fulfillment time is always good, whether it's a reduction from days to minutes or milliseconds to nanoseconds.
It seems to me VPN or IMAP over SSL has all the advantages of BB without the risk they'll sell you out. And has for some time.
Yes, they probably spread their updates randomly. On the other hand, from this story they don't appear to be the sharpest tools in the shed.
No, you wouldn't necessarily need a huge amount of capital. Short term and random investing against a financial services company shouldn't be overly risky. Their stock is unlikely to shoot up suddenly. And these events don't seem to be all that rare. It seems like there are usually two or three a year.
I don't think you're purposely being misleading, but I don't think the $440 million number actually makes any difference. Whether Knight lost $440 M and is on the hook for $440 M - X or if they lost $440 M + X and are on hook for $440 M doesn't affect the argument. The NYSE cancelling orders after the fact means that losses, almost certainly Knight's, are mitigated artificially.
And I was pointing out that that statement doesn't support your conclusion and is misleading. Regardless of how sound the rest of your argument is, that point weakens it.
"Lower priced Android tablets are going to create a whole new market and Apple is going to have a very hard time competing in that world."
Just like they have trouble competing in the smartphone world against lower priced Android phones? You do know Apple makes more money in the smartphone market than everyone else put together, right?
Just as with any other market there will be the high, middle and low ends. Apple has always gone after the high end, usually successfully, and they seem to have mastered capturing enough of it that they make money hand over fist.
It's just a repeat of what happened in the smartphone market, and, a long time ago, in the PC market.
Apple introduced a new product, captured a gigantic portion of the market they essentially created, then their marketshare slipped in response to competition from others. But despite the marketshare slip, Apple still makes most of the profits.
Microsoft taught everyone to worship marketshare because they used theirs to bully everyone into buying their other products. Apple seems to know that marketshare doesn't matter so long as you're still raking in money. They'd much rather sell half or a quarter of the devices at a nice profit than three quarters of the devices at a loss.
Others have estimated that the iPad costs around $375 to make, and sells for $729. That's a wee bit more than 20%.
So either Apple is committing massive fraud by not reporting more than half their profits, the manufacturing cost estimates are bull, or there are a few things you have to do to design, build and market a tablet other than build it.
If the extra costs are around 30% per device then Google IS going to have to subsidize the Nexus 7. If the extra costs are actually fixed in dollars, in whole or in part, then Google is going to have to subsidize the Nexus 7 even more.
It seems very likely that Google is subsidizing the Nexus 7 since it's similar to the Fire, at the same price point, and the Fire is almost certainly subsidized.
Given an unlimited budget, he'd just do what he was told, go to Mars, and not do anything else. No matter what else he's done, that makes it sound like NASA needs a leader with some vision, not an administrator who simply carries out political commands.
Bicameral legislatures are indeed seen as a way to make sure bills are properly considered. In many places the two houses also represent different viewpoints - one may be population weighted while the other is geographically representative, for instance.
But tacking random amendments onto bills seems to be used as much (or more?) for pushing through unpopular legislation (by tacking it onto very important bills) as it is for stalling things. The process must make the legal code extremely difficult to follow as well, which is most definitely counter to protecting the rights of the average citizen.
It's not. Some people's retirement savings might have taken a hit, unless their pension funds were properly distributed among several companies.
Knight itself might have trouble getting customers.
I wonder though... do you suppose these companies patch their software regularly? If they do, shorting them the day before patch days might be an excellent investment.