The story will be that they were hoping that this one iPhone would provide clues on the theft of all 300 that were stolen. If it was one of the stolen batch then finding out how the purchasers obtained it could help the police to trace the thieves. Unfortunately it looks like Apple screwed up and marked an iPhone they sold normally as being one of the 300 stolen.
If the machine is part of a compute farm then its IP address is likely to be something like 10.X.Y.Z, i.e., in a Martian subnet, and of no use in determining the location of the hardware.
The ban only applies to the nVidia software that runs the hardware, and not to their hardware itself. Hardware is protected by the first sale doctrine (in the US at least) so nVidia can't control that. So people are free to write their own software to run nVidia GPUs in the data centre. Of course nVidia doesn't make doing that easy. The legal issues around that are similar to those addressed by "right to repair" legislation in other industries.
The article says they'll build an island close to the turbines. The turbines will generate AC and send it a short distance to the island. The island will convert the AC to DC for the long links to the mainland.
Given the extremely limited number of countries/companies offering launch services, I doubt any of them give you a refund if a launch fails.
The launch providers are still penalised for failure, even if their contract has no financial penalty. The insurance rates are set according to risk and every failure makes a provider seem riskier. This means that failures make providers less competitive in the market.
Whether it was Apple or Google who made the early iOS map app isn't really relevant though. That it worked well relied on quality map data and when Apple stopped using Google's data the quality became barely acceptable. Sure, Apple didn't have to worry about Google pulling an app, because the app was Apple's, but they still needed to worry about Google pulling the data.
Apple's map still feels bad enough that it seems very plausible that it's just an insurance policy against any future escalation of the Apple/Google rivalry.
I would expect that manufacturers would not want to use higher voltage batteries than the minimum necessary to power consumer electronics devices anyways
A lithium ion cell is around 3.6V but laptop batteries are often 10.8V, i.e., three cells in series. This is despite the fact that most of the power is dissipated at much lower voltages. The reason is that, inevitably, voltage conversion is required and DC-DC conversion always loses at least a fraction of a volt. 0.3V is a small penalty at 10.8V but a large one at 3.6V. Another issue is that lower voltages mean proportionately higher currents (amps) for the same power requirements and that mean very heavy-duty connectors and wires.
These "smart luggage" devices sound like they have high-power motors so they could easily be a higher voltage again compared to laptops. You could easily have phone batteries at 3.6V or 7.2V, laptops at 10.8V and luggage at 21.6V. The only way to make a fair comparison across all these device types is to use a unit of energy (like joules or watt-hours).
perhaps anything rated above a certain number of milliamp-hours?
You mean anything rated above a certain number of joules. Otherwise the's scope to just play with the voltage to skirt the regulations and using joules also levels the playing field amongst different battery chemistries.
The best thing about C++ is that you don't have to use all of it.
Unless you're working on other people's code, in which case you have to understand all the parts of the language they've used. And working on other people's code is the majority of programming work.
I'm arguing that ticking the box is a notice or a statement that indicates a preference based on race. You can tick a box that says don't show this ad to black people and that's the problem. You say:
The "notice, statement, or advertisement" must itself "indicate[] any preference, limitation, or discrimination
but I take issue with your use of the word "itself." That's nowhere in the code you cite and, anyway, there are two things going on here. The hypothetical landlord can say "Dear FaceBook: show this ad only to white folks" and provide the ad saying "I'm happy to rent this property to anyone". The advertisement is clearly fine, but the statement to FaceBook is in violation.
Which doesn't affect the ability of state and federal agencies, e.g., HUD, to penalise landlords in cases like this one. Even advocacy organisations like ProPublica can have standing to do this.
And if Facebook is offended by those statements, then they can sue. They would be the only valid claimant, since that is who they are making the statement to.
Just like, if you murder me, I'm the only one who can sue you for murder.
Or, maybe, the government has some kind of enforcement apparatus which will go after you. Maybe there's even a difference between civil and criminal law.
The law says "To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement". It doesn't just say "publish", it also says "make". It doesn't just say "advertisement" it also says "statement". So if I "make" a "statement" then that is covered by this law.
Because the law reads makes it illegal "to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement". The advertisement itself was fine, but ProPublic "made" a "statement" to Facebook that they wanted to discriminate, so that's illegal.
The advertisers made a statement that they wanted to discriminate. That's clearly a violation of the regulation. There's no requirement for the statement to be made to potential customers; making a statement to your advertiser is clearly covered. You could say to your wife "I don't want to rent our place out to any blacks" and that would be a violation too.
Just because the ad itself doesn't say "no blacks" is not enough. The advertisers said "no blacks" to Facebook and that's a "statement" that they "made" and so *is* a violation.
Downloading is different from streaming. There are plenty of services where it's legal to stream but not to download. Even watching digital TV over the air is the same as streaming and it's obviously perfectly legal to watch. How is watching a stream over the internet illegal if watching the same stream via radio waves is legal?
How can watching a stream be illegal for the consumer? Obviously peer-to-peer "streaming" can be since the consumer is also uploading the content. If we consider purely server-client streaming, isn't it only the server that's breaking the law and not the client? Yes, technically the client does have some form of local copy for caching/buffering purposes but so do many legal media systems, e.g., HTPCs with TV tuner cards, etc., so I doubt these count as copies for the purposes of copyright law.
Imagine a major broadcaster screwed up and transmitted content without the rights (I bet this happens sometimes). Could the rights-holder successfully sue a viewer for watching this content? If not, how is this different from illegal streaming services. Don't forget, major broadcasters often have their own watch-later streaming services which, from a technical perspective, work in exactly the same way as illegal streams.
The 100 is good but while it started out as science-fiction, it sort of derailed into a game of thrones clone.
The key to this is to have to plot arc planned from the beginning for all the seasons you plan to make, and then never make any more seasons after that. That's a huge strength of franchises like Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Babylon 5, etc. Shows where the writers just sit down at the beginning of each show or even at the beginning of each season and ask "what should we do now to keep the ratings up" inevitably lose direction the longer they run.
As for The 100, that was always going to be yet another post-apocalyptic survivors drama with a stronger-than-usual dash of science fiction. And the science was just terrible. Just for starters, the station was obviously in a low orbit but everyone landing on the ground landed in the same place, no matter how unplanned their descent.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what to say about the inconsistency of the conduct.
Searching for thieves who stole 300 iPhones is in a different league to chasing "several thousand dollars of property theft."
that authorized this for a single iPhone?
The story will be that they were hoping that this one iPhone would provide clues on the theft of all 300 that were stolen. If it was one of the stolen batch then finding out how the purchasers obtained it could help the police to trace the thieves. Unfortunately it looks like Apple screwed up and marked an iPhone they sold normally as being one of the 300 stolen.
Heinlein is talking about copying the ideas, not the text. Ideas aren't subject to copyright, only the words used to record them.
That's why we had a 47.3C day in a Sydney suburb just a few days ago. That's 117F. It was new for Sydney.
Get your IP address from the driver
If the machine is part of a compute farm then its IP address is likely to be something like 10.X.Y.Z, i.e., in a Martian subnet, and of no use in determining the location of the hardware.
The ban only applies to the nVidia software that runs the hardware, and not to their hardware itself. Hardware is protected by the first sale doctrine (in the US at least) so nVidia can't control that. So people are free to write their own software to run nVidia GPUs in the data centre. Of course nVidia doesn't make doing that easy. The legal issues around that are similar to those addressed by "right to repair" legislation in other industries.
it only works on microsoft windows
I seem to remember IE for MacOS.
The article says they'll build an island close to the turbines. The turbines will generate AC and send it a short distance to the island. The island will convert the AC to DC for the long links to the mainland.
Given the extremely limited number of countries/companies offering launch services, I doubt any of them give you a refund if a launch fails.
The launch providers are still penalised for failure, even if their contract has no financial penalty. The insurance rates are set according to risk and every failure makes a provider seem riskier. This means that failures make providers less competitive in the market.
Whether it was Apple or Google who made the early iOS map app isn't really relevant though. That it worked well relied on quality map data and when Apple stopped using Google's data the quality became barely acceptable. Sure, Apple didn't have to worry about Google pulling an app, because the app was Apple's, but they still needed to worry about Google pulling the data.
Apple's map still feels bad enough that it seems very plausible that it's just an insurance policy against any future escalation of the Apple/Google rivalry.
I would expect that manufacturers would not want to use higher voltage batteries than the minimum necessary to power consumer electronics devices anyways
A lithium ion cell is around 3.6V but laptop batteries are often 10.8V, i.e., three cells in series. This is despite the fact that most of the power is dissipated at much lower voltages. The reason is that, inevitably, voltage conversion is required and DC-DC conversion always loses at least a fraction of a volt. 0.3V is a small penalty at 10.8V but a large one at 3.6V. Another issue is that lower voltages mean proportionately higher currents (amps) for the same power requirements and that mean very heavy-duty connectors and wires.
These "smart luggage" devices sound like they have high-power motors so they could easily be a higher voltage again compared to laptops. You could easily have phone batteries at 3.6V or 7.2V, laptops at 10.8V and luggage at 21.6V. The only way to make a fair comparison across all these device types is to use a unit of energy (like joules or watt-hours).
perhaps anything rated above a certain number of milliamp-hours?
You mean anything rated above a certain number of joules. Otherwise the's scope to just play with the voltage to skirt the regulations and using joules also levels the playing field amongst different battery chemistries.
But that ban has nothing to do with their fear of lithium: it's because of the potential to replace some of the lithium with explosive.
The best thing about C++ is that you don't have to use all of it.
Unless you're working on other people's code, in which case you have to understand all the parts of the language they've used. And working on other people's code is the majority of programming work.
So, did you take it down? That seems likely to be the most satisfying way to teach them a lesson for their own stupidity.
I'm arguing that ticking the box is a notice or a statement that indicates a preference based on race. You can tick a box that says don't show this ad to black people and that's the problem. You say:
The "notice, statement, or advertisement" must itself "indicate[] any preference, limitation, or discrimination
but I take issue with your use of the word "itself." That's nowhere in the code you cite and, anyway, there are two things going on here. The hypothetical landlord can say "Dear FaceBook: show this ad only to white folks" and provide the ad saying "I'm happy to rent this property to anyone". The advertisement is clearly fine, but the statement to FaceBook is in violation.
Which doesn't affect the ability of state and federal agencies, e.g., HUD, to penalise landlords in cases like this one. Even advocacy organisations like ProPublica can have standing to do this.
And if Facebook is offended by those statements, then they can sue. They would be the only valid claimant, since that is who they are making the statement to.
Just like, if you murder me, I'm the only one who can sue you for murder.
Or, maybe, the government has some kind of enforcement apparatus which will go after you. Maybe there's even a difference between civil and criminal law.
The law says "To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement". It doesn't just say "publish", it also says "make". It doesn't just say "advertisement" it also says "statement". So if I "make" a "statement" then that is covered by this law.
Because the law reads makes it illegal "to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement". The advertisement itself was fine, but ProPublic "made" a "statement" to Facebook that they wanted to discriminate, so that's illegal.
The advertisers made a statement that they wanted to discriminate. That's clearly a violation of the regulation. There's no requirement for the statement to be made to potential customers; making a statement to your advertiser is clearly covered. You could say to your wife "I don't want to rent our place out to any blacks" and that would be a violation too.
Just because the ad itself doesn't say "no blacks" is not enough. The advertisers said "no blacks" to Facebook and that's a "statement" that they "made" and so *is* a violation.
Downloading is different from streaming. There are plenty of services where it's legal to stream but not to download. Even watching digital TV over the air is the same as streaming and it's obviously perfectly legal to watch. How is watching a stream over the internet illegal if watching the same stream via radio waves is legal?
Bittorrent (in this usage) is no less illegal,
How can watching a stream be illegal for the consumer? Obviously peer-to-peer "streaming" can be since the consumer is also uploading the content. If we consider purely server-client streaming, isn't it only the server that's breaking the law and not the client? Yes, technically the client does have some form of local copy for caching/buffering purposes but so do many legal media systems, e.g., HTPCs with TV tuner cards, etc., so I doubt these count as copies for the purposes of copyright law.
Imagine a major broadcaster screwed up and transmitted content without the rights (I bet this happens sometimes). Could the rights-holder successfully sue a viewer for watching this content? If not, how is this different from illegal streaming services. Don't forget, major broadcasters often have their own watch-later streaming services which, from a technical perspective, work in exactly the same way as illegal streams.
The 100 is good but while it started out as science-fiction, it sort of derailed into a game of thrones clone.
The key to this is to have to plot arc planned from the beginning for all the seasons you plan to make, and then never make any more seasons after that. That's a huge strength of franchises like Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Babylon 5, etc. Shows where the writers just sit down at the beginning of each show or even at the beginning of each season and ask "what should we do now to keep the ratings up" inevitably lose direction the longer they run.
As for The 100, that was always going to be yet another post-apocalyptic survivors drama with a stronger-than-usual dash of science fiction. And the science was just terrible. Just for starters, the station was obviously in a low orbit but everyone landing on the ground landed in the same place, no matter how unplanned their descent.