Yes, I saw that recently.. so it is the butt-dialing case...
I have a few Echo devices in my home... I do have to admit they often mistake unrelated things as wake words... Phrases with "relax" and "ask" in them seem to get confused quite often with "Alexa". We'll be talking at home and periodically Alexa will chime in with some kind of random bit, usually an error, but sometimes she'll start playing some random song.
I do wish Amazon would have some better choices for wake words to avoid false wakeup. I get that the wake has to be implemented in the device, which is hard, but they could also some longer phrase needed after wake to be accepted as a valid command.
Right now we have: "Amazon" and "Computer"- too likely in normal household conversation for technical people who shop at Amazon. Cute novelty but impractical. "echo" - too short at 2 syllables, I haven't tested but I assume it is easily confused with "I'll go" and similar "Alexa" - already having problems with this one.
I could see a simple fix being requiring everything to start with "Alexa please" let the hardware wake on the "alexa" and ignore anything that doesn't immediately follow with please in the processing. You could even make it a customizable add-on word, which would prevent the "TV commercial triggering Alexa" problem as you'd effectively have your own "password" after the wake word.
An Alexa device can make phone calls if set up for it, and they apparently had this person's phone number imported into their Alexa contacts, so they clearly had that feature configured.
So was this just a case of Alexa making a phone call, without "Daielle" being aware of it? If the call was to a google voice number or similar service, it would just recorded the unanswered call and emailed them. This case would be just a speech activated equivalent of butt-dialing, paired with a google-voice emailed voicemail twist.
Or was this a case where Amazon generated audio files and then emailed them to some random person out of the contact list?
I kind kind of understand how the first case could happen by accident, but still be disconcerting. However, the second case would be very disconcerting.
Given that Amazon is offering to de-provision the communications feature for them, I'm inclined to think this was a "butt dialing" incident, but I'd love to hear some actual details to confirm one way or the other. Clearly the title of the news article is designed to make you think it was the second case, where Alexa recorded the call, not google voice, but there's a lot of vagueness here that makes it unclear.
Interesting. My cable company puts up the same guide-box on the bottom of the screen every time I change channels, with the same, static header bar. I've had a Panasonic TH-42PX80U Plasma for 4 years (almost 5), with no burn-in issues. I play video games on it too.
I have the pixel-orbiter on, and I do use the screen wiper once a year or so, so that may be some help. Regardless, I find it strange that the box is up long enough to result in image retention. AFAIK, displaying the black box in the same spot frequently shouldn't matter unless it's up there a very large percentage of the time the set is used (i.e.: way more than 10% of the time.).
I know older sets are more vulnerable, but it doesn't sound like yours should be old enough to lack things like a pixel orbiter.
I couldn't agree more.. 65 feet seems really close, probably a bit on the unsafe side, and closer than needed for photography of the spill.
And let's face it, if you can't get a fantastic shot of something large (i.e.: a giant oil spill, not a flea) from 100 feet away, you're either badly equipped or lacking in talent. Getting closer will not help you much.
Of course, we're quick to assume this is impinging on freedom of the press, but the last thing we need is some idiot reporter getting his boat hung up in the boom and damaging it because he was 5' away and a big wave pushed his boat into it.
Agreed, light-pipe type skylights are not new, I have 2 solatubes in my home.
It looks like the big difference with this device is the collection head. Rather than a fixed dome with prism ridges in ti acting as reflector, this new device has an moving sun-tracking parabolic reflector. Looking at it, there's a small photovoltaic cell on the center of the reflector, which presumably powers the motors that make the reflector move to track the sun.
Of course, sun-tracking systems aren't new either, but they're mostly used in power generation systems. I've not seen a sun-tracker applied to a light pipe before.
The parabolic reflector is also not new, but also I've not seen it applied to a light pipe before. It has a much larger solar collection area than your standard dome, so it should bring a lot more light into the tube, at least as long as it stays aimed at the sun. Without a tracking system, this head would produce a lot of light at its peak, and very little light the rest of the day. Domes provide mediocre peak collection, but sustain that mediocre performance across most of the day without any kind of re-aiming, making them effective enough to be useful and cheap.
It would be interesting to see how the extra cost of the sun-tracking head compares to the cost of just installing enough additional dome-head collectors to get the same light output.
True the architect has no rights over the building, but he didn't create that, he created a design and drawings used to create the building from. The question is does he have rights over the drawings? (i.e.: can he use them again, selling to another client because he retained ownership and licensed you a copy, or can he not, because he transferred the ownership of the design to you?). Most don't transfer the copyright of the design to you (ie: you can't make more copies of the drawings and sell them, but he can).
Another common example that exists in the real world is professional photography. You hire a photographer to take pictures at a wedding, paying him for his time to do so. However, you don't own the rights to the photographs he's taken. You can buy copies from him, but he still owns the copyright. As a result, you cannot legally make more copies of those photographs. Photographers generally want additional fees to transfer the copyright of a photo, because it means: 1) you can get copies made elsewhere cutting them out of that profit stream and 2) they can't use it in their portfolio of existing work they show to potential new customers.
Most software consulting is done on a "non-exclusive, unlimited royalty-free license" basis. You have unlimited use of the source code created for you, and the programmer generally retains rights to use that code again in other projects. Most programmers have a lot of "stock code" they've already written, and grab chunks of it to throw into their projects so they're not constantly reinventing the wheel for simple stuff. Some of the new code they write for you is likely to end up as snippets added to that collection. Take a snippet, leave a snippet.
You can set up contracts that transfer 100% ownership, but that's going to increase their billed hours and your cost (because they won't be able to use any of their existing snippets and must create everything from scratch). But if that's what you want, most are willing to set that up. However, most customers want a lower cost so the typical consult is not written up that way.
The moral of the story is, if you want specific terms, make sure they're in the contract you sign.
Well, statisical significance depends a lot on sample size. You can't just say 60% isn't significant relative to the 50% chance of random guessing without knowing how many tests they did.
A 1% deviation from random can be significant if the number of data points measured are absurdly large. ie: if 10 million coin flips come up 51% heads, you have a statistically significant difference, because that 1% still represents a LOT of extra tests that came up heads. However, getting 51% heads in 100 tests isn't significant, because it's only 1 extra head. For that matter, 100% of 2 tests is also insignificant, despite the huge deviation from the norm, the sample size is too small to mean anything.
Looking at the study they do appear to have p values in the statistics in the study.
For "study 2" they quote: [M =.62, SD =.12; t(23) = 4.91, p.001, r =.72] a
With that p, it seems pretty significant. (unless they fudged the p.. I couldn't find their sample size.).
Do you see anything in those numbers to suggest otherwise?
The issue is that the network is oversold to the point of instability, and it seems to be affecting their entire network.
I've had Cingular/AT&T for 5 years now, and I never had any noticeable calling problems up until this year. Over the past 3 months I've had numerous dropped calls and bad reception problems while talking on the phone (handfree, yes this is legal in my state) on the way home from work. This is the same route I've been driving for all 5 years.
I wouldn't be too surprised to have problems in places I've never tried before, but in the same places I've always used my phone in? There's only a few possible causes there.. Overload, hardware failure, and botched reconfiguration are what pop to my mind. Given that we know bandwidth use is rising, and AT&T is cutting back on large equipment purchases, I strongly suspect overload.
Verizon will send you a SIM for your jail-broken iPhone??? Really? Do you know anyone that has done this?
All US versions of the iPhone are GSM / HSDPA based devices, and Verizon's network is CDMA / EVDO. These are fundamentally *VERY* different technologies, and the radio for one can't be re-used on the other. The iPhone can't be used on the Verizon network, regardless of what you do with the SIM, because it has the wrong radio.
There is a CDMA based iPhone out there, but it is designed to work in China and uses differet frequencies than Verizon does (and it doesn't have the right hardware to support the US frequencies, so this can't used either).
Now, t-mobile is another story, their network is GSM based... but Verizon is a no-go without a completely different radio system in the phone. (ie: a new, different model of iPhone is required.)
Well, that's the thing about antitrust. It doesn't really matter what you've told the customer, or what the customer has agreed to. Not telling consumers would be fraud. Antitrust is all about preventing a competitive market.
i.e.: if multiple manufacturers agree to a price-fixing arrangement for some product to raise prices across the market, it doesn't matter what they tell the consumers. They are still illegally colluding to prevent competition in a market.
However, I don't clearly see how this kind of market-impairment argument is likely to succeed in this case. It all boils down to:
Does Apple have the right to modify a product in a way that makes it only operate on one carrier that they have an agreement with, when those modifications serve no other purpose beyond carrier lock-out?
Clearly this does have an impact on competition in the wireless market, but is it a big enough impact to claim that it's restraining trade? Maybe, but it seems a bit of a stretch. These laws are primarily intended to prevent agreements that end up broadly rigging the market, not exclusivity agreements.
Fair enough, I wasn't really discussing the validity of the case, I was merely pointing out you don't need a monopoly to create an anti-trust lawsuit.
However, this does go beyond just an exclusive distribution arrangement. Here you're locking a product, which by design can be used on any GSM cellular network, and limiting it's use by the consumer to a specific carrier.
This would be equivalent to a music CD that has features intentionally added so it can only be played on Toshiba CD players, despite the fact that the disc is otherwise redbook compatible.
Your distribution example limits where a consumer can buy a product, but the reality here is they're also limiting where a consumer can use the product as well.
I still don't think it's likely to prevail, but it is a bit less simple than distribution.
And while this cell-carrier agreements are common, that doesn't mean they're unquestionably legal.
Minor Nit-pick: the iPhone only has 13.7% of the global smartphone market, however the iPhone has a much higher market share in the North America 23.3% (both figures are q2, 2009 canalsys). Since this is a US suit, NA numbers matter more.
That said, RIM still has more market share in the US, and Nokia has more globally.
However, market share doesn't really matter here.
Section 1 of the Sherman anti-trust act is about agreements that unfairly restrain trade at an inter-state level. You do not have to be a monopoly to violate that section. I strongly expect they're trying to pin Apple and AT&T with drafting an agreement that unfairly restrains trade by preventing buyers of the phone from switching carriers.
Section 2 is all about monopolies, but that section is not the only kind of violation covered under the Sherman anti-trust act.
Memory implants, to prevent you from remembering exactly what you've seen. This protects the MPAA from you possibly describing, or heaven forbid, pantomiming their protected content to another person who has not yet paid for it. It further protects them from you replaying the previously viewed material to yourself in your mind, which would be an unpaid reproduction...
3 years? Heck, I'm impressed if they last for more than 3 months these days.
So much of the printer market has collapsed into the black-hole of making extraordinarily low cost devices. Even a lot of the higher-end business market seems to be affected. We have a leased "high end", major brand (I'm not naming names), 60ppm multifunction laser, 14+ ream capacity, etc.It was new when installed 1 year ago and we've had to have factory techs out here repairing mechanical failures twice this year. Fortunately, it's leased so the service is covered, but still...
It's really sad when printers are having a hard time lasting longer than their consumables, but it seems to be the case now days. Sad, Sad, Sad.
Yes, but the manufacturing of felt cloth probably hasn't changed in 25 years (or more).
Manufacturing is one of those areas were you see a lot of really obsolete systems in use, because the machines they control are able to last for many decades with a little maintenance. The job never changes, the machine never changes, what does a new computer buy you? A faster processor won't change how fast the motors of the machine turn, so it only buys you reliability.
Upgrading the control computer of a manufacturing system to a new platform is not a simple endeavor. That's not just a quick "buy a new Windows machine and install the software" type job that costs around $1-2k including labor. In many cases you'll end up reverse engineering the entire controls system and writing new software from scratch (with no documentation). Ugly, expensive, and a lot of downtime for the overall system. (we're probably talking $200k or more here.)
Of course, running with the old platform risks downtime, but it's by far cheaper to track down spare parts on ebay and stockpile em. A small, low margin, MFG plant for basic commodity goods generally can't afford to spend $200k to replace a working computer system with a different one. Yes that $200k gets you a new computer, which reduces your risk of computer hardware failure, but that's a heavy investment for little gain.
It's by far cheaper for them to farm ebay for spare parts and stockpile them. When they can't get more parts, then invest a million or so in replacing the whole setup, getting new machinery, computer, and upgrading production speed and/or quality in the process.
Actually, I would propose that it's not just failure to tell the difference between fantasy and reality (ie: accepting fantasy as reality), but general failure to draw the lines at the appropriate spots.
I've often seen real facts treated like fantasy. Probably just as often as fantasy being treated like reality.
I agree entirely, for plans with bandwidth caps. 3gb is 3gb, tethered or not.
However, AT&T's iphone data plan is "unlimited", but you know they're giving you that under the expectation there's only so much data one iphone can consume. However, an iphone with a laptop in tether can collectively consume *much* more data.
It's like trying to go to an all-you-can-eat buffet and feeding two people off one plate. That plan is intended to be charged per consumer of food, not per plate. However, there's nothing overtly wrong with buying one steak at a fixed-price restaurant and splitting it (they may frown on it, but you're not directly cheating them).
It's really unfortunate that the AT&T iphone plan is an unlimited one. This forces them to put pressure on Apple to ban bandwidth-intensive iphone apps, tethering, etc. If they had caps, then they'd not have this problem.
I'd agree. Auditors are not a be-all end-all. It is not the auditors job to detect all unknowns about your company, they go on what you provide them, and the amount of digging they do beyond that is modest. Deep digging is the job of your staff, not auditors.
However, I do think there should be liability for items clearly in-scope.
For example, if I hire an auditor to audit me for PCI-DSS, I expect they will at least review all of the basic requirements of that standard. If an auditor blatantly neglects to investigate or even mention an item spelled out in the standard, they've fraudulently issued that certification. ie: if a PCI-DSS auditor never even asked if the network has firewalls, and just assumed it did, that's the auditor being negligent. Auditors are there to ask questions, review the answers and verify compliance, not make assumptions.
But baring clear and substantial negligence by the auditor... Good luck with that.
Well, it's hardly clear cut to call the 4830 higher performing.
The 4830 may have slightly better memory performance, but the higher core clock gives the 4770 higher processing performance. Also, quite a lot of the detriment of 128bit memory is made up for by much higher effective clockrates on the 4770's GDDR5 memory. You really can't look at bus width alone, bandwidth is a better measure.
in general, the 4770 vs the 4830 has:
29.7% more FLOPS (960 vs 740 GFLOPS) 11.1% less memory bandwidth ( 51.2 vs 57.6 GB/sec)
The 4770 also consumes less power, thus makes less heat (80w vs 110w), but that might not be a problem for you.
Which will be more critical (memory vs processing) depends a LOT on the game being played. I suspect the 4830 will win out in heavily texture-loaded environments, and the 4770 will win out in shader-intensive environments.
I'd have to suspect that the case being referred to is:
NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 312 U. S. 359 (1941)
This case basically established the way sales taxes for "out of state" orders are handled now. (taxes collected if any in-state branch exists, otherwise not)
This law would appear to contradict the interpretation of constitutional limits on the power of states made in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I saw that recently.. so it is the butt-dialing case...
I have a few Echo devices in my home... I do have to admit they often mistake unrelated things as wake words... Phrases with "relax" and "ask" in them seem to get confused quite often with "Alexa". We'll be talking at home and periodically Alexa will chime in with some kind of random bit, usually an error, but sometimes she'll start playing some random song.
I do wish Amazon would have some better choices for wake words to avoid false wakeup. I get that the wake has to be implemented in the device, which is hard, but they could also some longer phrase needed after wake to be accepted as a valid command.
Right now we have:
"Amazon" and "Computer"- too likely in normal household conversation for technical people who shop at Amazon. Cute novelty but impractical.
"echo" - too short at 2 syllables, I haven't tested but I assume it is easily confused with "I'll go" and similar
"Alexa" - already having problems with this one.
I could see a simple fix being requiring everything to start with "Alexa please" let the hardware wake on the "alexa" and ignore anything that doesn't immediately follow with please in the processing. You could even make it a customizable add-on word, which would prevent the "TV commercial triggering Alexa" problem as you'd effectively have your own "password" after the wake word.
Part of me wonders what really happened here...
An Alexa device can make phone calls if set up for it, and they apparently had this person's phone number imported into their Alexa contacts, so they clearly had that feature configured.
So was this just a case of Alexa making a phone call, without "Daielle" being aware of it? If the call was to a google voice number or similar service, it would just recorded the unanswered call and emailed them. This case would be just a speech activated equivalent of butt-dialing, paired with a google-voice emailed voicemail twist.
Or was this a case where Amazon generated audio files and then emailed them to some random person out of the contact list?
I kind kind of understand how the first case could happen by accident, but still be disconcerting. However, the second case would be very disconcerting.
Given that Amazon is offering to de-provision the communications feature for them, I'm inclined to think this was a "butt dialing" incident, but I'd love to hear some actual details to confirm one way or the other. Clearly the title of the news article is designed to make you think it was the second case, where Alexa recorded the call, not google voice, but there's a lot of vagueness here that makes it unclear.
Interesting. My cable company puts up the same guide-box on the bottom of the screen every time I change channels, with the same, static header bar. I've had a Panasonic TH-42PX80U Plasma for 4 years (almost 5), with no burn-in issues. I play video games on it too.
I have the pixel-orbiter on, and I do use the screen wiper once a year or so, so that may be some help. Regardless, I find it strange that the box is up long enough to result in image retention. AFAIK, displaying the black box in the same spot frequently shouldn't matter unless it's up there a very large percentage of the time the set is used (i.e.: way more than 10% of the time.).
I know older sets are more vulnerable, but it doesn't sound like yours should be old enough to lack things like a pixel orbiter.
I couldn't agree more.. 65 feet seems really close, probably a bit on the unsafe side, and closer than needed for photography of the spill.
And let's face it, if you can't get a fantastic shot of something large (i.e.: a giant oil spill, not a flea) from 100 feet away, you're either badly equipped or lacking in talent. Getting closer will not help you much.
Of course, we're quick to assume this is impinging on freedom of the press, but the last thing we need is some idiot reporter getting his boat hung up in the boom and damaging it because he was 5' away and a big wave pushed his boat into it.
Agreed, light-pipe type skylights are not new, I have 2 solatubes in my home.
It looks like the big difference with this device is the collection head. Rather than a fixed dome with prism ridges in ti acting as reflector, this new device has an moving sun-tracking parabolic reflector. Looking at it, there's a small photovoltaic cell on the center of the reflector, which presumably powers the motors that make the reflector move to track the sun.
Of course, sun-tracking systems aren't new either, but they're mostly used in power generation systems. I've not seen a sun-tracker applied to a light pipe before.
The parabolic reflector is also not new, but also I've not seen it applied to a light pipe before. It has a much larger solar collection area than your standard dome, so it should bring a lot more light into the tube, at least as long as it stays aimed at the sun. Without a tracking system, this head would produce a lot of light at its peak, and very little light the rest of the day. Domes provide mediocre peak collection, but sustain that mediocre performance across most of the day without any kind of re-aiming, making them effective enough to be useful and cheap.
It would be interesting to see how the extra cost of the sun-tracking head compares to the cost of just installing enough additional dome-head collectors to get the same light output.
True the architect has no rights over the building, but he didn't create that, he created a design and drawings used to create the building from. The question is does he have rights over the drawings? (i.e.: can he use them again, selling to another client because he retained ownership and licensed you a copy, or can he not, because he transferred the ownership of the design to you?). Most don't transfer the copyright of the design to you (ie: you can't make more copies of the drawings and sell them, but he can).
Another common example that exists in the real world is professional photography. You hire a photographer to take pictures at a wedding, paying him for his time to do so. However, you don't own the rights to the photographs he's taken. You can buy copies from him, but he still owns the copyright. As a result, you cannot legally make more copies of those photographs. Photographers generally want additional fees to transfer the copyright of a photo, because it means: 1) you can get copies made elsewhere cutting them out of that profit stream and 2) they can't use it in their portfolio of existing work they show to potential new customers.
Most software consulting is done on a "non-exclusive, unlimited royalty-free license" basis. You have unlimited use of the source code created for you, and the programmer generally retains rights to use that code again in other projects. Most programmers have a lot of "stock code" they've already written, and grab chunks of it to throw into their projects so they're not constantly reinventing the wheel for simple stuff. Some of the new code they write for you is likely to end up as snippets added to that collection. Take a snippet, leave a snippet.
You can set up contracts that transfer 100% ownership, but that's going to increase their billed hours and your cost (because they won't be able to use any of their existing snippets and must create everything from scratch). But if that's what you want, most are willing to set that up. However, most customers want a lower cost so the typical consult is not written up that way.
The moral of the story is, if you want specific terms, make sure they're in the contract you sign.
Well, statisical significance depends a lot on sample size. You can't just say 60% isn't significant relative to the 50% chance of random guessing without knowing how many tests they did.
A 1% deviation from random can be significant if the number of data points measured are absurdly large. ie: if 10 million coin flips come up 51% heads, you have a statistically significant difference, because that 1% still represents a LOT of extra tests that came up heads. However, getting 51% heads in 100 tests isn't significant, because it's only 1 extra head. For that matter, 100% of 2 tests is also insignificant, despite the huge deviation from the norm, the sample size is too small to mean anything.
Looking at the study they do appear to have p values in the statistics in the study.
For "study 2" they quote: .62, SD = .12; t(23) = 4.91, p.001, r = .72] a
[M =
With that p, it seems pretty significant. (unless they fudged the p.. I couldn't find their sample size.).
Do you see anything in those numbers to suggest otherwise?
check your print screen button.
The issue is that the network is oversold to the point of instability, and it seems to be affecting their entire network.
I've had Cingular/AT&T for 5 years now, and I never had any noticeable calling problems up until this year. Over the past 3 months I've had numerous dropped calls and bad reception problems while talking on the phone (handfree, yes this is legal in my state) on the way home from work. This is the same route I've been driving for all 5 years.
I wouldn't be too surprised to have problems in places I've never tried before, but in the same places I've always used my phone in? There's only a few possible causes there.. Overload, hardware failure, and botched reconfiguration are what pop to my mind. Given that we know bandwidth use is rising, and AT&T is cutting back on large equipment purchases, I strongly suspect overload.
Verizon will send you a SIM for your jail-broken iPhone??? Really? Do you know anyone that has done this?
All US versions of the iPhone are GSM / HSDPA based devices, and Verizon's network is CDMA / EVDO. These are fundamentally *VERY* different technologies, and the radio for one can't be re-used on the other. The iPhone can't be used on the Verizon network, regardless of what you do with the SIM, because it has the wrong radio.
There is a CDMA based iPhone out there, but it is designed to work in China and uses differet frequencies than Verizon does (and it doesn't have the right hardware to support the US frequencies, so this can't used either).
Now, t-mobile is another story, their network is GSM based... but Verizon is a no-go without a completely different radio system in the phone. (ie: a new, different model of iPhone is required.)
Well, that's the thing about antitrust. It doesn't really matter what you've told the customer, or what the customer has agreed to. Not telling consumers would be fraud. Antitrust is all about preventing a competitive market.
i.e.: if multiple manufacturers agree to a price-fixing arrangement for some product to raise prices across the market, it doesn't matter what they tell the consumers. They are still illegally colluding to prevent competition in a market.
However, I don't clearly see how this kind of market-impairment argument is likely to succeed in this case. It all boils down to:
Does Apple have the right to modify a product in a way that makes it only operate on one carrier that they have an agreement with, when those modifications serve no other purpose beyond carrier lock-out?
Clearly this does have an impact on competition in the wireless market, but is it a big enough impact to claim that it's restraining trade? Maybe, but it seems a bit of a stretch. These laws are primarily intended to prevent agreements that end up broadly rigging the market, not exclusivity agreements.
Fair enough, I wasn't really discussing the validity of the case, I was merely pointing out you don't need a monopoly to create an anti-trust lawsuit.
However, this does go beyond just an exclusive distribution arrangement. Here you're locking a product, which by design can be used on any GSM cellular network, and limiting it's use by the consumer to a specific carrier.
This would be equivalent to a music CD that has features intentionally added so it can only be played on Toshiba CD players, despite the fact that the disc is otherwise redbook compatible.
Your distribution example limits where a consumer can buy a product, but the reality here is they're also limiting where a consumer can use the product as well.
I still don't think it's likely to prevail, but it is a bit less simple than distribution.
And while this cell-carrier agreements are common, that doesn't mean they're unquestionably legal.
Minor Nit-pick: the iPhone only has 13.7% of the global smartphone market, however the iPhone has a much higher market share in the North America 23.3% (both figures are q2, 2009 canalsys). Since this is a US suit, NA numbers matter more.
That said, RIM still has more market share in the US, and Nokia has more globally.
However, market share doesn't really matter here.
Section 1 of the Sherman anti-trust act is about agreements that unfairly restrain trade at an inter-state level. You do not have to be a monopoly to violate that section. I strongly expect they're trying to pin Apple and AT&T with drafting an agreement that unfairly restrains trade by preventing buyers of the phone from switching carriers.
Section 2 is all about monopolies, but that section is not the only kind of violation covered under the Sherman anti-trust act.
Memory implants, to prevent you from remembering exactly what you've seen. This protects the MPAA from you possibly describing, or heaven forbid, pantomiming their protected content to another person who has not yet paid for it. It further protects them from you replaying the previously viewed material to yourself in your mind, which would be an unpaid reproduction...
3 years? Heck, I'm impressed if they last for more than 3 months these days.
So much of the printer market has collapsed into the black-hole of making extraordinarily low cost devices. Even a lot of the higher-end business market seems to be affected. We have a leased "high end", major brand (I'm not naming names), 60ppm multifunction laser, 14+ ream capacity, etc.It was new when installed 1 year ago and we've had to have factory techs out here repairing mechanical failures twice this year. Fortunately, it's leased so the service is covered, but still...
It's really sad when printers are having a hard time lasting longer than their consumables, but it seems to be the case now days. Sad, Sad, Sad.
You mean like the Rocketfish toslink cable with 24k gold plated connectors..
Yeah, they have those too:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7832223&type=product&id=1142297086861
"24K gold-plated connectors for corrosion resistance and enhanced signal transfer"
Brilliant.
Yes, but the manufacturing of felt cloth probably hasn't changed in 25 years (or more).
Manufacturing is one of those areas were you see a lot of really obsolete systems in use, because the machines they control are able to last for many decades with a little maintenance. The job never changes, the machine never changes, what does a new computer buy you? A faster processor won't change how fast the motors of the machine turn, so it only buys you reliability.
Upgrading the control computer of a manufacturing system to a new platform is not a simple endeavor. That's not just a quick "buy a new Windows machine and install the software" type job that costs around $1-2k including labor. In many cases you'll end up reverse engineering the entire controls system and writing new software from scratch (with no documentation). Ugly, expensive, and a lot of downtime for the overall system. (we're probably talking $200k or more here.)
Of course, running with the old platform risks downtime, but it's by far cheaper to track down spare parts on ebay and stockpile em. A small, low margin, MFG plant for basic commodity goods generally can't afford to spend $200k to replace a working computer system with a different one. Yes that $200k gets you a new computer, which reduces your risk of computer hardware failure, but that's a heavy investment for little gain.
It's by far cheaper for them to farm ebay for spare parts and stockpile them. When they can't get more parts, then invest a million or so in replacing the whole setup, getting new machinery, computer, and upgrading production speed and/or quality in the process.
Actually, I would propose that it's not just failure to tell the difference between fantasy and reality (ie: accepting fantasy as reality), but general failure to draw the lines at the appropriate spots.
I've often seen real facts treated like fantasy. Probably just as often as fantasy being treated like reality.
Heh, the average American believes the only use for the word "smitten" is as a synonym for lovestruck, and you expect /. to get the grammar right?
Good luck.
I agree entirely, for plans with bandwidth caps. 3gb is 3gb, tethered or not.
However, AT&T's iphone data plan is "unlimited", but you know they're giving you that under the expectation there's only so much data one iphone can consume. However, an iphone with a laptop in tether can collectively consume *much* more data.
It's like trying to go to an all-you-can-eat buffet and feeding two people off one plate. That plan is intended to be charged per consumer of food, not per plate. However, there's nothing overtly wrong with buying one steak at a fixed-price restaurant and splitting it (they may frown on it, but you're not directly cheating them).
It's really unfortunate that the AT&T iphone plan is an unlimited one. This forces them to put pressure on Apple to ban bandwidth-intensive iphone apps, tethering, etc. If they had caps, then they'd not have this problem.
I'd agree. Auditors are not a be-all end-all. It is not the auditors job to detect all unknowns about your company, they go on what you provide them, and the amount of digging they do beyond that is modest. Deep digging is the job of your staff, not auditors.
However, I do think there should be liability for items clearly in-scope.
For example, if I hire an auditor to audit me for PCI-DSS, I expect they will at least review all of the basic requirements of that standard. If an auditor blatantly neglects to investigate or even mention an item spelled out in the standard, they've fraudulently issued that certification. ie: if a PCI-DSS auditor never even asked if the network has firewalls, and just assumed it did, that's the auditor being negligent. Auditors are there to ask questions, review the answers and verify compliance, not make assumptions.
But baring clear and substantial negligence by the auditor... Good luck with that.
Well, it's hardly clear cut to call the 4830 higher performing.
The 4830 may have slightly better memory performance, but the higher core clock gives the 4770 higher processing performance. Also, quite a lot of the detriment of 128bit memory is made up for by much higher effective clockrates on the 4770's GDDR5 memory. You really can't look at bus width alone, bandwidth is a better measure.
in general, the 4770 vs the 4830 has:
29.7% more FLOPS (960 vs 740 GFLOPS)
11.1% less memory bandwidth ( 51.2 vs 57.6 GB/sec)
The 4770 also consumes less power, thus makes less heat (80w vs 110w), but that might not be a problem for you.
Which will be more critical (memory vs processing) depends a LOT on the game being played. I suspect the 4830 will win out in heavily texture-loaded environments, and the 4770 will win out in shader-intensive environments.
I'd have to suspect that the case being referred to is:
NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 312 U. S. 359 (1941)
This case basically established the way sales taxes for "out of state" orders are handled now. (taxes collected if any in-state branch exists, otherwise not)
This law would appear to contradict the interpretation of constitutional limits on the power of states made in this case.
You Fool!!! You have betrayed us all!!
What about the other 17 different definitions for "forward"?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forward&x=0&y=0
Face it, the English language (as well as most others) is wildly inexact.