What is the difference between unvested stock and normal stock, if I may ask?
Vested stock is stock that you keep if you leave the company. Unvested stock is stock that you lose if you leave.
Usually, on joining a startup company, employees will get a grant of stock (or more likely stock options), with a vesting schedule. Commonly, nothing vests until the first anniversary of starting work at the company, when 25% of the granted stock vest. Then the rest will vest over the remaining 3 years on a monthly basis.
Microsoft isn't making big money on those lawsuits. Mainly they are attempting to make sure there is space for the Windows 8 mobile,
So that makes it OK to use a bunch of BS about bogus and vague patents (which they won't actually list) against a competitor? Microsoft gets a free pass because they are just "making space"?
I'm sorry, but that is just apologist talk. Go read the website that you pointed out. Most of that the changes they want are just protection from patent trolls. There is little that would change Microsoft's ability to utilize its patent portfolio offensively.
think we are close to serious patent reform which is going to be good for everyone. Everyone agrees the system is broken and everyone agrees there are insane patents.
Unfortunately, I believe you are deluding yourself. Lots of large companies (eg. Microsoft and Apple) display no sign of agreeing that the system is broken.
Oh, same deal if you want to deposit your check. If you can't find your own bank branch, you're going to be learning their bank-by-mail process.
Credit unions have networks of ATMs these days. You can just deposit your checks/cheques in a nearby ATM that is in your credit union's network. I expect that they will have apps that allow you to deposit via your smartphone soon.
Again, more unneccessary complexity. What if you need to boot the system off a CD/DVD? You have additonal steps before you can mount and change files on the drive. Just make your root filesystem 40GB and move on.
Even with LVM, you still have to find that extra space when you add it -- why not just allocate it all at once, shared between/,/bin/lib,/usr etc..
One reason for separating out/var and/tmp at least was so that if some jackass^Wuser trampled all over/tmp (dd if=/dev/random of=/tmp/what_fun bs=10240 count=1000000), that didn't stop the system from logging to/var.
That's why you have reserved blocks in any filesystem that users can write to. Much simpler than a separate filesystem.
IMHO, you are just making things more difficult for yourself. The combination of everything except/home is so small these days (in comparison to a typical HD) that there is no reason to separate these out to individual partitions. With your solution, you either waste space, or risk making one of the partitons too small for future needs. Alternatively, by have the "extra" space shared between all these directories, your chance of making that mistake is lower.
Given the size of today's HDs, what value is there in your scheme (apart from putting user files into a separate partition)?
I don't make/home a separate partiton -- I have a/export partiton and/home is controlled by the automounter -- much more flexible./home can then be a mixture of locally-mounted and network directories, etc.
And anyway, even your result is slower than the iPhone 4S.
Insignificantly. I just turned off plug-ins, cleared the cache re-ran and got a score of 85210. That's the T-Mobile variant with the 1.5GHz processor. Frankly, the browsemark scores vary so much on my phone that it doesn't seem to be a reliable benchmark. Perhaps the difference was simply due to the website selecting a result that was good on the iPhone and bad on the SGS2?
And, he did not have plug-ins turned off on the SGS2: you can see one of the tests running that uses flash. So, it's not even an apples-to-apples comparison.
some are comparable with the iPhone 4 and it's upcoming releases will be comparable with the 4S.
The Galaxy S2 has been out for some time outside the USA and is available now in the USA. Spec wise it surpasses the iPhone 4S. So, it isn't a matter of leapfrogging, but Apple catching up (almost).
Even the call icon on the Prada looks very similar to the icon that Apple is claiming that Samsung copied. It isn't green, but making it green is an obvious change since the call/send buttons on just about every dumb phone ever made are green.
The problem with these things is that Thunderbolt is almost here for everyone else (not just Macs), and with SSDs getting less expensive all the time, I think I'd rather wait for a Thunderbolt-connected version for the sake of future-proofing
How is Thunderbolt going to provide a N[etwork]AS?
Been a military doctrine to "burn any fuel you can find" for longer than I've been alive. This results in certain legendary efficiency and volumetric power output issues over the past few decades, like the HMMVW that gets like 5 MPG and only pulls 150 horsepower out of something like a 10 liter engine, BUT, very importantly, if it burns, you can put it in the tank and drive off.
The problem with that approach is that the supply chain has to be capable of delivering 3x (?) the amount of fuel that a more efficient vehicle would use, and it reduces the effective range of the vehicles. That adds risk. You might never need to put some low cost, locally produced fuel in the tank, if you did not consume so much fuel.
The contents aren't encrypted at each node, just in between. So you have to trust your email provider and every node on the chain
But what do you mean by "every node"? If you mean every router , then you are wrong, Email is encrypted on the paths between email servers. You have to trust the email servers. Later, users may then download the email over a non-encrypted session, which destroys the point of using SSL when the email is transmitted between mail servers.
Proving intent is the problem. Can the DA prove the Gizmodo knew that they were breaking the law and that they planned to cover their tracks by going with a "purchasing the story" defense. If Gizmodo had pre-planned it and the left evidence, it is far easier to convict.
As I mentioned before, don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. I already pointed out that the "purchasing the story" question was irrelevant because the crime is receiving stolen property. Intent isn't required. What needs to be proven are 3 facts: That the article was stolen, that the recipient knew it was stolen and that the recipient did receive the article. See intent in that list? See anything about buying the article? So, as I pointed out earlier, the "purchasing the story" defense is no defense.
Since when? So when mobsters had their cases dropped because witnesses mysteriously disappeared, the DAs in those cases were in the wrong?
A witness disappeared in this case? That's news to me and everyone else. As for "purchasing the story", how did they end up with the phone? The offence is "receiving stolen property", not "buying stolen property", and the only question is whether they knew it was stolen. Since Gizmodo published the whole story of how they got the phone, proving knowledge is not going to be difficult.
It turns out that prosecutors concluded that neither Chen nor Gizmodo did anything wrong after all. Legally, that is. Speaking to CNET.com earlier this week, San Mateo County District Attorney Steven Wagstaffe said that there was not sufficient evidence to charge anyone associated with the tech site with "possession of stolen property" or "extortion."
There is a difference in the DA not having enough evidence to proceed further and the Gizmodo not doing anything wrong. There are many cases where the DA has to drop the case for lack of evidence.
For the DA, saying "lack of evidence" is an easy way to avoid admitting that he was in the wrong. There is no doubt that the Gizmodo editors had the phone, and that they bought it. They knew how the seller got it. What possible more evidence is required?
That was the first time in most of our lifetimes that neither of those parties achieved an absolute majority and formed an administration unilaterally.
Slashdot Mirror
Vested stock is stock that you keep if you leave the company. Unvested stock is stock that you lose if you leave.
Usually, on joining a startup company, employees will get a grant of stock (or more likely stock options), with a vesting schedule. Commonly, nothing vests until the first anniversary of starting work at the company, when 25% of the granted stock vest. Then the rest will vest over the remaining 3 years on a monthly basis.
No, both articles clearly refer to losing only unvested stock, even if fired.
So that makes it OK to use a bunch of BS about bogus and vague patents (which they won't actually list) against a competitor? Microsoft gets a free pass because they are just "making space"?
I'm sorry, but that is just apologist talk. Go read the website that you pointed out. Most of that the changes they want are just protection from patent trolls. There is little that would change Microsoft's ability to utilize its patent portfolio offensively.
Unfortunately, I believe you are deluding yourself. Lots of large companies (eg. Microsoft and Apple) display no sign of agreeing that the system is broken.
Credit unions have networks of ATMs these days. You can just deposit your checks/cheques in a nearby ATM that is in your credit union's network. I expect that they will have apps that allow you to deposit via your smartphone soon.
Again, more unneccessary complexity. What if you need to boot the system off a CD/DVD? You have additonal steps before you can mount and change files on the drive. Just make your root filesystem 40GB and move on.
/, /bin /lib, /usr etc..
Even with LVM, you still have to find that extra space when you add it -- why not just allocate it all at once, shared between
That's why you have reserved blocks in any filesystem that users can write to. Much simpler than a separate filesystem.
IMHO, you are just making things more difficult for yourself. The combination of everything except /home is so small these days (in comparison to a typical HD) that there is no reason to separate these out to individual partitions. With your solution, you either waste space, or risk making one of the partitons too small for future needs. Alternatively, by have the "extra" space shared between all these directories, your chance of making that mistake is lower.
Given the size of today's HDs, what value is there in your scheme (apart from putting user files into a separate partition)?
I don't make /home a separate partiton -- I have a /export partiton and /home is controlled by the automounter -- much more flexible. /home can then be a mixture of locally-mounted and network directories, etc.
Blame samzenpus. My submission said 1e-18.
Insignificantly. I just turned off plug-ins, cleared the cache re-ran and got a score of 85210. That's the T-Mobile variant with the 1.5GHz processor. Frankly, the browsemark scores vary so much on my phone that it doesn't seem to be a reliable benchmark. Perhaps the difference was simply due to the website selecting a result that was good on the iPhone and bad on the SGS2?
And, he did not have plug-ins turned off on the SGS2: you can see one of the tests running that uses flash. So, it's not even an apples-to-apples comparison.
Don't believe everything you see. My SG2 just scored much higher than the SG2 in the video: 78225
The Galaxy S2 has been out for some time outside the USA and is available now in the USA. Spec wise it surpasses the iPhone 4S. So, it isn't a matter of leapfrogging, but Apple catching up (almost).
It's also about common warts: plantar warts and warts on the hands and face.
Even the call icon on the Prada looks very similar to the icon that Apple is claiming that Samsung copied. It isn't green, but making it green is an obvious change since the call/send buttons on just about every dumb phone ever made are green.
In most cases, buy buying objects, the buyer hands over the money first. Hence there was never a debt,
If, on the other hand, the seller hands over the object first, then a debt exists and the constitution takes over.
How is Thunderbolt going to provide a N[etwork]AS?
The problem with that approach is that the supply chain has to be capable of delivering 3x (?) the amount of fuel that a more efficient vehicle would use, and it reduces the effective range of the vehicles. That adds risk. You might never need to put some low cost, locally produced fuel in the tank, if you did not consume so much fuel.
Step 1. Someone figures out who the acress is.
Step 2. A quick lesson in the "Streisand Effect".
But what do you mean by "every node"? If you mean every router , then you are wrong, Email is encrypted on the paths between email servers. You have to trust the email servers. Later, users may then download the email over a non-encrypted session, which destroys the point of using SSL when the email is transmitted between mail servers.
Top Gear did a program on this. The earliest car they could find with what is now the standard layout of controls was (IIRC) a Cadillac.
As I mentioned before, don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. I already pointed out that the "purchasing the story" question was irrelevant because the crime is receiving stolen property. Intent isn't required. What needs to be proven are 3 facts: That the article was stolen, that the recipient knew it was stolen and that the recipient did receive the article. See intent in that list? See anything about buying the article? So, as I pointed out earlier, the "purchasing the story" defense is no defense.
A witness disappeared in this case? That's news to me and everyone else. As for "purchasing the story", how did they end up with the phone? The offence is "receiving stolen property", not "buying stolen property", and the only question is whether they knew it was stolen. Since Gizmodo published the whole story of how they got the phone, proving knowledge is not going to be difficult.
For the DA, saying "lack of evidence" is an easy way to avoid admitting that he was in the wrong. There is no doubt that the Gizmodo editors had the phone, and that they bought it. They knew how the seller got it. What possible more evidence is required?
So why doesn't Samsung buy Fusion Garage and sue Apple over copying the JooJoo tablet?
Check your history. 1974 and 1977.