There are very few companies like Facebook whom have no documented source of their income. They are under legal obligation to provide investors with mission & earning statements.
I've read a lot of them.
You will find precious little detail in the revenue side of a 10K. You get exactly what they want you to get, while sales data is masked and obfuscated and aggregated to the point that you can't tell anything from the Balance sheet. Entire massive R&D projects can be hidden on the costs side of the ledger, such that companies like Apple can spring an entire new concept in in smart phones after three years of development with no one having any clear idea of the cost involved, or even that the project was underway from reading financial statements and annual reports.
Seriously, if you think Sarbanes–Oxley or GAAP rules or SEC regulations provide any clarity or a level playing field you are delusional.
This will open low, shoot high, then nosedive and stay low for a long time. You can play in this sandbox, as long as you understand that all the sand belongs to someone else, and at bets you can get in, fill your bucket, dump it, and get back out before any one notices you are there.
Everybody recognizes this for what it is, a cashout for the major FB players.
Further point: Its call sign is never Air Force One. At times it used to be SAM 26000, but who knows what it is today, and it certainly wouldn't be using that on a surprise visit. Probably it flew the same route as daily Airforce C17 and C-5 Air Mobility Command flights and used one of their call signs.
Even the Taliban took several hours to mount an attack, but mount one they did - it was just too late.
You would have expected the Taliban to have an attack already in the can for the Bin Laden death anniversary. Maybe they just went ahead with that plan, realizing that an attack while Obama was there would be suicidal. (Not that they seem to have a problem with suicide) .
The flight plan that AF1 files is not always as AF1, sometimes they fly "incognito", under a different callsign and as a different aircraft type. There is a famous incident when a British Airways pilot accidentally does a visual identification of AF1 over the atlantic while Bush was flying to Bagdad, and is being told that the 747 is in fact a little Gulfstream by AF1 pilots.
BA Pilot: "Did I just see Air Force One?" the pilot radioed. AF1: "Gulfstream 5" -- a much smaller aircraft. BA: "Oh..."
Yeah, professional courtesy. Still every ATC on the circuit and every hobbiest with a scanner knew exactly what was going on.
This is still a bit concerning. If the media saw AF1 land, that's one thing. If the media got wind of the POTUS arriving from the current Afghan Administration or Intelligence agencies, they have some leaks that need fixing and US Security and Intel should take note.
As for Twitter? Their role here was the non-story. Sorry.
Look, Airforce One is hardly a stealth aircraft, especially when trailed by a constantly refueled squadron of Airforce / Navy fighters.
There is no route to Afghanistan that does not cross some other country's air space, and you can bet that not every single air traffic controller between here and Kabul keeps his mouth shut all the time. The miracle is that Obama could get from the Whitehouse to the airport with no one leaking that info on twitter.
In this world, expectations of surprise visits are all to be taken with a wink and an nod. Even when the press in in a feeding frenzy over the Secret Service's bimbo in Colombia, this visit was well known in the US Press.
Its amazing that Twitter didn't break the news first. (It probably did, but nobody noticed).
Sure. But what we can do is pronounce it immoral and a societally destructive abuse of power.
You can pronounce it anything you want. It doesn't make it anything more than your personal opinion. Society is not obligated to enable you to foist your opinions on others as if they were facts.
Nobody shut down a cellular site. Bart shut down THEIR OWN repeaters in the subway. The street level commercial services were not affected. Now don't you feel stupid for not reading TFA.?
As a government agency, shouldn't their first priority be to maintain order and prevent riots? I find it very odd this story is posted today of all days. THIS is exactly what Bart was trying to avoid.
It has yet to be established that the cell service in the subway was common carrier. It may have been simple off the shelf cell repeaters operated by Bart itself.
After all, you don't find Verizon suing Bart do you?
And further, there was no discrimination. Simply a system wide outage.
A contract dispute, a civil matter, and quite possibly not something under the FCC jurisdiction.
Maybe the Cell carriers sue BART for disruption of services by cutting power to their micro-cells or something.
But Bart would likely have been one party to the contract to provide power to the carrier's micro-cells, whereas Tortuous Interference pretty much requires action by a third party, not a party to the contracts.
Was there an "out" in Bart's contract with these carriers?
Were there even Carrier Contracts involved, or was BART using off the shelf Cellular repeaters that anyone can buy, which they would be fully within their right to turn off?
There are a lot of questions to be answered before some guy on slash dot can pronounce something illegal, plain and simple.
That action by BART was illegal, plain and simple. I can't wait to hear the amount of the fine they receive!
Apparently its illegal to jam cell phone transmitters, but not technically illegal to unplug them. Its entirely possible the FCC will find itself powerless in this fight, because there is no mandatory "must operate" regulations in place.
It may come down to who actually owns the cell/wifi transmitters in the underground stations where commercial services can't reach without the transit authority's assistance. It may end up being similar to cutting off the water to a coffee vendor in the stations - purely a contract dispute.
If you are going to rush in and pronounce something "illegal, plain and simple" please provide your credentials, and what year you were appointed to the bench.
Ah I'm not talking about cancer being like evolution, talking about evolution if you live in a niche of really high radioactive potassium consumption from eating bananas all the time, after a bazillion generations you'd expect the survivors to be better than the average human about excreting radioactive or otherwise K and/or getting by with as little of that nasty stuff inside them as possible, despite it being a big part of their diet.
Its also not clear just how long this adaptation takes. Every once in a while an article you find about animals in the Chernobyl exclusion zone suggests that the supposed ill effects are simply not appearing at anywhere near the rates expected or encountered in laboratory experiments.
He and his team are studying the mice to understand their resistance to radioactivity. They've found sensitivity to ionization, which results in certain tumors, and some of this passes down through the genes. But they're also finding heritable radiation resistance—which could perhaps be beneficial to humans someday.
There are other, mostly earlier, studies showing significant bug population decline around 2009.
It seems that the principal reason to move away from rem was that it was too large a unit. I suspect a certain amount of Not Invented Here was also involved.
The problem with sieverts is that its never used to a large enough degree that people can recognize its size. A example of a almost universally known unit: Seconds. 3600 is a hour, 7200 is 2 as some might spot, and anything over that people have no idea about the amount of time it amounts to. If i say 22 680 seconds, people have no idea about what amount of time that is, beyond that its a lot of time.
Ok, so your problem with sieverts is also a problem with seconds, and seconds are in every day usage.
By your estimation then, we are screwed, and can't possibly talk about levels of radiation, because people's eyes gloss over when we talk about long periods of time using an inappropriate unit of time measurement. You apparently see no way out of this problem, and you throw up your hands in despair, and walk off in resignation.
Here's a novel idea:
How about prefixing Seiverts with milli, micro, or mega as the case may be? We all figured out that a milliliter was a lot smaller than a liter, and a millimeter was far shorter than a meter, and and kilometer was way longer. Do you suppose the average house wife or 5th grader could make the mental leap to millisieverts? Could it possibly work?
Variance in mating success explained most of the higher variance in reproductive success in males compared with females, but mating success also influenced reproductive success in females, allowing for sexual selection to operate in both sexes.
OK, So during that time, successfully obtaining a mate generally lead to children. Got it. Thanks.
Any trip to Walmart will convince you that the situation today seems less clear, and obtaining children seems entirely disassociated with the ability to attract a mate.
And I don't necessarily object to that practice, although it makes very little sense in a state with no State Income tax to also forgive huge corporate taxes simply to retain the jobs of people who demand more infrastructure but pay very little tax.
It seems like a recipe for driving state government into bankruptcy. Oh wait, it already has.
And the reverse is also true, so If you had a point, I totally missed it.
Other than neither of you citing sources, there's no reason to believe that the reverse isn't true; I think it's safe to assume that that was implied. I think ozduo's point was to suggest that correlated eye/hand-dominance may have had substantial evolutionary influence on handedness itself.
You've simply shifted the discussion to another part of the body, without even realizing that the origination for eye dominance are is no more understood than hand dominance.
Maybe copyright started out as securing income to certain groups of people, but your claim that it has always been about that seems shakey.
Sigh.... Try not to be so US centered. Go read the link I posted. The US constitution's one liner, was pretty much an after thought, and the concept of copyrights had been in place for well over 400 years before the constitution was written.
And people who read slashdot should understand they are using the internet, and it takes less long to search the term NFC than it takes to post the question.
Come on, with an/. number that low, this can't be news to you.
Mankind shaped tools, not the other way around. When scissors were invented they were probably not handed, this only came later when the product was tailored for the majority of users.
And screw threads were never universally lefty-loosie-righty-tighty. The british were notorious for using a mixture of threading direction until the age of mass production dictated standardization.
We designed our tools for our bodies, not the other way around. Prior to the industrial age and mass produced goods, there was no natural selection pressure towards left or right handednes. And post industrial age, there still isn't.
I could make the equally valid speculation that Handedness was probably learned by children watching their elders. The more abusive and controlling elders insisted children learn to wipe their butts with a specific hand and keep the smelly hand away from the communal meal as is common in some middle east regions today.
I wouldn't have to resort to baseball statistics to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
There are very few companies like Facebook whom have no documented source of their income. They are under legal obligation to provide investors with mission & earning statements.
I've read a lot of them.
You will find precious little detail in the revenue side of a 10K. You get exactly what they want you to get, while sales data is masked and obfuscated and aggregated to the point that you can't tell anything from the Balance sheet. Entire massive R&D projects can be hidden on the costs side of the ledger, such that companies like Apple can spring an entire new concept in in smart phones after three years of development with no one having any clear idea of the cost involved, or even that the project was underway from reading financial statements and annual reports.
Seriously, if you think Sarbanes–Oxley or GAAP rules or SEC regulations provide any clarity or a level playing field you are delusional.
I'm on a lot of such lists, and you will never read anything of interest there.
This will open low, shoot high, then nosedive and stay low for a long time.
You can play in this sandbox, as long as you understand that all the sand belongs to someone else, and at bets you can get in, fill your bucket, dump it, and get back out before any one notices you are there.
Everybody recognizes this for what it is, a cashout for the major FB players.
Further point: Its call sign is never Air Force One. At times it used to be SAM 26000, but who knows what it is today, and it certainly wouldn't be using that on a surprise visit. Probably it flew the same route as daily Airforce C17 and C-5 Air Mobility Command flights and used one of their call signs.
Even the Taliban took several hours to mount an attack, but mount one they did - it was just too late.
You would have expected the Taliban to have an attack already in the can for the Bin Laden death anniversary. Maybe they just went ahead with that plan, realizing that an attack while Obama was there would be suicidal. (Not that they seem to have a problem with suicide) .
The flight plan that AF1 files is not always as AF1, sometimes they fly "incognito", under a different callsign and as a different aircraft type. There is a famous incident when a British Airways pilot accidentally does a visual identification of AF1 over the atlantic while Bush was flying to Bagdad, and is being told that the 747 is in fact a little Gulfstream by AF1 pilots.
BA Pilot: "Did I just see Air Force One?" the pilot radioed.
AF1: "Gulfstream 5" -- a much smaller aircraft.
BA: "Oh..."
Yeah, professional courtesy.
Still every ATC on the circuit and every hobbiest with a scanner knew exactly what was going on.
This is still a bit concerning. If the media saw AF1 land, that's one thing. If the media got wind of the POTUS arriving from the current Afghan Administration or Intelligence agencies, they have some leaks that need fixing and US Security and Intel should take note.
As for Twitter? Their role here was the non-story. Sorry.
Look, Airforce One is hardly a stealth aircraft, especially when trailed by a constantly refueled squadron of Airforce / Navy fighters.
There is no route to Afghanistan that does not cross some other country's air space, and you can bet that not every single air traffic controller between here and Kabul keeps his mouth shut all the time. The miracle is that Obama could get from the Whitehouse to the airport with no one leaking that info on twitter.
In this world, expectations of surprise visits are all to be taken with a wink and an nod. Even when the press in in a feeding frenzy over the Secret Service's bimbo in Colombia, this visit was well known in the US Press.
Its amazing that Twitter didn't break the news first. (It probably did, but nobody noticed).
You seem to have edited the constitution. I believe the phrase is "peaceable assembly".
Look at the LATimes link above for an instructive example of what happens when people edit out key words in the constitution.
Sure. But what we can do is pronounce it immoral and a societally destructive abuse of power.
You can pronounce it anything you want. It doesn't make it anything more than your personal opinion. Society is not obligated to enable you to foist your opinions on others as if they were facts.
Nobody shut down a cellular site.
Bart shut down THEIR OWN repeaters in the subway. The street level commercial services were not affected.
Now don't you feel stupid for not reading TFA.?
As a government agency, shouldn't their first priority be to maintain order and prevent riots?
I find it very odd this story is posted today of all days. THIS is exactly what Bart was trying to avoid.
It has yet to be established that the cell service in the subway was common carrier.
It may have been simple off the shelf cell repeaters operated by Bart itself.
After all, you don't find Verizon suing Bart do you?
And further, there was no discrimination. Simply a system wide outage.
Exactly.
A contract dispute, a civil matter, and quite possibly not something under the FCC jurisdiction.
Maybe the Cell carriers sue BART for disruption of services by cutting power to their micro-cells or something.
But Bart would likely have been one party to the contract to provide power to the carrier's micro-cells, whereas Tortuous Interference pretty much requires action by a third party, not a party to the contracts.
Was there an "out" in Bart's contract with these carriers?
Were there even Carrier Contracts involved, or was BART using off the shelf Cellular repeaters that anyone can buy, which they would be fully within their right to turn off?
There are a lot of questions to be answered before some guy on slash dot can pronounce something illegal, plain and simple.
That action by BART was illegal, plain and simple. I can't wait to hear the amount of the fine they receive!
Apparently its illegal to jam cell phone transmitters, but not technically illegal to unplug them.
Its entirely possible the FCC will find itself powerless in this fight, because there is no mandatory "must operate" regulations in place.
It may come down to who actually owns the cell/wifi transmitters in the underground stations where commercial services can't reach without the transit authority's assistance. It may end up being similar to cutting off the water to a coffee vendor in the stations - purely a contract dispute.
If you are going to rush in and pronounce something "illegal, plain and simple" please provide your credentials, and what year you were appointed to the bench.
Why is this moderated funny?
Apparently someone already turned off the power to your sarcasm meter.
Ah I'm not talking about cancer being like evolution, talking about evolution if you live in a niche of really high radioactive potassium consumption from eating bananas all the time, after a bazillion generations you'd expect the survivors to be better than the average human about excreting radioactive or otherwise K and/or getting by with as little of that nasty stuff inside them as possible, despite it being a big part of their diet.
Its also not clear just how long this adaptation takes.
Every once in a while an article you find about animals in the Chernobyl exclusion zone suggests that the supposed ill effects are simply not appearing at anywhere near the rates expected or encountered in laboratory experiments.
From Here
He and his team are studying the mice to understand their resistance to radioactivity. They've found sensitivity to ionization, which results in certain tumors, and some of this passes down through the genes. But they're also finding heritable radiation resistance—which could perhaps be beneficial to humans someday.
There are other, mostly earlier, studies showing significant bug population decline around 2009.
One sievert is equal to 100 rem.
It seems that the principal reason to move away from rem was that it was too large a unit. I suspect a certain amount of Not Invented Here was also involved.
The problem with sieverts is that its never used to a large enough degree that people can recognize its size.
A example of a almost universally known unit: Seconds. 3600 is a hour, 7200 is 2 as some might spot, and anything over that people have no idea about the amount of time it amounts to. If i say 22 680 seconds, people have no idea about what amount of time that is, beyond that its a lot of time.
Ok, so your problem with sieverts is also a problem with seconds, and seconds are in every day usage.
By your estimation then, we are screwed, and can't possibly talk about levels of radiation, because people's eyes gloss over when we talk about long periods of time using an inappropriate unit of time measurement. You apparently see no way out of this problem, and you throw up your hands in despair, and walk off in resignation.
Here's a novel idea:
How about prefixing Seiverts with milli, micro, or mega as the case may be? We all figured out that a milliliter was a lot smaller than a liter, and a millimeter was far shorter than a meter, and and kilometer was way longer. Do you suppose the average house wife or 5th grader could make the mental leap to millisieverts? Could it possibly work?
Na, that's crazy talk, it could never work.
Variance in mating success explained most of the higher variance in reproductive success in males compared with females, but mating success also influenced reproductive success in females, allowing for sexual selection to operate in both sexes.
OK, So during that time, successfully obtaining a mate generally lead to children. Got it. Thanks.
Any trip to Walmart will convince you that the situation today seems less clear, and obtaining children seems entirely disassociated with the ability to attract a mate.
And I don't necessarily object to that practice, although it makes very little sense in a state with no State Income tax to also forgive huge corporate taxes simply to retain the jobs of people who demand more infrastructure but pay very little tax.
It seems like a recipe for driving state government into bankruptcy. Oh wait, it already has.
And the reverse is also true, so If you had a point, I totally missed it.
Other than neither of you citing sources, there's no reason to believe that the reverse isn't true; I think it's safe to assume that that was implied. I think ozduo's point was to suggest that correlated eye/hand-dominance may have had substantial evolutionary influence on handedness itself.
You've simply shifted the discussion to another part of the body, without even realizing that the origination for eye dominance are is no more understood than hand dominance.
So, once again, an appeal to movies? Seriously?
There was never even a pretense of benefit to society.
So that whole to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts line actually means... what exactly?
Maybe copyright started out as securing income to certain groups of people, but your claim that it has always been about that seems shakey.
Sigh....
Try not to be so US centered. Go read the link I posted. The US constitution's one liner, was pretty much an after thought, and the concept of copyrights had been in place for well over 400 years before the constitution was written.
And people who read slashdot should understand they are using the internet, and it takes less long to search the term NFC than it takes to post the question.
Come on, with an /. number that low, this can't be news to you.
But again, you have the cart before the horse.
Mankind shaped tools, not the other way around. When scissors were invented they were probably not handed, this only came later when the product was tailored for the majority of users.
And screw threads were never universally lefty-loosie-righty-tighty. The british were notorious for using a mixture of threading direction until the age of mass production dictated standardization.
We designed our tools for our bodies, not the other way around. Prior to the industrial age and mass produced goods, there was no natural selection pressure towards left or right handednes. And post industrial age, there still isn't.
I could make the equally valid speculation that Handedness was probably learned by children watching their elders. The more abusive and controlling elders insisted children learn to wipe their butts with a specific hand and keep the smelly hand away from the communal meal as is common in some middle east regions today.
I wouldn't have to resort to baseball statistics to do so.