This seems more likely evidence for a revision of the value of c or perhaps a measurement of plate tectonic drift.
60 billionths of a second is far more precise than we can measure distance on the surface of the earth. Gran Sasso is half way down the Italian boot. Is this area so immune to earthquakes or surface deformation that they can know the distance that precisely?
The problem is, there are no limits regarding privacy policies for the bankruptcy courts right now. They're just another informal, single-sided contract - one that the court can break.
But again, As I pointed out later in my post, BOTH companies have EXPLICIT statements in their on-line privacy policy stating well in advance that personal information of customers were an asset that WOULD BE INCLUDED in any sale.
So no need to break the allegedly single sided contract.
this policy is subject to change at any time, with or without notice to you.
Borders' Privacy Policy is still available. It doesn't quite seem to say that.
Exactly.
Further, Borders provided an opt-out link on their page.
And their policy statement EXPLICITLY states (since at least 2008) that if they are sold, your info is among the assets that would be transferred. B&N is doing nothing wrong here.
While IANAL, From my limited understanding of Bankruptcy law, the courts can basically dissolve nearly any contract in place.
I don' think bankruptcy can dissolve anything other than money contracts. (IANAL either).
Physical property, like land and houses are often accompanied with "contracts" such as covenants, easements, etc. Yet even when these assets get sold thru bankruptcy you can't then claim that the easement or covenant is no longer in force. These are public contracts that bind all future owners.
Similarly a publicly stated privacy policy, and explicitly restrictions on revealing consumer's credit card information, are public contracts. The policy was in place at the time B&N bid on the Borders asset.
Borders explicitly stated (since 2008) in their Privacy Policy:
Disclosures in connection with acquisitions or divestitures. Circumstances may arise where for strategic or other business reasons Borders decides to sell, buy, merge or otherwise reorganize its own or other businesses. Such a transaction may involve the disclosure of personal and other information to prospective or actual purchasers, or receiving it from sellers. It is Borders' practice to seek appropriate protection for information in these types of transactions. In the event that Borders or all of its assets are acquired in such a transaction, customer information would be one of the transferred assets.
Similarly, B&N explicitly states (at least since April) in its privacy policy:
Sales, mergers, and acquisitions. If Barnes & Noble becomes involved in a merger, acquisition, or any form of sale of some or all of its assets, personal information may be provided to the entities and advisors involved subject to a confidentiality agreement, and we will provide notice before any personal information is finally transferred and becomes subject to a different privacy policy.
So this seems to me to have been in the policy statements of Borders for a long time, most customers knew or should have known about this provision, and Borders provided an opt out link in the page referenced above. Therefore think B&N is well within their rights to use this information.
What I've never quite understood is why any kind of drugs is preferable to, say, a.22LR (to prevent it being overly messy) bullet to the head? Surely the latter is instantaneous, and likely much more foolproof in a DIY case than any chemical solution?
Way too many people linger and bleed out (or live) after being shot in the head with small caliber weapons. (Gabby Gifford).
You want it messy, its the only way you can be sure you don't suffer. Who cares about the mess?
I don't see why it would matter if you died on the way up from fright or died on the way down from a snapped neck or simply crushed to death.
In either case you arrive at the end of the ride with pee soaked pants, vomit caked shirt, and underwear bulging and smelling worse than you ever did while living. Probably to be unceremoniously dumped into a coffin by uncaring attendants dressed in Tyvec suits and breathing gear.
The rat analogy breaks down, since it's not really better for them to be breeding rats, than, say, digging deeper to find underground breeding colonies in sewers or something. Unless they have some sort of awesome recipe for rats. But that wasn't the intent of the rat bounty.
The rat analogy breaks down well before that.
Anyone can breed a rat. But only the developers can create or leave a bug in their own software.
Remember this is about "software vendors offering bug bounties", presumably for bugs in their own packages. That's a far cry from Google offering a bounty on a bug in Joe Budding Programmer's CS 101 project.
Actually if you watch the video you will see some stuff that is better than the existing stuff. Such as mounting an ISO on the GUEST machine over the network to be used by the Host machine. Most of the current tools don't allow manipulating things in the bios without flaky and expensive additional hardware. (So flaky and so expensive that you almost never see this stuff deployed in real life).
If Intel can manage the security properly this would be very valuable.
As demonstrated in the video, there still seems to be a requirement for someone to read a number from the screen of the remote machine over the phone to the person doing the remote manipulation, however this might have been a choice they made for the demo so as not to reveal just how prone to hacking this might be.
Linux users would know enough to never hook a cat5 cable to the on-board nic, at least not a cable exposed to the internet. They would simply install an add-in nic for the public side of the machine.
How well does it perform when moving at 30mph and 60mph? So what if it works good an a stationary device on a network with very few users, that does not mean that it will work good with more users or while moving.
If it were to drop down to GPRS speed when you were moving at 60mph that might prove a good thing.
There is nobody on AT&T's network. Its easy to be fast when your company currently offers virtually zero devices to run on its brand spanking new LTE network.
Give it a few months then the Movie streamers show up.
Then again, who can possibly use this speed when the current usage caps are so tight? Is it really that important to get that email or that tweet that much faster? Forget movies, forget video-chat. No one can afford it with the tiers they have set up.
Lets hope AT&T applies all $39 Billion bucks they will save by not being allowed to buy T-Mobile, adds in the $19 billion already planned, and builds a first class LTE network that can actually carry the load.
I rather suspect they are simply taking this opportunity (German sentiment) as an excuse to dump an industry segment that has been given a black eye due to the Iranian centrifuge hacking. Probably their controllers won't be trusted anyway in today's market, and it is likely to become very unprofitable.
It doesn't prevent AMD benefiting from the useful technology, it just prevents the patents. That's the ideal situation. They're providing an incentive to invent things without the temporary monopoly.
Agreed. I see nothing at all wrong with this restriction.
Given that Intel funded them they could have asked for ownership, but instead asked for Open Sourcing any developments. Good on Intel.
Given that Universities are for the most part funded by government and other public funding sources one could make the case that they should ALL operate this way. Universities are the last entity that should be locking up ideas with patents.
I simply can't get incensed about this. Its a clever way to give back to society something bigger than you have in your own inventory.
But the AG never had those rights to give, and that deal never succeeded and was struck down. Now the AG wants that deal back, or at least they assert that they still have some say in this matter.
Look, its simply divide and conqueror, by suing Google in every country where there is even one author that is a member of such a guild. They still haven't any right to represent authors who are unknown, who have not given the AG written permission to represent them.
AG is a far bigger usurper in this case than Google.
Slashdot Mirror
Which would be just as troubling, because all the other experiments that clearly measured the speed of light would be wrong.
Pick your poison. All prior measurements wrong or entire theoretical structure wrong?
Under ground?
Its not exactly line of sight. Try Google Earth.
Exactly.
This seems more likely evidence for a revision of the value of c or perhaps a measurement of plate tectonic drift.
60 billionths of a second is far more precise than we can measure distance on the surface of the earth.
Gran Sasso is half way down the Italian boot. Is this area so immune to earthquakes or surface deformation
that they can know the distance that precisely?
The problem is, there are no limits regarding privacy policies for the bankruptcy courts right now. They're just another informal, single-sided contract - one that the court can break.
But again, As I pointed out later in my post, BOTH companies have EXPLICIT statements in their on-line privacy policy stating well in advance that personal information of customers were an asset that WOULD BE INCLUDED in any sale.
So no need to break the allegedly single sided contract.
Regardless of how many times you repeat a measurement with a faulty ruler, the measurements are still wrong.
How precisely did they measure the 732km?
Borders' Privacy Policy is still available. It doesn't quite seem to say that.
Exactly.
Further, Borders provided an opt-out link on their page.
And their policy statement EXPLICITLY states (since at least 2008) that if they are sold, your info is among the assets that would be transferred.
B&N is doing nothing wrong here.
While IANAL, From my limited understanding of Bankruptcy law, the courts can basically dissolve nearly any contract in place.
I don' think bankruptcy can dissolve anything other than money contracts. (IANAL either).
Physical property, like land and houses are often accompanied with "contracts" such as covenants, easements, etc.
Yet even when these assets get sold thru bankruptcy you can't then claim that the easement or covenant is no longer in force.
These are public contracts that bind all future owners.
Similarly a publicly stated privacy policy, and explicitly restrictions on revealing consumer's credit card information, are public contracts.
The policy was in place at the time B&N bid on the Borders asset.
Borders explicitly stated (since 2008) in their Privacy Policy:
Disclosures in connection with acquisitions or divestitures. Circumstances may arise where for strategic or other business reasons Borders decides to sell, buy, merge or otherwise reorganize its own or other businesses. Such a transaction may involve the disclosure of personal and other information to prospective or actual purchasers, or receiving it from sellers. It is Borders' practice to seek appropriate protection for information in these types of transactions. In the event that Borders or all of its assets are acquired in such a transaction, customer information would be one of the transferred assets.
Similarly, B&N explicitly states (at least since April) in its privacy policy:
Sales, mergers, and acquisitions. If Barnes & Noble becomes involved in a merger, acquisition, or any form of sale of some or all of its assets, personal information may be provided to the entities and advisors involved subject to a confidentiality agreement, and we will provide notice before any personal information is finally transferred and becomes subject to a different privacy policy.
So this seems to me to have been in the policy statements of Borders for a long time, most customers knew or should have known about this provision, and Borders provided an opt out link in the page referenced above. Therefore think B&N is well within their rights to use this information.
Go outside..
Suicide is selfish and rude enough that worrying about the mess seems out of place.
What I've never quite understood is why any kind of drugs is preferable to, say, a .22LR (to prevent it being overly messy) bullet to the head? Surely the latter is instantaneous, and likely much more foolproof in a DIY case than any chemical solution?
Way too many people linger and bleed out (or live) after being shot in the head with small caliber weapons. (Gabby Gifford).
You want it messy, its the only way you can be sure you don't suffer. Who cares about the mess?
I don't see why it would matter if you died on the way up from fright or died on the way down from a snapped neck or simply crushed to death.
In either case you arrive at the end of the ride with pee soaked pants, vomit caked shirt, and underwear bulging and smelling worse
than you ever did while living. Probably to be unceremoniously dumped into a coffin by uncaring attendants dressed in Tyvec suits and breathing gear.
Such Elegance!!
Go watch the video.
The guy shut down the entire tcp/op stack and was still talking to machine.
You can't do that with a nic in a slot.
The bios has direct control of that nic and can power it up even when the machine is shut down.
You presume that is possible. And you presume the disableing is actually honored.
I looked at the bios screens very carefully and saw no such option.
The rat analogy breaks down, since it's not really better for them to be breeding rats, than, say, digging deeper to find underground breeding colonies in sewers or something. Unless they have some sort of awesome recipe for rats. But that wasn't the intent of the rat bounty.
The rat analogy breaks down well before that.
Anyone can breed a rat. But only the developers can create or leave a bug in their own software.
Remember this is about "software vendors offering bug bounties", presumably for bugs in their own packages.
That's a far cry from Google offering a bounty on a bug in Joe Budding Programmer's CS 101 project.
Actually if you watch the video you will see some stuff that is better than the existing stuff.
Such as mounting an ISO on the GUEST machine over the network to be used by the Host machine.
Most of the current tools don't allow manipulating things in the bios without flaky and expensive additional hardware.
(So flaky and so expensive that you almost never see this stuff deployed in real life).
If Intel can manage the security properly this would be very valuable.
As demonstrated in the video, there still seems to be a requirement for someone to read a number from the screen of the remote machine over the phone to the person doing the remote manipulation, however this might have been a choice they made for the demo so as not to reveal just how prone to hacking this might be.
Linux users would know enough to never hook a cat5 cable to the on-board nic, at least not a cable exposed to the internet.
They would simply install an add-in nic for the public side of the machine.
How well does it perform when moving at 30mph and 60mph? So what if it works good an a stationary device on a network with very few users, that does not mean that it will work good with more users or while moving.
If it were to drop down to GPRS speed when you were moving at 60mph that might prove a good thing.
Let them put wifi on trains.
Agreed.
There is nobody on AT&T's network.
Its easy to be fast when your company currently offers virtually zero devices to run on its brand spanking new LTE network.
Give it a few months then the Movie streamers show up.
Then again, who can possibly use this speed when the current usage caps are so tight? Is it really that important to get
that email or that tweet that much faster? Forget movies, forget video-chat. No one can afford it with the tiers they have
set up.
Lets hope AT&T applies all $39 Billion bucks they will save by not being allowed to buy T-Mobile, adds in the $19 billion
already planned, and builds a first class LTE network that can actually carry the load.
Well I don't eat the waste droppings or the beach sand that it lands on. Nor the gulls for that matter.
And neither does anyone else.
It hardly warrants the conclusion "this is one avenue these bacterias are taking in human infections worldwide".
In case you, without thinking, change the page and lose your whole post before it's finished. External editors can use auto-save.
Oh come on. You get warned on any modern browser if you change away from comments. Who doesn't use tabs these days.
This on top of Germany already producing less than half CO2/capita [google.com] than some other developed nation.
That won't last as they shut down the remaining nuclear plants. Nuclear power in Germany accounted for 23% of national electricity consumption.
I rather suspect they are simply taking this opportunity (German sentiment) as an excuse to dump an industry segment
that has been given a black eye due to the Iranian centrifuge hacking. Probably their controllers won't be trusted anyway
in today's market, and it is likely to become very unprofitable.
At 18 seconds in they play east of the Gulf of California over central mexico.
31 seconds Veracruz
35 seconds, Panama appears on left edge
You expect people to RTFA? This is slashdot. You must be new here...
Much more fun to rush in an post some crazy failure mode.
It doesn't prevent AMD benefiting from the useful technology, it just prevents the patents. That's the ideal situation. They're providing an incentive to invent things without the temporary monopoly.
Agreed. I see nothing at all wrong with this restriction.
Given that Intel funded them they could have asked for ownership, but instead asked for Open Sourcing any developments. Good on Intel.
Given that Universities are for the most part funded by government and other public funding sources one could make the case that they should ALL operate this way. Universities are the last entity that should be locking up ideas with patents.
I simply can't get incensed about this. Its a clever way to give back to society something bigger than you have in your own inventory.
But the AG never had those rights to give, and that deal never succeeded and was struck down. Now the AG wants that deal back, or at least they assert that they still have some say in this matter.
Look, its simply divide and conqueror, by suing Google in every country where there is even one author that is a member of such a guild. They still haven't any right to represent authors who are unknown, who have not given the AG written permission to represent them.
AG is a far bigger usurper in this case than Google.