I'll note that they specifically state "nearly 40 million Windows Vista licenses have been sold as of 100 days after its January launch."
I'm pretty sure that accounting rules don't let them claim upgrade certificates as "sold," and revenue recognition rules probably don't let them recognized shipments to resellers (which can be subject to return) as "sold," either.
I'm sure MS would never do anything illegal or immoral, such as pumping up numbers in a press release in violation of Sarbanes-Oxley or SEC, so those numbers must be correct!
stores 1 bit per "core." The article is about a form of memory which continually cycles multiple bits stored as magnetic regions through a single physical ring. The OP is correct in that this is similar to cycling photons through an optical ring.
Looking back, this is all very similar to shift register memory, one of the earliest forms of solid state memory.
Assuming you actually are who you claim, how is this communications done? I would assume that it's done with inductive coupling. If so, what is the interference mechanism?
stated in the article, or any reference to this issue that I can find. Can you provide a cite to back that up?
If it were true, the the title would be even more misleading, since it's not all iPods, but is all harddrives.
Of even more concern would be the danger posed by something as simple as refrigerator magnets. In a simple experiment, I could easily pick up paperclips with refrigerator magnets, but was completely unable to do so with a hard drive based iPod.
iPods obviously meet FCC regulations for RF emissions.
The real concern is why pacemakers are made so they are susceptible to such interference. What happens when a user is exposed to an intentional RF radiator, which would be expected to put out much more power, and consequently cause problems at much greater distance?
It should be obvious that more study must be done - at what frequencies are pacemakers most affected? Might an 802.11 device, for example, be even more disruptive?
I'll simply point out that your claim that the status quo results in the best possible outcome is proof that the system is seriously broken. You believe that Bush/Perot/Dole/Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Bush are the best that the US could produce in the past 4 elections? Thanks for proving my point. You're seriously deluded if you think that the will of the people is reflected in the choices we're offered. It's the media which selects candidates, and big business which funds them. Sorry for pissing in your Wheaties. Doubly sorry that you're such a naif.
and as a taxpayer, I strongly object to spending any public money on primaries. They are not in any way "elections," they only server to reduce the choices we have. If the parties don't want to run half-a-dozen candidates in a real election, let them figure out how to reduce that number, by private means.
Furthermore, I think the party system is all a big scam on the public. The major parties two sides of the same coin. Where there are differences, they are minor when viewed in context, and are artificially inflated to make the electorate perceive that they have some kind of choice.
The major parties agree very completely, and work quite effectively together, on the one thing that matters most to both of them - maintaining and building power and authority over ordinary citizens.
it is truly amazing how people who haven't read the Constitution feel able to comment on what it says.
Article II, Sec 2: "...he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States..."
The President has no power to pardon one party in a civil action. In the situation at hand, the offence is by ATT against their customers. Neither is "the United States."
The Constitution requires the Executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," so such a resolution (stating policy to be to not enforce particular laws) could have no effect - it is nonsensical. Furthermore, it is not within Congress's power to direct either the Executive or the Judicial in how to perform their duties.
Point to where the Constitution grants the Gov't the power to make resolutions with the effect of law which aren't law, please. If it actually had the force of law, it would be law. Calling it by another name is simply disinginuous.
The government gets away with lots of crap like that - signing statements, most executive orders, the whole of "regulatory law," none of which are empowered by the Constitution.
Finally, the use of common law by the courts is not in any way creating new law from whole cloth, it is merely documenting unwritten practices or societal expectations.
The prohibition bears on Congress (being part of Article I, "No...ex post facto Law shall be passed.") and the states (Sec 10, "No State shall...pass any...ex post facto Law"), and does not preclude the Judiciary from ruling based on common law. The Judiciary does not "pass" laws.
"Ex post facto" is a simple rule which implements an expectation of fairness from the law. Just as people don't believe it is fair to "change the rules in the middle of the game" in regard to sports, so too is there a similar expectation for the law. "No ex post facto" is just an expression of that reasonable and logical expectation of fairness.
As can be seen from the other comments here, people expect the law in effect at the time of an action to be applied, and changing the law (especially to deliberately affect a previous event) is inherently unfair.
Argue precedent all you want, but (just like paper currency) the law depends upon faith. When applied with disregard to the clear and commonsense meaning of words, and the expectations of society expressed by those words, the law loses it's power. People begin to loose faith in it's fairness, Justice has had the blindfold removed.
It's not clear what your reference to common law is about. Common law predates our codified law, so cannot be interpreted as "ex post facto," unless you're retrying Christ, I suppose.
was written for a populist government. Words mean things, and an "ex post facto" (latin for "after the fact") law is one which changes the legal consequences of a past event. It's clear, unambiguous language.
Unfortunately, other than a revolution, there's no recourse when the Supremes boldly proclaim that "Black is White." It does, however, mean that we are no longer a nation of law, since words have no meaning to our courts.
In the case at hand, the courts can say otherwise all they want, but the fact is, the emperor has no clothes.
That _is_ the point. You are blindly blaming Apple, without knowing the cause.
The root cause may be related to a Euro-government mandated change, and not anything Apple did or didn't do. The long term effects of RoHS requirements on the reliability of electronic equipment are largely unknown, but there is a good deal of evidence that reliability will suffer severly. (see here, or here) That's one of the reasons WEEE/RoHS exempts military and medical electronics. Might those pictures show Kirkendall voids due to unproven metallurgy forced upon manufacturers?
Expect more "unexpected" electronics failures in the years to come, now that RoHS has taken effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Official MS press release here.
I'll note that they specifically state "nearly 40 million Windows Vista licenses have been sold as of 100 days after its January launch."
I'm pretty sure that accounting rules don't let them claim upgrade certificates as "sold," and revenue recognition rules probably don't let them recognized shipments to resellers (which can be subject to return) as "sold," either.
I'm sure MS would never do anything illegal or immoral, such as pumping up numbers in a press release in violation of Sarbanes-Oxley or SEC, so those numbers must be correct!
stores 1 bit per "core." The article is about a form of memory which continually cycles multiple bits stored as magnetic regions through a single physical ring. The OP is correct in that this is similar to cycling photons through an optical ring.
Looking back, this is all very similar to shift register memory, one of the earliest forms of solid state memory.
Mr. Moose did this first, and better.
Microsoft, fuck you!
that sounds great. SIM Earth was fun!
Damn. The Minitrue, er, Supreme Court ruled that Black is White. Looks like that OS is fatally flawed.
found it strange that all your friends always have to explain the jokes to you?
I thought that was Frank Lloyd Wright's studio?
hopefully, Hughes Danbury Optical Systems will not get the contract this time around.
and respond to an AC.
Assuming you actually are who you claim, how is this communications done? I would assume that it's done with inductive coupling. If so, what is the interference mechanism?
stated in the article, or any reference to this issue that I can find. Can you provide a cite to back that up?
If it were true, the the title would be even more misleading, since it's not all iPods, but is all harddrives.
Of even more concern would be the danger posed by something as simple as refrigerator magnets. In a simple experiment, I could easily pick up paperclips with refrigerator magnets, but was completely unable to do so with a hard drive based iPod.
iPods obviously meet FCC regulations for RF emissions.
The real concern is why pacemakers are made so they are susceptible to such interference. What happens when a user is exposed to an intentional RF radiator, which would be expected to put out much more power, and consequently cause problems at much greater distance?
It should be obvious that more study must be done - at what frequencies are pacemakers most affected? Might an 802.11 device, for example, be even more disruptive?
I'll simply point out that your claim that the status quo results in the best possible outcome is proof that the system is seriously broken. You believe that Bush/Perot/Dole/Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Bush are the best that the US could produce in the past 4 elections? Thanks for proving my point. You're seriously deluded if you think that the will of the people is reflected in the choices we're offered. It's the media which selects candidates, and big business which funds them. Sorry for pissing in your Wheaties. Doubly sorry that you're such a naif.
and as a taxpayer, I strongly object to spending any public money on primaries. They are not in any way "elections," they only server to reduce the choices we have. If the parties don't want to run half-a-dozen candidates in a real election, let them figure out how to reduce that number, by private means.
Furthermore, I think the party system is all a big scam on the public. The major parties two sides of the same coin. Where there are differences, they are minor when viewed in context, and are artificially inflated to make the electorate perceive that they have some kind of choice.
The major parties agree very completely, and work quite effectively together, on the one thing that matters most to both of them - maintaining and building power and authority over ordinary citizens.
to tell people that "Halon" is French for "Exit," so if they ever get locked in the data center, they know how to get out.
...on ROT13!
Here's my key: 09 S9 11 02 9Q 74 R3 5O Q8 41 56 P5 63 56 88 P0
it is truly amazing how people who haven't read the Constitution feel able to comment on what it says.
Article II, Sec 2: "...he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States..."
The President has no power to pardon one party in a civil action. In the situation at hand, the offence is by ATT against their customers. Neither is "the United States."
The Constitution requires the Executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," so such a resolution (stating policy to be to not enforce particular laws) could have no effect - it is nonsensical. Furthermore, it is not within Congress's power to direct either the Executive or the Judicial in how to perform their duties.
Point to where the Constitution grants the Gov't the power to make resolutions with the effect of law which aren't law, please. If it actually had the force of law, it would be law. Calling it by another name is simply disinginuous.
The government gets away with lots of crap like that - signing statements, most executive orders, the whole of "regulatory law," none of which are empowered by the Constitution.
Finally, the use of common law by the courts is not in any way creating new law from whole cloth, it is merely documenting unwritten practices or societal expectations.
The prohibition bears on Congress (being part of Article I, "No...ex post facto Law shall be passed.") and the states (Sec 10, "No State shall...pass any...ex post facto Law"), and does not preclude the Judiciary from ruling based on common law. The Judiciary does not "pass" laws.
"Ex post facto" is a simple rule which implements an expectation of fairness from the law. Just as people don't believe it is fair to "change the rules in the middle of the game" in regard to sports, so too is there a similar expectation for the law. "No ex post facto" is just an expression of that reasonable and logical expectation of fairness.
As can be seen from the other comments here, people expect the law in effect at the time of an action to be applied, and changing the law (especially to deliberately affect a previous event) is inherently unfair.
Argue precedent all you want, but (just like paper currency) the law depends upon faith. When applied with disregard to the clear and commonsense meaning of words, and the expectations of society expressed by those words, the law loses it's power. People begin to loose faith in it's fairness, Justice has had the blindfold removed.
It's not clear what your reference to common law is about. Common law predates our codified law, so cannot be interpreted as "ex post facto," unless you're retrying Christ, I suppose.
was written for a populist government. Words mean things, and an "ex post facto" (latin for "after the fact") law is one which changes the legal consequences of a past event. It's clear, unambiguous language.
Having said that, I'm aware that there are many examples where the courts have made rulings which plainly and directly contradict the clear meaning of the words. is a particularly disingenuous one - it found that growing crops for personal use was "interstate commerce," and has become the basis for rampant federalism, in direct conflict with the words and intent of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, other than a revolution, there's no recourse when the Supremes boldly proclaim that "Black is White." It does, however, mean that we are no longer a nation of law, since words have no meaning to our courts.
In the case at hand, the courts can say otherwise all they want, but the fact is, the emperor has no clothes.
bring the United States of America into this.
The US has a Constitution which says that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
This is about a corrupt administration which feels it is above the law.
for a Radio Direction Finder?
We'll see how RoHS affects other consumer electronics companies over the next few years. Check back then if you still want to bash someone.
That _is_ the point. You are blindly blaming Apple, without knowing the cause.
The root cause may be related to a Euro-government mandated change, and not anything Apple did or didn't do. The long term effects of RoHS requirements on the reliability of electronic equipment are largely unknown, but there is a good deal of evidence that reliability will suffer severly. (see here, or here) That's one of the reasons WEEE/RoHS exempts military and medical electronics. Might those pictures show Kirkendall voids due to unproven metallurgy forced upon manufacturers?
Expect more "unexpected" electronics failures in the years to come, now that RoHS has taken effect.