Of course, no one would *ever* suggest that our national political environment is characterized by "constant idiocy and paranoid delusions of grandeur" - mainly because they'd be likely to wind up on the Terrorist Watch List if they did so.;-)
In theory (crypto theory), this can be done if the parties communicating have a shared secret piece of data and a crypto algorithm, resistant to reverse-engineering from outside, that enables them to exchange that secret data without eavesdropping, man-in-the-middle attacks, or a brute-force cracking of the crypto algorithm.
This is quite hard to do properly in general, as the plethora of lousy cryptosystems attests. It *can* be done if one has enough processing power (tough for RFID chips that operate from microwatts of someone else's broadcast RF energy) and a good enough encryption algorithm (see "lousy cryptosystems" above).
Of course, if you can duplicate the data content and algorithms of the RFID chip, say by physically dismantling it layer-by-layer with a destructive analysis, you can clone it even if you don't know the shared secret. The article is claiming (without ANY credible evidence, BTW) to have somehow made this impossible, presumably by creating some random-but-repeatable property in the chip that cannot be extracted by analysis for reproduction in a cloned chip. Unless they've come up with something VERY effective, I'd bet on this system being cracked within months just like all the other RFID schemes. The lack of description or references to how their system works smells like bad crypto and security-by-obscurity to me.
While it's true that passive RFID devices are notably short on power and computing capacity (and can be vulnerable to tricks like power-consumption analysis and direct physical probing to attack their encryption), the central reason most of these systems are poorly encrypted if at all is...
Cheapness, intellectual laziness, and garden-variety stupidity.
One CAN make these systems much more secure, but it requires cryptographic competence and the determination to do the job right. As Schneier says, crypto is hard to do properly, so it costs time, money, and thought. And the end user can rarely distinguish a secure system from a crappy one, so the economic incentive do do it right is minimal.
Methinks we could use a good set of standards and an accepted certification process for rating the attack-resistance of systems like this. Won't happen, of course...
My XYL does this, and it works like a charm. Alas, with our dirty industrial-era air, the silver tarnishes up again rapidly (silver is quite chemically active). I've occasionally wondered how difficult it would be to spray-coat the display pieces with clear lacquer to keep-em bright; I suspect the answer is, "Very, very difficult if you want to get decent-looking results."
Does it really matter whether the cause was "incredibly sloppy coding" or "Intel bribed them?" Either way, their benchmark cannot be trusted, and trustworthiness is ESSENTIAL for a benchmark. If anyone pays serious attention to this (which, having read TFA, it seems to merit), then FutureMark is toast.
I recall reading, several years ago, an interview that the head of Britain's film censorship board gave on the occasion of his retirement (i.e, now that he was able to speak his mind freely without contradicting policies he was required to uphold). Basically, he said that he thought that, as regards media depictions, that sex was a fine and healthy thing for society, while violence wasn't. He thought that Britain (and societies in general) would do well to be less concerned with censoring sexual content, and more concerned with violent content.
Now, while I thoroughly enjoy playing CS with a group of fellow forty-somethings who understand that IT'S JUST A GAME, I must say that I agree with that fellow's opinion. (I don't really know how to reconcile the inherent conflict here, BTW. )
I believe they are required to deposit an appeal bond in the amount of the judgment before they are allowed to appeal. They may still be able to manage that, but it's most likely going to be a matter for the bankruptcy judge...
I *am* a rocket scientist, BTW. I read the Jupiter concept doc a few months ago, and I find it reasonably persuasive. The thing that makes the Jupiter concept "simpler" is that it reuses existing designs (specifically, main engine systems and fuel tanks) that have already been fully developed and put into use, rather than designing new ones that employ untested techniques.
What makes a design safer isn't necessarily lowest component count; in the space business, proven designs count for a LOT in risk mitigation. Consider the Russian Proton rocket: not modern, not the most efficient, but a very reliable system that gets its job done at low cost (assuming that the recent Soyuz QA problems don't mean that their whole production infrastructure has gone rotten from lack of funds). Incremental changes are almost always faster, better, and cheaper than radical design departures (at least until the radical tech is fully worked out, which takes time).
Indeed, a big part of the argument here is that Ares junks an existing manufacturing infrastructure THAT WORKS, just like NASA did after the Apollo program. Jupiter, on the other hand, maintains the current Shuttle-related tech base and builds on it. Having a functional tech infrastructure to build on, with suppliers who've been designing and delivering product based on the same design for many years, is an immense advantage in terms of cost, lead time, and reliability. Folks who've made the same system dozens of times make fewer mistakes than those building something brand-new with no comparable predecessor product.
A court is definitely empowered to take "judicial notice" of a litigant's public statements, and can certainly take judicial notice of documents filed by a litigant in other court cases, as those are public records.
IIRC, statements filed in court pleadings are made under oath, subject to penalties for perjury. Don't get too excited about that aspect, actual prosecution is rare; however, getting caught telling contradictory stories to two different courts WILL have Bad Consequences.
Judges purely hate to be gamed or lied to by litigants, and they tend to be very unsympathetic to folks who get caught trying it. It tends to destroy all prospect of either winning or coming out with a whole skin...
I can state from experience that learning a second language will broaden your outlook on life and increase your value as an engineering professional. You won't regret it.
Major languages such as German, Chinese (easier to learn than it seems!), and French are good, obvious choices.
But once you learn the language, You Must Maintain It. Use it on a regular basis for many years (preferably actively, by speaking and writing it as well as reading/listening), or else you'll lose fluency. Keeping up fluency isn't a chore; rather, if you achieve decent ability in a language, it'll be a pleasure to practice it (my partner and I regularly exchange private commentary in public about the funny Americans around us, as well as eavesdropping on unsuspecting visitors to the US).
Gee, if we had a telescope array with a baseline of, say, the radius of the Moon's orbit, then we could resolve some REALLY small orbital perturbations, vastly improving our ability to identify planetary systems.
It occurs to me that such a system wouldn't even need to be (continuously) staffed after installation, just the occasional maintenance call.
I think I see an opportunity for a Lunar observatory project...
In the satellite business, we've known for years about tin whiskers. When lead-free parts started becoming common, the problem started showing up in instruments built for NASA.
In one case that I read a report on, a tin whisker grew a distance of an inch or so and shorted a power supply connection. So, it's a real phenomemon and a real concern.
Tin whiskers (crystals, really) grow out of a pure tin surface, especially one subjected to mechanical or thermal stress; they will grow right out through plastic conformal coating on a PC board, and can grow to a length of inches. They can short adjacent connector pins, break off and float around in high-voltage supplies under zero G, and generally be a nuisance.
ANY part (electrical parts, sheet metal, connector shells) with a pure tin coating can grow whiskers.
Alloying the tin with lead or antimony (think, solder-dipping tinned leads in tin/antimony solder) will prevent whisker growth; conformal-coating your PC boards after assembly will also help (won't prevent whiskers growing OUT, but will keep them from touching exposed conductors).
Incidentally, tin is a pretty weird metal in general; it has a powdery gray non-metallic phase that is stable below 13.2 degrees C (Google "tin disease"), and there have been cases where tin items (such as tin church organ pipes) have spontaneously crumbled to powder in cold climates when the metal underwent a phase change to the nonmetallic state.
It occurs to me that, at least in the US, an ISP that does ad injection *may* be losing its common-carrier status by changing the information that they convey from a Web site to the subscriber.
Consider that the data is being edited on-the-fly based on its content -- i.e., whether or not it's a banner ad. I think a good case could be made that this violates the conditions for a common carrier.
Question is, does this have any legally useful consequences in trying to prevent ISPs from doing it?
Preferably, a fee large enough that if they pay it, you can afford to replicate your database in a sandbox for them to screw up at leisure.
I'll echo the other posts warning about Data Protection Act and server loading issues, and add the concern of unauthorized access to the database and/or third-party attacks on it.
Judge Kimball *also* warned SCO not to try relitigating this stuff, so he won't be at all happy that they're trying to do exactly that. His rulings are going to be a real hoot!
See, the name isn't EXACTLY the same, so trademark infringement would require the danger of "confusing similarity" in the minds of the target market. Now, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can easily tell that the two are nothing alike; the Open Document Format used by OpenOffice.org is exactly that - a high-quality, open document format - whereas OOXML is a massive pile of bovine waste products.
No one with a good understanding of the situation could EVER mistake OOXML for EITHER a high-quality format OR an open format. See, it's quite elementary!;-)
Plus a pile of unpaid bills and judgements, assorted countersuits, and a management team either being sued out of their shorts, or on the lam to the Seychelles, or both. SCO's assets aren't worth anything to speak of at this point.
The DMCA prohibits bypassing an "effective" technical measure preventing access. A rootkit that can be bypassed by simply placing the CD in a PC that is running a popular operating system (i.e., any flavor of Linux) will NOT constitute an "effective" measure, so is untouchable. At least if one has a competenet lawyer...
If Google wanted to keep from being attacked by another party for using this idea, they could simply (and cheaply!) publish an article describing every facet of the idea the patent application covers (which, after all, is what happens when you file a patent application; when the patent is granted, the idea is published).
Publication of the idea makes it unpatentable "prior art;" once published, the idea can never be patented by anyone. So, if Google's intent were strictly defensive, to prevent someone else from patenting the idea and using it against them, publication would suffice. Thus, the idea that they are "merely protecting themselves" is a bit less persuasive. Of course, there are other reasons for patenting something; looks good on the resume, provides ammunition for cross-licensing battles, and so on, but most of them involve "offense" rather than "defense."
This is not to say that Google has evil intent, just to point out that preemptively patenting something isn't the only way to avoid patent exposure.
Seems pretty clear from your (excellent quality) video that one of the wings (near left side from camera POV) bent outward, forcing the bird to arc toward the camera and ripping the rest of it apart.
It appears that had the airframe survived, the rocket motors would have boosted it to a respectable altitude, based on how far it got.
I'm shocked to see people standing so close to the launch point that they had to run from the falling debris; this bespeaks an insane lack of safety-consciousness by the operators (especially given their expressed doubts as to its surviving the launch.) They're fortunate no one was maimed.
With a much stronger wing-root design, they would probably have had a successful flight. The RC model sailplane design approach of a foam wing core, fiberglass cloth skin, and carbon-fiber wing spars might be used to good effect in such a design (lighter weight, more rigid wing). Having the rocket motors on the swings DOES add stress to that region, but that shouldn't be a show-stopper; the stress from drag on the wing (and from any flutter instability) is the major design issue there.
Neat project, for all its problems. I wonder if they'll try again?
Anyone seen the cover of Linux Journal? Trolltech has released the QTopia Greenphone, an Open Source GSM/EDGE smartphone that costs about $695 WITH a GPL'ed software development kit. (http://trolltech.com/products/qtopia/greenphone/index) While it perhaps isn't as sexy as the iPhone in terms of UI, it IS an open device, costs about the same as the iPhone, is guaranteed never to be bricked by the manufacturer, and encourages user development and contributions to its features. And it runs Linux. If THAT isn't a better deal than an iPhone, I dunno what is.
I find the iPhone's combination of functionality (most of it, anyway) rather attractive, especially if it really does work better than trash like my Ipaq (losing ALL the user data whenever the battery goes flat is just unacceptable, and has me back to using a -nonvolatile! - paper address book).
Based on the last review from The Register (which was rather favorable on the whole), I was even toying with the idea of buying one, based on the assumption that I could use it with MY cell provider. Apple DOES do a good job of user-interface design, and their handheld products are very sleek, attractive, and well built, which goes some way toward justifying their premium prices. However, now that it's clear that Apple intends to actively force iPhone buyers to use Apple's selected monopoly service provider and brick the phones of those who escape the monopoly, they can wave a fond good-bye to the idea that I'll buy their gear, and that extends to iPods as well.
Face it, there really isn't any reasonable interpretation of Apple's latest statements other than that they DO intend to deliberately sabotage your iPhone if you unlock it; all that horse puckey about "many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software" is just that; horse puckey. No one expects Apple to put in extra effort to accommodate third-party software on the iPhone (that would be like Microsoft providing good API docs for Windows,) but it's clear that they're not just disclaiming responsibility for third-party software here; Jobs has actively declared war on those who use the gadget outside Apple's ring-fenced provider. (I wonder when the battle front will be expanded to include iTunes?) I for one am not willing to tolerate this kind of behavior, so Apple has just lost another potential customer.
Slashdot Mirror
Cage that man!
Of course, no one would *ever* suggest that our national political environment is characterized by "constant idiocy and paranoid delusions of grandeur" - mainly because they'd be likely to wind up on the Terrorist Watch List if they did so. ;-)
In theory (crypto theory), this can be done if the parties communicating have a shared secret piece of data and a crypto algorithm, resistant to reverse-engineering from outside, that enables them to exchange that secret data without eavesdropping, man-in-the-middle attacks, or a brute-force cracking of the crypto algorithm.
This is quite hard to do properly in general, as the plethora of lousy cryptosystems attests. It *can* be done if one has enough processing power (tough for RFID chips that operate from microwatts of someone else's broadcast RF energy) and a good enough encryption algorithm (see "lousy cryptosystems" above).
Of course, if you can duplicate the data content and algorithms of the RFID chip, say by physically dismantling it layer-by-layer with a destructive analysis, you can clone it even if you don't know the shared secret. The article is claiming (without ANY credible evidence, BTW) to have somehow made this impossible, presumably by creating some random-but-repeatable property in the chip that cannot be extracted by analysis for reproduction in a cloned chip. Unless they've come up with something VERY effective, I'd bet on this system being cracked within months just like all the other RFID schemes. The lack of description or references to how their system works smells like bad crypto and security-by-obscurity to me.
While it's true that passive RFID devices are notably short on power and computing capacity (and can be vulnerable to tricks like power-consumption analysis and direct physical probing to attack their encryption), the central reason most of these systems are poorly encrypted if at all is...
Cheapness, intellectual laziness, and garden-variety stupidity.
One CAN make these systems much more secure, but it requires cryptographic competence and the determination to do the job right. As Schneier says, crypto is hard to do properly, so it costs time, money, and thought. And the end user can rarely distinguish a secure system from a crappy one, so the economic incentive do do it right is minimal.
Methinks we could use a good set of standards and an accepted certification process for rating the attack-resistance of systems like this. Won't happen, of course...
My XYL does this, and it works like a charm. Alas, with our dirty industrial-era air, the silver tarnishes up again rapidly (silver is quite chemically active). I've occasionally wondered how difficult it would be to spray-coat the display pieces with clear lacquer to keep-em bright; I suspect the answer is, "Very, very difficult if you want to get decent-looking results."
Does it really matter whether the cause was "incredibly sloppy coding" or "Intel bribed them?" Either way, their benchmark cannot be trusted, and trustworthiness is ESSENTIAL for a benchmark. If anyone pays serious attention to this (which, having read TFA, it seems to merit), then FutureMark is toast.
Screwed up? Yep, we've got lotsa that, all right.
I recall reading, several years ago, an interview that the head of Britain's film censorship board gave on the occasion of his retirement (i.e, now that he was able to speak his mind freely without contradicting policies he was required to uphold). Basically, he said that he thought that, as regards media depictions, that sex was a fine and healthy thing for society, while violence wasn't. He thought that Britain (and societies in general) would do well to be less concerned with censoring sexual content, and more concerned with violent content.
Now, while I thoroughly enjoy playing CS with a group of fellow forty-somethings who understand that IT'S JUST A GAME, I must say that I agree with that fellow's opinion. (I don't really know how to reconcile the inherent conflict here, BTW. )
I believe they are required to deposit an appeal bond in the amount of the judgment before they are allowed to appeal. They may still be able to manage that, but it's most likely going to be a matter for the bankruptcy judge...
I *am* a rocket scientist, BTW. I read the Jupiter concept doc a few months ago, and I find it reasonably persuasive. The thing that makes the Jupiter concept "simpler" is that it reuses existing designs (specifically, main engine systems and fuel tanks) that have already been fully developed and put into use, rather than designing new ones that employ untested techniques.
What makes a design safer isn't necessarily lowest component count; in the space business, proven designs count for a LOT in risk mitigation. Consider the Russian Proton rocket: not modern, not the most efficient, but a very reliable system that gets its job done at low cost (assuming that the recent Soyuz QA problems don't mean that their whole production infrastructure has gone rotten from lack of funds). Incremental changes are almost always faster, better, and cheaper than radical design departures (at least until the radical tech is fully worked out, which takes time).
Indeed, a big part of the argument here is that Ares junks an existing manufacturing infrastructure THAT WORKS, just like NASA did after the Apollo program. Jupiter, on the other hand, maintains the current Shuttle-related tech base and builds on it. Having a functional tech infrastructure to build on, with suppliers who've been designing and delivering product based on the same design for many years, is an immense advantage in terms of cost, lead time, and reliability. Folks who've made the same system dozens of times make fewer mistakes than those building something brand-new with no comparable predecessor product.
A court is definitely empowered to take "judicial notice" of a litigant's public statements, and can certainly take judicial notice of documents filed by a litigant in other court cases, as those are public records.
IIRC, statements filed in court pleadings are made under oath, subject to penalties for perjury. Don't get too excited about that aspect, actual prosecution is rare; however, getting caught telling contradictory stories to two different courts WILL have Bad Consequences.
Judges purely hate to be gamed or lied to by litigants, and they tend to be very unsympathetic to folks who get caught trying it. It tends to destroy all prospect of either winning or coming out with a whole skin...
I can state from experience that learning a second language will broaden your outlook on life and increase your value as an engineering professional. You won't regret it.
Major languages such as German, Chinese (easier to learn than it seems!), and French are good, obvious choices.
But once you learn the language, You Must Maintain It. Use it on a regular basis for many years (preferably actively, by speaking and writing it as well as reading/listening), or else you'll lose fluency. Keeping up fluency isn't a chore; rather, if you achieve decent ability in a language, it'll be a pleasure to practice it (my partner and I regularly exchange private commentary in public about the funny Americans around us, as well as eavesdropping on unsuspecting visitors to the US).
Gee, if we had a telescope array with a baseline of, say, the radius of the Moon's orbit, then we could resolve some REALLY small orbital perturbations, vastly improving our ability to identify planetary systems.
It occurs to me that such a system wouldn't even need to be (continuously) staffed after installation, just the occasional maintenance call.
I think I see an opportunity for a Lunar observatory project...
In the satellite business, we've known for years about tin whiskers. When lead-free parts started becoming common, the problem started showing up in instruments built for NASA.
In one case that I read a report on, a tin whisker grew a distance of an inch or so and shorted a power supply connection. So, it's a real phenomemon and a real concern.
Tin whiskers (crystals, really) grow out of a pure tin surface, especially one subjected to mechanical or thermal stress; they will grow right out through plastic conformal coating on a PC board, and can grow to a length of inches. They can short adjacent connector pins, break off and float around in high-voltage supplies under zero G, and generally be a nuisance.
ANY part (electrical parts, sheet metal, connector shells) with a pure tin coating can grow whiskers.
Alloying the tin with lead or antimony (think, solder-dipping tinned leads in tin/antimony solder) will prevent whisker growth; conformal-coating your PC boards after assembly will also help (won't prevent whiskers growing OUT, but will keep them from touching exposed conductors).
Incidentally, tin is a pretty weird metal in general; it has a powdery gray non-metallic phase that is stable below 13.2 degrees C (Google "tin disease"), and there have been cases where tin items (such as tin church organ pipes) have spontaneously crumbled to powder in cold climates when the metal underwent a phase change to the nonmetallic state.
this sounds rather like a declaration of war. Of course, we know how accurate Slashdot article teaser text can be...
It occurs to me that, at least in the US, an ISP that does ad injection *may* be losing its common-carrier status by changing the information that they convey from a Web site to the subscriber.
Consider that the data is being edited on-the-fly based on its content -- i.e., whether or not it's a banner ad. I think a good case could be made that this violates the conditions for a common carrier.
Question is, does this have any legally useful consequences in trying to prevent ISPs from doing it?
Preferably, a fee large enough that if they pay it, you can afford to replicate your database in a sandbox for them to screw up at leisure.
I'll echo the other posts warning about Data Protection Act and server loading issues, and add the concern of unauthorized access to the database and/or third-party attacks on it.
Judge Kimball *also* warned SCO not to try relitigating this stuff, so he won't be at all happy that they're trying to do exactly that. His rulings are going to be a real hoot!
See, the name isn't EXACTLY the same, so trademark infringement would require the danger of "confusing similarity" in the minds of the target market. Now, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can easily tell that the two are nothing alike; the Open Document Format used by OpenOffice.org is exactly that - a high-quality, open document format - whereas OOXML is a massive pile of bovine waste products.
;-)
No one with a good understanding of the situation could EVER mistake OOXML for EITHER a high-quality format OR an open format. See, it's quite elementary!
Plus a pile of unpaid bills and judgements, assorted countersuits, and a management team either being sued out of their shorts, or on the lam to the Seychelles, or both. SCO's assets aren't worth anything to speak of at this point.
The DMCA prohibits bypassing an "effective" technical measure preventing access. A rootkit that can be bypassed by simply placing the CD in a PC that is running a popular operating system (i.e., any flavor of Linux) will NOT constitute an "effective" measure, so is untouchable. At least if one has a competenet lawyer...
If the Weighted Companion Cube should speak, you should ignore its advice.
If Google wanted to keep from being attacked by another party for using this idea, they could simply (and cheaply!) publish an article describing every facet of the idea the patent application covers (which, after all, is what happens when you file a patent application; when the patent is granted, the idea is published).
Publication of the idea makes it unpatentable "prior art;" once published, the idea can never be patented by anyone. So, if Google's intent were strictly defensive, to prevent someone else from patenting the idea and using it against them, publication would suffice. Thus, the idea that they are "merely protecting themselves" is a bit less persuasive. Of course, there are other reasons for patenting something; looks good on the resume, provides ammunition for cross-licensing battles, and so on, but most of them involve "offense" rather than "defense."
This is not to say that Google has evil intent, just to point out that preemptively patenting something isn't the only way to avoid patent exposure.
Seems pretty clear from your (excellent quality) video that one of the wings (near left side from camera POV) bent outward, forcing the bird to arc toward the camera and ripping the rest of it apart.
It appears that had the airframe survived, the rocket motors would have boosted it to a respectable altitude, based on how far it got.
I'm shocked to see people standing so close to the launch point that they had to run from the falling debris; this bespeaks an insane lack of safety-consciousness by the operators (especially given their expressed doubts as to its surviving the launch.) They're fortunate no one was maimed.
With a much stronger wing-root design, they would probably have had a successful flight. The RC model sailplane design approach of a foam wing core, fiberglass cloth skin, and carbon-fiber wing spars might be used to good effect in such a design (lighter weight, more rigid wing). Having the rocket motors on the swings DOES add stress to that region, but that shouldn't be a show-stopper; the stress from drag on the wing (and from any flutter instability) is the major design issue there.
Neat project, for all its problems. I wonder if they'll try again?
Anyone seen the cover of Linux Journal? Trolltech has released the QTopia Greenphone, an Open Source GSM/EDGE smartphone that costs about $695 WITH a GPL'ed software development kit. (http://trolltech.com/products/qtopia/greenphone/index) While it perhaps isn't as sexy as the iPhone in terms of UI, it IS an open device, costs about the same as the iPhone, is guaranteed never to be bricked by the manufacturer, and encourages user development and contributions to its features. And it runs Linux. If THAT isn't a better deal than an iPhone, I dunno what is.
I find the iPhone's combination of functionality (most of it, anyway) rather attractive, especially if it really does work better than trash like my Ipaq (losing ALL the user data whenever the battery goes flat is just unacceptable, and has me back to using a -nonvolatile! - paper address book). Based on the last review from The Register (which was rather favorable on the whole), I was even toying with the idea of buying one, based on the assumption that I could use it with MY cell provider. Apple DOES do a good job of user-interface design, and their handheld products are very sleek, attractive, and well built, which goes some way toward justifying their premium prices. However, now that it's clear that Apple intends to actively force iPhone buyers to use Apple's selected monopoly service provider and brick the phones of those who escape the monopoly, they can wave a fond good-bye to the idea that I'll buy their gear, and that extends to iPods as well.
Face it, there really isn't any reasonable interpretation of Apple's latest statements other than that they DO intend to deliberately sabotage your iPhone if you unlock it; all that horse puckey about "many of the unauthorized iPhone unlocking programs available on the Internet cause irreparable damage to the iPhone's software" is just that; horse puckey. No one expects Apple to put in extra effort to accommodate third-party software on the iPhone (that would be like Microsoft providing good API docs for Windows,) but it's clear that they're not just disclaiming responsibility for third-party software here; Jobs has actively declared war on those who use the gadget outside Apple's ring-fenced provider. (I wonder when the battle front will be expanded to include iTunes?) I for one am not willing to tolerate this kind of behavior, so Apple has just lost another potential customer.