Um. Estimates 100k units in the US in 2 weeks is not exactly a stunning success. Not when new iPhone and Android models are selling 500k+ on the first day, and millions the first weekend. So, no, it's not too early.
If the authors get to set their own prices, and Apple takes a percentage if and when it sells, that's called consignment. Nothing illegal about it. The OP was complaining that the other sellers only pay him half as much. If that's not enough, he shouldn't sell to those vendors. If it is enough, the he needs to stop whining.
I understand his concern about the DoJ going after Apple and not the others, but that's not what he was whining about. He said "I have no choice or say in the matter.", and I pointed out that he does.
No, it's control over how much HE sells it for, which is what he was complaining about, and it's the only thing he can control. How much the retailer sells it for is the retailer's business, they make their money off the difference.
In the article, one analyst estimates it will cost Nokia less than $10M based upon expected sales volume by April 21. @ $100/unit, that's a maximum of 100,000 handsets sold. Not exactly flying off the shelves. Once again WP7.x phone fails to make inroads on sales....
Clearly, you have no idea how a government is supposed to work. The reason an executive has signing and/or veto authority is so he can prevent bad/inappropriate laws from being passed. If he believes it unnecessary (doesn't allow/protect anything that isn't already allowed/protected under current law), then he believes it to be unnecessary and should have vetoed it.
Satellite links, network congestion/delays, and other sources of high latency aren't going to magically disappear in 5 years, nor 10, 15, or 20 years. Until you can bypass the speed of light (in x transmission medium) as the limiting factor, this is useful.
Sounds like a great solution. Responsiveness is critical for user interaction, therefore, local echo is vital for high latency links. Knowing that the remote end has received the same thing you see locally (and if it's performing character-by-character filtering, seeing those results) is also important. Local echo, with remote echo verification.
I have the same book in the other bookstores. I have no control over the price. They give me what they want, which is half of what Apple gives me.
If you have control over whether it's in those other bookstores, then, yes, you do have control over the price. You don't like their terms, don't publish it there. That's how you control it.
Heresy! How dare you suggest that customers aren't the enemy. Customers are pirates, they must be treated like the criminals they are. RIAA, MPAA, Sony, and all major Hollywood studios know this.
The speed of light in an optical fiber is also about.7c. So, you can only improve this if you have optical electronics that use air/gas/partial vacuum tubes/channels as the transmission medium. Speed of light in air is >.999c and will be similar for other gases at/below ATM.
Civil rights guarantees apply to everyone, not just the US Govt. It's illegal for any person to deprive you of your civil rights, and has been repeatedly found to apply to individuals as well as businesses and government.
You're welcome. Glad you, and others, enjoyed it. It was funny watching the mods, first "troll", then a couple "funny", then another "troll". Eventually, it made it up to +5 Funny. I presume the people who rated it troll didn't read the whole post.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Why would any employer would think it's legal, ethical, or justifiable to ask to perform a search of your private accounts (papers and effects), any more than searching your home, vehicle, bank account, or diary without a warrant? It's absurd. Shouldn't need any additional law.
Furthermore, disclosing your password is a violation of the FB ToS, so they're asking you to breach your contract with FB (or other provider).
In a surprise announcement, Mitt Romney announced that he too is suspending his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination.
In his shockingly candid speech, Romney said "I only stayed in the race this long to ensure that Rick Santorum didn't get the nomination. Now, with Santorum out of the race, it's time for me to withdraw and leave the contest to the two candidates whose beliefs actually differ from those of Barack Obama".
"The American People deserve a choice of candidates who actually have differing beliefs. The only differences in belief between myself and Barack Obama, is that I'm a Mormon, and he is not. My policies when I was the governor of Massachusetts were virtually identical to President Obama's policies. If I were elected, you would be hard pressed to find anything that I would do differently. Therefore, I'm stepping down to ensure the voters have an actual choice in November."
When asked who he was going to endorse, he declined comment. This story may contain factual errors, and was, in fact, entirely made up. However, as making up facts and reporting on whatever we want is now commonplace, we figured you wouldn't notice.
1. Speed of light in a wire is at best 0.7c, typically.5c-.65c depending upon the material. So, cut your propagation distances accordingly.
2. As another poster suggested, that's only a limit for fully synchronous designs. Async (clockless) and semi-synchronous (partially asych with some clocking) designs are limited by switching times and feature density (which is related to both the speed of light and the gate size, but it's less rigidly limited than in synchronous designs).
I've discussed this many times. Any while your interpretation could be valid, I most strongly disagree with it. I agree with the OP and the 9th CC, this is not a crime, it's a contract dispute, which makes it a civil case, not a criminal case. That's how it should be handled, breach of contract.
Consider what happens if it's the other way around, what if the company violates their responsibilities under the TOS? Is that automatically a crime? No. In some cases, if you can show they were willfully misleading, to a large group of customers, then it might be treated as criminal fraud. But the company violating the TOS is not automatically a crime, it's a civil breach of contract. And if it's not automatically a crime for the company to violate it, then it's not automatically a crime for the other party to the contract to violate it. It's a civil dispute unless there are other considerations (e.g. massive fraud) that make it a criminal one.
As someone who has found and reported a (now) patched security vulnerability to that email address, I can say that I agree with Boris Sharov's complaint. You do get an automated response with a case #, that includes the text
We do not automatically provide status updates on issues as we work on them, but please feel free to request one if needed by replying to this message.
However, I received no replies to when I did request status updates (and supplied additional information about the affected systems with explicit instructions about what needed to be done to fix existing systems). Even when I contacted other sources (Secunia, who confirmed the problem, and US-CERT), I received nothing from Apple. Nor was the problem addressed in two releases of QuickTime in the year following my report.
How I finally got a reply from Apple was sending an email to sjobs@apple.com on Sept 4, 2010 with a copy of the now year old security report, and my statement that I was taking it to the full-disclosure list if I didn't hear back from Apple by Sept 15th. Fewer than 6 hours later (on a Saturday), I had a status update from Apple. Here's the meat of that reply:
Just wanted to let you know that a fix for this issue has been identified, and we are targeting an upcoming release of QuickTime to address it.
We provide status updates upon request.
Subsequent emails always got a reply, but before I sent my email to sjobs, it was like talking to a wall. Also, despite assurances that they understood the extent of the problem and my explicit instructions about needed remediation for affected systems, when they finally released the fix 3 months later, it only corrected the problem and did not provide remediation for the permissions on already affected systems, nor did it even mention that there were permissions to be fixed.
When it became clear that no remediation fix, nor an acknowledgement of the problem was coming from Apple, and ample time had passed for users to have installed the updated version of QT, I submitted my own fix to the Full Disclosure mailing list.
In total, it was 15 months for Apple to release a fix, a fix that in all likelihood involved altering or removing two lines of code that were granting excessive privileges to specific directories. Even then, they did not correct the permissions on machines that were already affected.
So, in my opinion, Apple has a long way to go in developing and maintaining communications with those who report security vulnerabilities. And in acting upon those reports in a timely and responsible way.
I assure you that all kinds of ionizing radiation can reflect. X-rays can reflect -- they make X-ray mirrors, usually out of highly-polished beryllium. It's more effective at small reflection angles (glancing reflection). You can even make X-ray fiber optics (glass light pipes), which is a decent way of focusing an X-ray beam. These again are only really effective for glancing reflections.
Which simply affirms my statement. Yes, some small portion can be deflected, but as you noted, it's "only really effective for glancing reflections".
Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation. (They conventionally referred to electromagnetic radiation within the energy range commonly emitted by radioactive materials. It's really preferable these days to call all such things "photons" regardless of their energy.) So, X-rays and gamma radiation are the same thing.
Actually, gamma has two different uses, the older/historical definition is based upon the wavelength/energy of the radiation. That definition is now only used in astronomy (because the source of the emission can't be determined). The accepted usage in cases where the source can be determined is that gamma ray/radiation is produced in the nucleus, x-rays are produced by electrons (outside the nucleus), regardless of energy. So, yes, they are the same thing, except for an arbitrary line.
Alpha and beta radiation are in no way relevant here.
Which is clearly indicated in my post.
That's only really true if the X-rays are well-collimated. Since they point the X-ray beam so that it goes horizontally through your head (more or less) and then give you a lead shield for your chest, it stands to reason that either the X-ray beam is not well-collimated or the lead shield isn't there to serve a functional purpose.
It's there to provide "peace of mind" for the patient, and protection against malfunctioning or mis-calibrated machines. With x-ray machine manufactured in the past 30 years or so, shielding other parts of the body isn't necessary, but it's still used as a precautionary measure. It serves no active functional purpose.
None of which has any material effect upon what I stated.
Lead doesn't reflect radiation, it absorbs it. But that's irrelevant because "bouncing off your teeth and jaw" is equally flawed. X-Rays and other forms of ionizing radiation don't "bounce off" surfaces, it will either pass through, be absorbed, or trigger another particle to be emitted. There are 3 types of radiation that may be emitted, alpha, beta, and gamma. Alpha and beta will only penetrate a few millimeters of solid/liquid matter such as skin, muscle, etc so those won't make it back out of the body. Gamma (and the x-rays themselves) are best shielded by dense materials such as lead. However, putting a shield over the patient's head would only protect other people in the room, not the patient, because any such radiation would coming OUT of the patient's head. The only protection the patient would gain from wearing a lead cap is from any stray x-rays from the machine, and if the machine is emitting any notable amount of stray x-rays, it needs repair or replacement.
There is also neutron radiation, but that's also not a concern because: A) it's not common and not likely to be caused by an x-ray. B) is heavily moderated by water, so may not make it out of the body. C) passes through most materials, including thin layers of lead, so it's unlikely that any neutrons emitted would be stopped by a wearable shield.
Slashdot Mirror
Um. Estimates 100k units in the US in 2 weeks is not exactly a stunning success. Not when new iPhone and Android models are selling 500k+ on the first day, and millions the first weekend. So, no, it's not too early.
If the authors get to set their own prices, and Apple takes a percentage if and when it sells, that's called consignment. Nothing illegal about it. The OP was complaining that the other sellers only pay him half as much. If that's not enough, he shouldn't sell to those vendors. If it is enough, the he needs to stop whining.
I understand his concern about the DoJ going after Apple and not the others, but that's not what he was whining about. He said "I have no choice or say in the matter.", and I pointed out that he does.
No, it's control over how much HE sells it for, which is what he was complaining about, and it's the only thing he can control. How much the retailer sells it for is the retailer's business, they make their money off the difference.
In the article, one analyst estimates it will cost Nokia less than $10M based upon expected sales volume by April 21. @ $100/unit, that's a maximum of 100,000 handsets sold. Not exactly flying off the shelves. Once again WP7.x phone fails to make inroads on sales....
If they can only answer that, my life's purpose will still be unknown.
P.S. Yes, I'm aware that it's almost certainly modeled on Fairplay, CO. I've been there, and to South Park, about 20mi away.
Clearly, you have no idea how a government is supposed to work. The reason an executive has signing and/or veto authority is so he can prevent bad/inappropriate laws from being passed. If he believes it unnecessary (doesn't allow/protect anything that isn't already allowed/protected under current law), then he believes it to be unnecessary and should have vetoed it.
It is control over the price he receives for his work, which is what he was complaining about.
And those who don't believe the theory should be encouraged to personally test it.
Exactly. If it doesn't change anything, then it isn't a necessary law, and ABSOLUTELY should have been vetoed. Every unnecessary law cost you.
Satellite links, network congestion/delays, and other sources of high latency aren't going to magically disappear in 5 years, nor 10, 15, or 20 years. Until you can bypass the speed of light (in x transmission medium) as the limiting factor, this is useful.
Sounds like a great solution. Responsiveness is critical for user interaction, therefore, local echo is vital for high latency links. Knowing that the remote end has received the same thing you see locally (and if it's performing character-by-character filtering, seeing those results) is also important. Local echo, with remote echo verification.
I have the same book in the other bookstores. I have no control over the price. They give me what they want, which is half of what Apple gives me.
If you have control over whether it's in those other bookstores, then, yes, you do have control over the price. You don't like their terms, don't publish it there. That's how you control it.
Heresy! How dare you suggest that customers aren't the enemy. Customers are pirates, they must be treated like the criminals they are. RIAA, MPAA, Sony, and all major Hollywood studios know this.
The speed of light in an optical fiber is also about .7c. So, you can only improve this if you have optical electronics that use air/gas/partial vacuum tubes/channels as the transmission medium. Speed of light in air is >.999c and will be similar for other gases at/below ATM.
Love your take on it. Here's one from a friend of mine.
Santorum aborts campaign after 20 weeks.
Civil rights apply to everyone. Just try violating someone's civil rights and you'll find out just how much.
This wasn't a "request" by any standard. This was give us the info or else. RTFA.
Civil rights guarantees apply to everyone, not just the US Govt. It's illegal for any person to deprive you of your civil rights, and has been repeatedly found to apply to individuals as well as businesses and government.
You're welcome. Glad you, and others, enjoyed it. It was funny watching the mods, first "troll", then a couple "funny", then another "troll". Eventually, it made it up to +5 Funny. I presume the people who rated it troll didn't read the whole post.
Exactly.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Why would any employer would think it's legal, ethical, or justifiable to ask to perform a search of your private accounts (papers and effects), any more than searching your home, vehicle, bank account, or diary without a warrant? It's absurd. Shouldn't need any additional law.
Furthermore, disclosing your password is a violation of the FB ToS, so they're asking you to breach your contract with FB (or other provider).
In a surprise announcement, Mitt Romney announced that he too is suspending his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination.
In his shockingly candid speech, Romney said "I only stayed in the race this long to ensure that Rick Santorum didn't get the nomination. Now, with Santorum out of the race, it's time for me to withdraw and leave the contest to the two candidates whose beliefs actually differ from those of Barack Obama".
"The American People deserve a choice of candidates who actually have differing beliefs. The only differences in belief between myself and Barack Obama, is that I'm a Mormon, and he is not. My policies when I was the governor of Massachusetts were virtually identical to President Obama's policies. If I were elected, you would be hard pressed to find anything that I would do differently. Therefore, I'm stepping down to ensure the voters have an actual choice in November."
When asked who he was going to endorse, he declined comment. This story may contain factual errors, and was, in fact, entirely made up. However, as making up facts and reporting on whatever we want is now commonplace, we figured you wouldn't notice.
Two corrections:
1. Speed of light in a wire is at best 0.7c, typically .5c-.65c depending upon the material. So, cut your propagation distances accordingly.
2. As another poster suggested, that's only a limit for fully synchronous designs. Async (clockless) and semi-synchronous (partially asych with some clocking) designs are limited by switching times and feature density (which is related to both the speed of light and the gate size, but it's less rigidly limited than in synchronous designs).
I've discussed this many times. Any while your interpretation could be valid, I most strongly disagree with it. I agree with the OP and the 9th CC, this is not a crime, it's a contract dispute, which makes it a civil case, not a criminal case. That's how it should be handled, breach of contract.
Consider what happens if it's the other way around, what if the company violates their responsibilities under the TOS? Is that automatically a crime? No. In some cases, if you can show they were willfully misleading, to a large group of customers, then it might be treated as criminal fraud. But the company violating the TOS is not automatically a crime, it's a civil breach of contract. And if it's not automatically a crime for the company to violate it, then it's not automatically a crime for the other party to the contract to violate it. It's a civil dispute unless there are other considerations (e.g. massive fraud) that make it a criminal one.
As someone who has found and reported a (now) patched security vulnerability to that email address, I can say that I agree with Boris Sharov's complaint. You do get an automated response with a case #, that includes the text
We do not automatically provide status updates on issues as we work on them, but please feel free to request one if needed by replying to this message.
However, I received no replies to when I did request status updates (and supplied additional information about the affected systems with explicit instructions about what needed to be done to fix existing systems). Even when I contacted other sources (Secunia, who confirmed the problem, and US-CERT), I received nothing from Apple. Nor was the problem addressed in two releases of QuickTime in the year following my report.
How I finally got a reply from Apple was sending an email to sjobs@apple.com on Sept 4, 2010 with a copy of the now year old security report, and my statement that I was taking it to the full-disclosure list if I didn't hear back from Apple by Sept 15th. Fewer than 6 hours later (on a Saturday), I had a status update from Apple. Here's the meat of that reply:
Just wanted to let you know that a fix for this issue has been identified, and we are targeting an upcoming release of QuickTime to address it.
We provide status updates upon request.
Subsequent emails always got a reply, but before I sent my email to sjobs, it was like talking to a wall. Also, despite assurances that they understood the extent of the problem and my explicit instructions about needed remediation for affected systems, when they finally released the fix 3 months later, it only corrected the problem and did not provide remediation for the permissions on already affected systems, nor did it even mention that there were permissions to be fixed.
When it became clear that no remediation fix, nor an acknowledgement of the problem was coming from Apple, and ample time had passed for users to have installed the updated version of QT, I submitted my own fix to the Full Disclosure mailing list.
In total, it was 15 months for Apple to release a fix, a fix that in all likelihood involved altering or removing two lines of code that were granting excessive privileges to specific directories. Even then, they did not correct the permissions on machines that were already affected.
So, in my opinion, Apple has a long way to go in developing and maintaining communications with those who report security vulnerabilities. And in acting upon those reports in a timely and responsible way.
I assure you that all kinds of ionizing radiation can reflect. X-rays can reflect -- they make X-ray mirrors, usually out of highly-polished beryllium. It's more effective at small reflection angles (glancing reflection). You can even make X-ray fiber optics (glass light pipes), which is a decent way of focusing an X-ray beam. These again are only really effective for glancing reflections.
Which simply affirms my statement. Yes, some small portion can be deflected, but as you noted, it's "only really effective for glancing reflections".
Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation. (They conventionally referred to electromagnetic radiation within the energy range commonly emitted by radioactive materials. It's really preferable these days to call all such things "photons" regardless of their energy.) So, X-rays and gamma radiation are the same thing.
Actually, gamma has two different uses, the older/historical definition is based upon the wavelength/energy of the radiation. That definition is now only used in astronomy (because the source of the emission can't be determined). The accepted usage in cases where the source can be determined is that gamma ray/radiation is produced in the nucleus, x-rays are produced by electrons (outside the nucleus), regardless of energy. So, yes, they are the same thing, except for an arbitrary line.
Alpha and beta radiation are in no way relevant here.
Which is clearly indicated in my post.
That's only really true if the X-rays are well-collimated. Since they point the X-ray beam so that it goes horizontally through your head (more or less) and then give you a lead shield for your chest, it stands to reason that either the X-ray beam is not well-collimated or the lead shield isn't there to serve a functional purpose.
It's there to provide "peace of mind" for the patient, and protection against malfunctioning or mis-calibrated machines. With x-ray machine manufactured in the past 30 years or so, shielding other parts of the body isn't necessary, but it's still used as a precautionary measure. It serves no active functional purpose.
None of which has any material effect upon what I stated.
Lead doesn't reflect radiation, it absorbs it. But that's irrelevant because "bouncing off your teeth and jaw" is equally flawed. X-Rays and other forms of ionizing radiation don't "bounce off" surfaces, it will either pass through, be absorbed, or trigger another particle to be emitted. There are 3 types of radiation that may be emitted, alpha, beta, and gamma. Alpha and beta will only penetrate a few millimeters of solid/liquid matter such as skin, muscle, etc so those won't make it back out of the body. Gamma (and the x-rays themselves) are best shielded by dense materials such as lead. However, putting a shield over the patient's head would only protect other people in the room, not the patient, because any such radiation would coming OUT of the patient's head. The only protection the patient would gain from wearing a lead cap is from any stray x-rays from the machine, and if the machine is emitting any notable amount of stray x-rays, it needs repair or replacement.
There is also neutron radiation, but that's also not a concern because: A) it's not common and not likely to be caused by an x-ray. B) is heavily moderated by water, so may not make it out of the body. C) passes through most materials, including thin layers of lead, so it's unlikely that any neutrons emitted would be stopped by a wearable shield.