What military GPS receiver uses the P(Y) code without the ability to fallback to just the C/A code?
As I understand it, early receivers needed to use the C/A code to lock onto the P(Y) code, so they would be stupid not to support fallback. Later units acquire P(Y) directly, but even they usually attempt to acquire C/A as well, so that the two frequencies can be used for ionospheric correction. If they have acquired C/A not supporting fallback is just stupid.
It is indeed based in part on the old COM infrastructure, but that is more an implementation detail than anything, especially since much of the API has changed as you show. Indeed implementing IUnknown appears to be unnecessary to the design of WinRT components, and as far as I can tell exists primarily to help ease porting of large COM-based applications.
The full.Net framework is technically available. By default only a subset of is exposed to Metro-style apps because Metro is sandboxed, and the excluded APIs could potentially be used to subvert the sandbox. It is not difficult to use the full.Net API from Metro-style apps, but if you do that, your app will be summarily rejected from the Windows app store for using unauthorized APIs.
WinRT consists of several parts. The first such part is a replacement for COM, heavilly inspired by managed code. Indeed the restrictions on the exported interface are explicitly designed such that objects remain easy to call from managed code. It also lifts some idiotic restrictions that COM had. The interfaces are now described using CLI metadata in the form of a WinRT file. Despite being heavily inspired b y managed code, this is still all native code, and does not require a garbage collector.
The second part of WinRT is a set of APIs that replace many Win32 Apis, exported using this new COM replacement. These APIs are also inspired by managed code, especially the naming and namespacing conventions. The APIs are not particularly low level, but are actually rather similar to many of the APIs in the.Net Framework. For example, consider the 'Windows.Data.Json' namespace. That hardly seems low level. Or how about 'Windows.Data.Xml.Dom' which is very roughly a ported version of the.NET 'System.Xml' namespace?
When writing.NET metro style apps in C#, the Full.Net framework is actually available, although only a portion of it is exposed by default, because the app store will reject Metro-style apps that use APIs not exposed by default, because those APIs can be used to escape the Metro Sandbox. (This is much like how metro-style C++ code could call any win32 API, even those not exposed by default, but that will cause the application to be rejected from the app store).
Managed C++ has long been deprecated in favor of C++/CLI.
C++/CLI is C++ plus a set of extensions to allow intermixing C++ and managed objects. The code is by default compiled to a mixture of managed code and native code. It is by far the easiest way to interface managed and native code, since you do not need to use COM, nor do you need to use p/invoke. (Of course if you don't know C++/CLI it may be easier to use one of those other methods).
There is also the option to generate pure managed code which then uses automatically generated p/invoke calls, and marshaling of managed equivalent structures. The code remains unverifiable, since it uses techniques like raw pointers. The resulting assembly is very unlikely to work on other architecures, due to differences in mangling, alignment, or word sizes.
You also have the option of attempting to generate "safe" verifiable MSIL (managed code), This puts substantial restrictions on the code, but allows the code to be called by other code running under partial trust. This code is potentially portable, but my not be if calls are made to native code.
1080i@50Hz (i.e. 50 "half-frames" per second) effectively encodes more visual data than either 1080p@25Hz, or stretched 540p@50Hz.
It encodes more than 1080p 25Hz by including information sampled twice as frequently, leading to smoother motion.
It encodes more than stretched 540p@50Hz by way of discriminating between twice the number of vertical lines, and thus providing twice the apparent vertical resolution on still (or slow moving) objects.
Obviously it provides less visual data than 1080p@50Hz, but 1080i@50Hz does provide more than the 50% of effective visual data that one might naively expect.
(Of course, that is all considering uncompressed streams. Once we start adding compression the bit rates start screwing with that analysis, exaggerating or collapsing some of the differences depending on what rates of resolution we are comparing and which compression scheme is used).
The real question is more why we bother to de-interlace the video when playing back on a computer, instead of simply drawing each "half-frame" on the appropriate lines alternatively. When content is playing at regular speed both should appear similar. (Obviously when pausing or playing in slow motion, we want a de-interlaced image, but in both of those cases we can afford to spend a bit more time calculating each de-interlaced frame).
I'm no expert. Based on Wikipedia, and verified by external sites, I've compiled the following information for comparison:
Normal high end cars get a zero to sixty of a little under 6 seconds. Expensive exotic cars get 3-4 seconds. The worlds fastest street legal car (the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport) does 0-60 in 2.46 seconds (that car costs the equivalent of over 2.5 million US dollars!).
The Formula One race cars (which trade some safety of street legal cars for extra speed), can get 0-60 time of around 2.3 seconds.
No sane person decides that cold-blooded mass murder (often of people only tangentially related to the source of their anger) is the best way to accomplish their goals.
*cough*Hiroshima*cough*
Fair enough, although the US was under the impression that fewer people would die (on both sides) by use of the bombs than by not using them.
It was still at best a questionable moral decision, but never-the-less it was one (unusual) case where cold blooded mass murder was a logical potential choice for accomplishing the a goal.
Similar circumstances occur in containment of high danger ultra-infectious diseases (like most Zombie outbreaks in recent media).
Are community translations that awful when the process consists of receiving multiple distinct translations for each entry, with the community voting on them, causing many of those that should be deleted not even being considered?
If each line requires a sufficient number of up-votes before getting preliminary approval (and even being looked at by the one person the company hired who is a fluent reader of the language) most of the crap should hopefully be filtered out.
The Compiler as a Service system should give us some form of AST. This should be exactly the same AST as Microsoft uses for Intellisense, since one of the goals of this project internally was to allow Intelisense and the compiler share as much code as possible, since they previously had separate implementations of some analysis passes, and other complicated code, with the Intellisense version not full matching the version in the compiler.
I suspect we may also have the capability of manipulating the AST, and then handing back the altered AST to the compiler to finish the work. In this way we could potentially extend the compiler.
This should also be interesting to creators of tools like ReSharper, which currently write their own lexer, parser, and AST, and analysis passes. It would be nice for them to have the option of using the compiler's as well.
Until the CTP is released, the exact extent of what can be done will not be certain.
The compilers do not run remotely. They will continue to be local applications installed with every copy of the.NET framework.
The Compiler as a Service concept mostly just exposing the the compiler's AST to the calling program. It has no relation to SaaS.
This is of great benefit to authors of tools that read and manipulate source code, since they no longer need to implement their own AST and parser, and can instead use the one of the compiler, which ensures that they never reject code that the compiler will accept.
This also opens up new possibilities for extending the languages. For example, one could write a wrapper that compiles code to AST, locates all instances of some new attribute, and modifies the AST in some way, before letting the compiler convert the AST to an assembly. There are tools for Aspect Oriented Programing that utilize attributes, but they currently need to rewrite the IL after the code is compiled, which is suboptimal compared to doing that as part of the compilation process itself.
What exactly will become possible depends on just what parts of the compiler get exposed, but at least until now that has not been revealed.
The Japanese people can amend their constitution. At this point though being a non-aggressive country has worked its way into the Japanese culture, so this is not expected to change in the short term future.
Japan does have the Jieitai or Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF). They are nominally an extension of the police (think a really overgrown SWAT team). In actuality they are a bit closer to an organized militia. The JSDF has rules of engagement strictly limiting them to defense, and they lack equipment like bomber jets that are mostly only useful in offensive circumstances. They also lack large caches of ammunition, so while they could hold off a small scale invasion attempt, they are currently reliant on the US for larger scale attempts, or persistent smaller attempts.
The fact that they are legally an extension of the police has the interesting consequence that the member are considered civilians, and thus are never subject to court-martial or military courts, but only the normal civilian processes. It also means that there is currently no such thing a military secret (distinct from a state secret).
It is plausible that the constitution will be amended in the future to more specifically allow the SDF as a military force, but in order to gain acceptance for that, it seems likely that the wording forbidding aggressive action would be to be strengthened considerably, since the Japanese public appears to strongly support Japan as a peaceful nation.
Calculators were strictly forbidden at every math exam I've had at university. They tested my knowledge and understanding far better than any other exam I had. All I needed was to know the multiplication table (up to 12 helps), how to multiply larger numbers and how to divide numbers.
That is reasonable, especially when the problems are crafted to have nice round answers. That is designed to test understanding, and if done right, the teacher really won't care if your answer is wrong due to arithmetic error, as long as the work shows that you understood the problem and how to solve it.
The one downside to this though is because handwritten arithmetic generally takes longer than using a calculator, the professor cannot have as many questions. I personally found that most of my mathematics professors allowed calculators on tests, despite no problems needing them. The problems invariably were things that even the best calculators on the market could not solve. (For example, I've yet to see a calculator that can symbolically perform surface integration, and by that point in calculus, the basic integrals you convert them to are something the students have already proven they can solve on their own, so the fact that some calculators can solve them is irrelevant).
With calculators you may learn how to solve certain problems by rote, and thus score slightly higher on tests. That doesn't mean you have any understanding of the math involved. Tests where calculators are involved seem to be prone to this, at least in my experience (which is admittedly not that extensive). My girlfriend had "learned" math like this. She attempted to take further math classes, but quickly struggled as there was no longer a magic button that would rescue her.
I guess my point is that calculators doesn't do anything for understanding.
Correct, calculators do nothing for understanding. They simply help speed things up and reduce errors. In school ideally you would only ever use a calculator to do things that you have already demonstrated an understanding of. Those are often the sub-problems of your current problem.
Doing trivial multiplication and addition on paper is a skill I believe most people should possess, and if you have that as a basis you can test their skills in everything from easy to complicated math problems.
They can of course help with productivity if you know what you're doing.
Being able to do trivial addition and multiplication on paper is definitely a skill everybody should possess, but that is a required portion of primary education pretty much everywhere.
In the real world using a calculator is far faster and less prone to mistakes (you can make a mistake typing, but with pen and paper, you can make a mistake writing the original numbers, or make a mistake in the basic arithmetic.)
I find it hard to believe that they actually intercepted any communications in transit. While it is possible for them to have done do, it is far easier to simply capture the semi-permanent record of the communication (the copy in the "sent items" folder, or equivalent) after the fact.
The ECPA is actually a very similar law to the Ohio wiretapping law, so I still tend to doubt that they actually violated that law either.
If of course they had intercepted live communications, such as by way of using a packet sniffer, or keylogger, or screen captures, then I would agree that the violated the ECPA.
Intercepting a private electronic communication without the consent of one of the two parties, and without a warrant is illegal
However, in this case, I suspect that no wiretapping actually occurred. Instead the company most likely accessed the device, and found a copy of the pictures. Since that copy of the communication was made with the consent of the sending party (as a side effect of actually sending the pictures), it was entirely legal. The actions would have been computer trespass, except that they were done with the permission of the lawful owner.
Thus the only crimes potentially committed were of how the pictures were used by the company after they were obtained.
Unfortunately though, Restricted Stock Unit (RSU) is the standard term. After all they are not shares of stock, although the company will need to give him shares or the value of shares when these vest. They are also not stock options, since those require buying the stock at the specified price in order to not be wasted. So they went with units.
as an undergrad, I interfaced a DRAM chip (with internal refresh logic) to an FPGA connected to an ADC and DAC with microphone and speaker. The FPGA was configured to contain a soft processor of my own design, which ran a hard coded program that simply read from the ADC and wrote to sequential ram positions when one button was pressed, and read from ram and wrote to DAC when the other was pressed. The DRAM thus contained uncompressed PCM data.
If I recorded myself saying something, and then pulled the plug and then plugged it back in within 3 minutes, and pushed the play button, you could still make out what I said. It takes a shockingly long time before the ram decays completely to white noise. This is without any cooling of the RAM at all.
Sure, spinning off a company looks like exiting a market to wall street, but to the consumer it looks like "HP is now known as XYZZY Corp."
In the short term, the only difference consumers will notice is the new name-tag and website.
That is very different from buying a system, and then when you go to get support, you find out that no support is offered anymore, and that the warranties are now honored only by refunding the purchase price. That is also known as exiting a market, and is an entirely different beast.
A company spin off is a very, very different thing from simply closing down the PC factories and shredding the plans.
"Exiting the PC hardware business" sounds more like the latter, while if the former was meant, the normal phrasing would be "spinning off the PC Hardware business".
Technically "exiting the PC hardware business" could refer to spinning off a business, but that is not what jumps immediately to mind.
Would the Grandpartent have standing to file such an action? After all, similar challenges to various laws in the United States have been denied for lack of standing, since the filer was unable to show that their rights had been violated or would most likely be violated in the near term future.
In reality he is director of the MIT STEP program, which is a program which teaching MIT students how to teach high school. (No, I'm not kidding.)
The STEP program was actually responsible for developing the graphical programming system (OpenBlocks) used by App Inventor. OpenBlocks was originally invented for use in the StarLogo TNG environment, but was deliberately designed to be general and suitable for other block based visual programming languages.
Motorola Mobility includes virtually all consumer products, with the exception of consumer 2 way radios.
It also includes the cable modems, and set-top boxes, of both the cable and IPTV style.
It includes Cell Phones, Cordless wall phones, Baby monitor, Tablets, Bluetooth headsets, MotoNav, and TIMBUKTU.
If you are at all in doubt find the official page for a Motorola product, and look down at the copyright notice. If it says Motorola Solutions, Google is not buying it. If it says Motorola Mobility, then Google is buying it, unless they spin it off as part of the process.
Of course the loss of the status bar does not mean much. While the original 4.0 did not, later releases added in a chrome style URL bubble down at the bottom. (visible only when hovering over a link). Since that, the progress bar, and extensions were all that were ever in the status bar, and since the addon bar at the bottom can hold extensions, the only thing missing is a bottom progress bar.
If you don't like tabs on top, or the menu button, it takes less than a minute to revert both. Finding a nice theme for that configuration should not take more than a few minutes either.
However, there is a very good reason why Chrome, Opera, IE and Firefox are all converging on a similar look and feel. I strongly recommend that everybody seriously try using it for a while, and see if it really bothers them.
Slashdot Mirror
What military GPS receiver uses the P(Y) code without the ability to fallback to just the C/A code?
As I understand it, early receivers needed to use the C/A code to lock onto the P(Y) code, so they would be stupid not to support fallback. Later units acquire P(Y) directly, but even they usually attempt to acquire C/A as well, so that the two frequencies can be used for ionospheric correction. If they have acquired C/A not supporting fallback is just stupid.
It is indeed based in part on the old COM infrastructure, but that is more an implementation detail than anything, especially since much of the API has changed as you show. Indeed implementing IUnknown appears to be unnecessary to the design of WinRT components, and as far as I can tell exists primarily to help ease porting of large COM-based applications.
The full .Net framework is technically available. By default only a subset of is exposed to Metro-style apps because Metro is sandboxed, and the excluded APIs could potentially be used to subvert the sandbox. It is not difficult to use the full .Net API from Metro-style apps, but if you do that, your app will be summarily rejected from the Windows app store for using unauthorized APIs.
I as understand it WinRT replaces COM.
WinRT consists of several parts.
The first such part is a replacement for COM, heavilly inspired by managed code. Indeed the restrictions on the exported interface are explicitly designed such that objects remain easy to call from managed code. It also lifts some idiotic restrictions that COM had. The interfaces are now described using CLI metadata in the form of a WinRT file. Despite being heavily inspired b y managed code, this is still all native code, and does not require a garbage collector.
The second part of WinRT is a set of APIs that replace many Win32 Apis, exported using this new COM replacement. These APIs are also inspired by managed code, especially the naming and namespacing conventions. The APIs are not particularly low level, but are actually rather similar to many of the APIs in the .Net Framework. For example, consider the 'Windows.Data.Json' namespace. That hardly seems low level. Or how about 'Windows.Data.Xml.Dom' which is very roughly a ported version of the .NET 'System.Xml' namespace?
When writing .NET metro style apps in C#, the Full .Net framework is actually available, although only a portion of it is exposed by default, because the app store will reject Metro-style apps that use APIs not exposed by default, because those APIs can be used to escape the Metro Sandbox. (This is much like how metro-style C++ code could call any win32 API, even those not exposed by default, but that will cause the application to be rejected from the app store).
Managed C++ has long been deprecated in favor of C++/CLI.
C++/CLI is C++ plus a set of extensions to allow intermixing C++ and managed objects. The code is by default compiled to a mixture of managed code and native code. It is by far the easiest way to interface managed and native code, since you do not need to use COM, nor do you need to use p/invoke. (Of course if you don't know C++/CLI it may be easier to use one of those other methods).
There is also the option to generate pure managed code which then uses automatically generated p/invoke calls, and marshaling of managed equivalent structures. The code remains unverifiable, since it uses techniques like raw pointers. The resulting assembly is very unlikely to work on other architecures, due to differences in mangling, alignment, or word sizes.
You also have the option of attempting to generate "safe" verifiable MSIL (managed code), This puts substantial restrictions on the code, but allows the code to be called by other code running under partial trust. This code is potentially portable, but my not be if calls are made to native code.
1080i@50Hz (i.e. 50 "half-frames" per second) effectively encodes more visual data than either 1080p@25Hz, or stretched 540p@50Hz.
It encodes more than 1080p 25Hz by including information sampled twice as frequently, leading to smoother motion.
It encodes more than stretched 540p@50Hz by way of discriminating between twice the number of vertical lines, and thus providing twice the apparent vertical resolution on still (or slow moving) objects.
Obviously it provides less visual data than 1080p@50Hz, but 1080i@50Hz does provide more than the 50% of effective visual data that one might naively expect.
(Of course, that is all considering uncompressed streams. Once we start adding compression the bit rates start screwing with that analysis, exaggerating or collapsing some of the differences depending on what rates of resolution we are comparing and which compression scheme is used).
The real question is more why we bother to de-interlace the video when playing back on a computer, instead of simply drawing each "half-frame" on the appropriate lines alternatively. When content is playing at regular speed both should appear similar. (Obviously when pausing or playing in slow motion, we want a de-interlaced image, but in both of those cases we can afford to spend a bit more time calculating each de-interlaced frame).
I'm no expert. Based on Wikipedia, and verified by external sites, I've compiled the following information for comparison:
Normal high end cars get a zero to sixty of a little under 6 seconds. Expensive exotic cars get 3-4 seconds. The worlds fastest street legal car (the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport) does 0-60 in 2.46 seconds (that car costs the equivalent of over 2.5 million US dollars!).
The Formula One race cars (which trade some safety of street legal cars for extra speed), can get 0-60 time of around 2.3 seconds.
No sane person decides that cold-blooded mass murder (often of people only tangentially related to the source of their anger) is the best way to accomplish their goals.
*cough*Hiroshima*cough*
Fair enough, although the US was under the impression that fewer people would die (on both sides) by use of the bombs than by not using them.
It was still at best a questionable moral decision, but never-the-less it was one (unusual) case where cold blooded mass murder was a logical potential choice for accomplishing the a goal.
Similar circumstances occur in containment of high danger ultra-infectious diseases (like most Zombie outbreaks in recent media).
Are community translations that awful when the process consists of receiving multiple distinct translations for each entry, with the community voting on them, causing many of those that should be deleted not even being considered?
If each line requires a sufficient number of up-votes before getting preliminary approval (and even being looked at by the one person the company hired who is a fluent reader of the language) most of the crap should hopefully be filtered out.
That's hardly a problem, since the video makes it look like the bike might just max out at 10 mph anyway.
The Compiler as a Service system should give us some form of AST. This should be exactly the same AST as Microsoft uses for Intellisense, since one of the goals of this project internally was to allow Intelisense and the compiler share as much code as possible, since they previously had separate implementations of some analysis passes, and other complicated code, with the Intellisense version not full matching the version in the compiler.
I suspect we may also have the capability of manipulating the AST, and then handing back the altered AST to the compiler to finish the work. In this way we could potentially extend the compiler.
This should also be interesting to creators of tools like ReSharper, which currently write their own lexer, parser, and AST, and analysis passes. It would be nice for them to have the option of using the compiler's as well.
Until the CTP is released, the exact extent of what can be done will not be certain.
The compilers do not run remotely. They will continue to be local applications installed with every copy of the .NET framework.
The Compiler as a Service concept mostly just exposing the the compiler's AST to the calling program. It has no relation to SaaS.
This is of great benefit to authors of tools that read and manipulate source code, since they no longer need to implement their own AST and parser, and can instead use the one of the compiler, which ensures that they never reject code that the compiler will accept.
This also opens up new possibilities for extending the languages. For example, one could write a wrapper that compiles code to AST, locates all instances of some new attribute, and modifies the AST in some way, before letting the compiler convert the AST to an assembly. There are tools for Aspect Oriented Programing that utilize attributes, but they currently need to rewrite the IL after the code is compiled, which is suboptimal compared to doing that as part of the compilation process itself.
What exactly will become possible depends on just what parts of the compiler get exposed, but at least until now that has not been revealed.
Google APIs generally use Authsub (A google invented protocol), or the combination of OpenId and OpenAuth, possibly using the Hybrid Protocol,
The Japanese people can amend their constitution. At this point though being a non-aggressive country has worked its way into the Japanese culture, so this is not expected to change in the short term future.
Japan does have the Jieitai or Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF). They are nominally an extension of the police (think a really overgrown SWAT team).
In actuality they are a bit closer to an organized militia. The JSDF has rules of engagement strictly limiting them to defense, and they lack equipment like bomber jets that are mostly only useful in offensive circumstances. They also lack large caches of ammunition, so while they could hold off a small scale invasion attempt, they are currently reliant on the US for larger scale attempts, or persistent smaller attempts.
The fact that they are legally an extension of the police has the interesting consequence that the member are considered civilians, and thus are never subject to court-martial or military courts, but only the normal civilian processes. It also means that there is currently no such thing a military secret (distinct from a state secret).
It is plausible that the constitution will be amended in the future to more specifically allow the SDF as a military force, but in order to gain acceptance for that, it seems likely that the wording forbidding aggressive action would be to be strengthened considerably, since the Japanese public appears to strongly support Japan as a peaceful nation.
Not in my experience.
Calculators were strictly forbidden at every math exam I've had at university. They tested my knowledge and understanding far better than any other exam I had. All I needed was to know the multiplication table (up to 12 helps), how to multiply larger numbers and how to divide numbers.
That is reasonable, especially when the problems are crafted to have nice round answers. That is designed to test understanding, and if done right, the teacher really won't care if your answer is wrong due to arithmetic error, as long as the work shows that you understood the problem and how to solve it.
The one downside to this though is because handwritten arithmetic generally takes longer than using a calculator, the professor cannot have as many questions. I personally found that most of my mathematics professors allowed calculators on tests, despite no problems needing them. The problems invariably were things that even the best calculators on the market could not solve. (For example, I've yet to see a calculator that can symbolically perform surface integration, and by that point in calculus, the basic integrals you convert them to are something the students have already proven they can solve on their own, so the fact that some calculators can solve them is irrelevant).
With calculators you may learn how to solve certain problems by rote, and thus score slightly higher on tests. That doesn't mean you have any understanding of the math involved. Tests where calculators are involved seem to be prone to this, at least in my experience (which is admittedly not that extensive). My girlfriend had "learned" math like this. She attempted to take further math classes, but quickly struggled as there was no longer a magic button that would rescue her.
I guess my point is that calculators doesn't do anything for understanding.
Correct, calculators do nothing for understanding. They simply help speed things up and reduce errors. In school ideally you would only ever use a calculator to do things that you have already demonstrated an understanding of. Those are often the sub-problems of your current problem.
Doing trivial multiplication and addition on paper is a skill I believe most people should possess, and if you have that as a basis you can test their skills in everything from easy to complicated math problems.
They can of course help with productivity if you know what you're doing.
Being able to do trivial addition and multiplication on paper is definitely a skill everybody should possess, but that is a required portion of primary education pretty much everywhere.
In the real world using a calculator is far faster and less prone to mistakes (you can make a mistake typing, but with pen and paper, you can make a mistake writing the original numbers, or make a mistake in the basic arithmetic.)
I find it hard to believe that they actually intercepted any communications in transit. While it is possible for them to have done do, it is far easier to simply capture the semi-permanent record of the communication (the copy in the "sent items" folder, or equivalent) after the fact.
The ECPA is actually a very similar law to the Ohio wiretapping law, so I still tend to doubt that they actually violated that law either.
If of course they had intercepted live communications, such as by way of using a packet sniffer, or keylogger, or screen captures, then I would agree that the violated the ECPA.
Please read the actual law: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2933.52
Intercepting a private electronic communication without the consent of one of the two parties, and without a warrant is illegal
However, in this case, I suspect that no wiretapping actually occurred. Instead the company most likely accessed the device, and found a copy of the pictures. Since that copy of the communication was made with the consent of the sending party (as a side effect of actually sending the pictures), it was entirely legal. The actions would have been computer trespass, except that they were done with the permission of the lawful owner.
Thus the only crimes potentially committed were of how the pictures were used by the company after they were obtained.
Unfortunately though, Restricted Stock Unit (RSU) is the standard term. After all they are not shares of stock, although the company will need to give him shares or the value of shares when these vest. They are also not stock options, since those require buying the stock at the specified price in order to not be wasted. So they went with units.
as an undergrad, I interfaced a DRAM chip (with internal refresh logic) to an FPGA connected to an ADC and DAC with microphone and speaker. The FPGA was configured to contain a soft processor of my own design, which ran a hard coded program that simply read from the ADC and wrote to sequential ram positions when one button was pressed, and read from ram and wrote to DAC when the other was pressed. The DRAM thus contained uncompressed PCM data.
If I recorded myself saying something, and then pulled the plug and then plugged it back in within 3 minutes, and pushed the play button, you could still make out what I said. It takes a shockingly long time before the ram decays completely to white noise. This is without any cooling of the RAM at all.
Sure, spinning off a company looks like exiting a market to wall street, but to the consumer it looks like "HP is now known as XYZZY Corp."
In the short term, the only difference consumers will notice is the new name-tag and website.
That is very different from buying a system, and then when you go to get support, you find out that no support is offered anymore, and that the warranties are now honored only by refunding the purchase price. That is also known as exiting a market, and is an entirely different beast.
A company spin off is a very, very different thing from simply closing down the PC factories and shredding the plans.
"Exiting the PC hardware business" sounds more like the latter, while if the former was meant, the normal phrasing would be "spinning off the PC Hardware business".
Technically "exiting the PC hardware business" could refer to spinning off a business, but that is not what jumps immediately to mind.
Would the Grandpartent have standing to file such an action? After all, similar challenges to various laws in the United States have been denied for lack of standing, since the filer was unable to show that their rights had been violated or would most likely be violated in the near term future.
In reality he is director of the MIT STEP program, which is a program which teaching MIT students how to teach high school. (No, I'm not kidding.)
The STEP program was actually responsible for developing the graphical programming system (OpenBlocks) used by App Inventor. OpenBlocks was originally invented for use in the StarLogo TNG environment, but was deliberately designed to be general and suitable for other block based visual programming languages.
Motorola Mobility includes virtually all consumer products, with the exception of consumer 2 way radios.
It also includes the cable modems, and set-top boxes, of both the cable and IPTV style.
It includes Cell Phones, Cordless wall phones, Baby monitor, Tablets, Bluetooth headsets, MotoNav, and TIMBUKTU.
If you are at all in doubt find the official page for a Motorola product, and look down at the copyright notice. If it says Motorola Solutions, Google is not buying it. If it says Motorola Mobility, then Google is buying it, unless they spin it off as part of the process.
Of course the loss of the status bar does not mean much. While the original 4.0 did not, later releases added in a chrome style URL bubble down at the bottom. (visible only when hovering over a link). Since that, the progress bar, and extensions were all that were ever in the status bar, and since the addon bar at the bottom can hold extensions, the only thing missing is a bottom progress bar.
If you don't like tabs on top, or the menu button, it takes less than a minute to revert both. Finding a nice theme for that configuration should not take more than a few minutes either.
However, there is a very good reason why Chrome, Opera, IE and Firefox are all converging on a similar look and feel. I strongly recommend that everybody seriously try using it for a while, and see if it really bothers them.