261 posts • joined 23 May 2007
i don't think the response is 100% removed from being a slap: Apple gets nothing except a restatement of the monitor's frame of reference. As others have noted, "relevance" is a subjective concept, and there was no change to his charter.
I interpret the "relevance" bit as a statement that the only challenges that the court will tolerate are those concerning relevance, and that's a high bar to prove (alleging irrelevance is easy, but that can be countered with something along the lines of "we won't know whether it's relevant unless you tell us what's in it"!)
Chris 201: you're quite right about destruction of evidence, etc. But the point is that IF you act in such a way as to prevent The Authorities from rampaging through your files, THEN you can be done for the offense of Preventing Authorities Rampaging aka obstruction of justice. Likewise, if they can't prove the suspect actually did the burgling, but can prove he wiped the door handles knowing that so doing would impede the investigation, that's obstruction.
And the point of the Doe case was that the government COULD compel Mr. Doe to authorize the banks to release information; they couldn't magically force him to sign the document, but they could hold in contempt of court (in jail) until he did... and they could continue to hold him indefinitely.
To those who have suggested that the US protections against self-incrimination are somehow a magic bullet against this sort of intrusion, the reality is not so clear cut.
US courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) have regularly ruled that e.g. you do not have the right to prevent a search pursuant to a warrant just because that search might/will incriminate you. And in 1988's Doe vs United States (487 U.S. 201) the Supremes held that could compel a defendant to sign a document authorizing foreign banks to disclose information on any accounts owned or controlled by the defendant, even though IF the banks did provide any data, THEN it would be prima facie evidence of a criminal offsense (in that case, failing to respond to a lawful subpoena to disclose all banking records).
So the argument by the defendant boiled down to "if I unlock the door of the safe, then you'll open it and find stuff which will land me in trouble", whereas the government argued that unlocking the door to the safe is not in itself an act that could incriminate you (although the contents could). The government won.
A similar situation exists with destruction of evidence: if your husband burns the letter you wrote that instructed someone to tap the phone of the the prime minister (to be topical), your husband is likely to find himself on trial for obstruction of justice charges. So if you destroy (or cause to be destroyed) evidence by triggering anti-tamper devices, you're still in hot water (although the charge may be different).
Re: Phablet calling
I don't see this as a I* device _user-based_ phenomenon, but rather an example of some extremely good marketing by Apple: iPhone (and iPad, and iPod) are all extremely good monikers for the device, better than "smartphone" ("tablet", "MP3 player").
This should come as no surprise, because by and large Apple's strength is in "technical marketing", rather than true pure innovation: to paraphrase BASF, they didn't invent the mouse/MP3 player/smartphone/tablet/whatever, they packaged up a bunch of existing stuff (and did very well), and then SOLD it to consumers.
Re: This was a resurrection of a failed proposal...
I very much doubt that Antares would ever carry a human-rated capsule, for several reasons:
1. SpaceX has made it fairly clear that their projects are all centered around reducing the cost of putting a tonne into orbit (so they can achieve Elon Musk's stated goals with regards to Mars). Putting Dragon on Antares achieves nothing that Dragon on Falcon 9 doesn't achieve in that regard.
2. Antares can lift 6 tones to LEO. Falcon 9 baseline can carry 10 tonnes, and the Falcon 9 v1.1 can lift 13 tonnes. Those figures show that if Antares were to carry a manned capsule, the Soyuz would be a better fit (and the comments about solid rocket motors, above, really do apply), and that's not a likely outcome (that goose lays golden eggs). For reference, the Shuttle could put 24 tonnes into orbit (which is largely how the ISS got there), and the Falcon Heavy is supposed to shift about double that; Saturn V, of course, could do more than 4 times what the Shuttle could, making Skylab a much easier proposition than ISS was.
3. Orbital currently has, what, 50-odd Kuznetsov engines, equating to 25 more Antares vehicles, 15 of which are committed to COTS with Cygnus. Sure, various schemes are afoot to restart NK-33 production or produce derivative engines, but those are not yet qualified solutions (and at least one scheme produces a significantly more powerful engine -- 25% more thrust, suggesting that the vehicle to which it would be attached would be different from the current Antares; Antares 2, anyone?).
4. The virtues of the Aeroject/Kuznetsov engine lie mainly in its excellent thrust-to-weight ratio. That performance metric is exceeded only by an indigenous SpaceX engine, so putting Dragon on it seems a bit of a sideways move.
Realistically, (western) human-rated launchers are either going to come from SpaceX, or from some restart of NASA's constellation. The latter seems politically unlikely any time soon.
Re: You're allowed more booze than that.
One of the (many) fundamental failings of the "recommended maximum units of alcohol per week" nonsense is that is assumes that the effects of alcohol are discrete and linear. There is no mechanism for, e.g., factoring in the positive effects of alcohol in managing stress, so someone with a high stress job might genuinely be able to absorb more units with beneficial effects, before the negative effects starts to outweigh the positive ones.
Another ignored phenomena is that, for some individuals, drinking is a displacement activity that displaces other, more harmful, actions (over-eating, narcotics, etc). For this population, although alcohol may (or may not) be problematic in itself, it is less problematic than the alternative.
@curtis, Actually your inference is bass-ackwards: the reason for seeking a declarative judgment (as Goldieblox did) is to shutdown merit-less litiguous thuggery. No-one with a clue would go to court seeking a declaration that they were NOT infringing, unless they seriously believed that they weren't.
Therefore the fact that Goldieblox filed suit for declaratory relief (i.e. they didn't ask for anything from the Beastie Boys at all, all they asked for was a ruling that they did not infringe) is strong evidence that they believe that they do not infringe AND case law is on their side (which, incidentally, it is).
Their alternative is to sit around waiting to see if the (Beastie Boys) rights agents would sue, which (if they were smart) they would take their time over, because they (the agents) want to maximize the settlement, and the best way to do that is to sit back and wait until the toy company has sold a gazillion things, and then argue that the BB's are entitled to a percentage of each.
What really happened here is that some lawyer acting for the Beastie Boys got called on their tactics. And the fact that the BB's have now sued Goldieblox even though GB has done asked of them is more evidence that the BB's don't give a flying wossname about anything other than trousering pots of cash. So no change there, then.
Re: VW Badge
It's usually better to present the actual facts, rather than fabricate a narrative. In this instance, the Beastie Boys sent a "cease and desist" letter threatening a lawsuit (and it did NOT have an "unless you do this we will sue" modifier). Given that the Beastie Boys opened with a piece of attempted thuggery, it is disingenuous in the extreme to then go wailing about how mean it was of the people they attempted to thug for those people to ask a court to rule on the validity of the claims in the attempted thuggery.
Re: Pretty much my thoughts too
Your entire argument fails on an baseless argument: that you believe that the "creative motive" matters. Plus the fact is that the advertisement _as an advertisement_ has a "commentary or political expression" as its core: the (socially sound) idea that STEM for women is A Good Thing. Despite your pontification, in the USA corporations have free speech rights, and corporations can be argued to be ALWAYS selling something whenever they speak, so the entirety of your argument fails.
Re: Pretty much my thoughts too
And the other factor that has many folk all riled up was, equally, justifiable: the rights agents for the Beastie Boys sent a threatening "cease and desist" letter, and in my world if you're not prepared to deal with the consequences of your threats, you shouldn't make them. In this instance, the toy company went to court to get a ruling that they were NOT infringing, which seems like the appropriate response to threats based on the accusation that they were.
Plus, when the toy company DID back down, what did the people who issued the threats do? They filed suit.
Re: @rh587 wrt: Campbell vs Acuff-Rose Music
Utter tripe: "if the song has no existence outside the advert"!
You may want to check up on copyright law.
The fact that the motive behind the creation of the work was for commercial gain (selling other stuff) as opposed to commercial gain (selling records) is only a minor consideration, at least per the US Supreme Court. To consider otherwise would be ridiculous, because you would have to judge the motives of each creator.
Re: @Tom ... Take 'em for every penny you can boys.
How is this a parody? The words have been changed to convey the exact opposite of the original, which is pretty much the bellwether definition of a parody...
There's a lot of retro-justification which says that the original version was ironic, therefore there is no change in message (ironic "girls are good for nothing but serving boys" -> non-ironic "girls are good for STEM"), but there's also a fair amount of opinion that the original version wasn't actually ironic.
Re: I'm with the beasties on this one
The BB's have stated that no-one may ever use any of their songs in commerce, and in particular Adam Yauch made that a condition, and he's dead so can't change his mind.
So anyone claiming that they would have been more receptive is, bluntly, wrong.
Re: I'm not mono-browed....
@Josco... you possibly have a different problem, in that there's a place 8 miles from Harrogate that is likely sucking up all the comms infrastructure in the region. The sort of place that thinks in terabits/sec, not megabits...
I would opine that, since Lockheed Martin is publishing stuff about this, they've already lost the argument with the DoD as to whether they'll get funded for it.
The current tack looks like "persuade the voters to support Congress funding this", which is a very poor second place to "the DoD wants this really really badly, and even better we should keep the development under wraps so just slip it into the black budget, thakyouverymuch". The latter, of course, being how the SR-71 got built.
@Dave 52: People stick weird things in their ears and wander around apparently talking to themselves. It may not be "stylish" (but style, like taste, is subjective, so who are you or I to judge?), but it is effective at doing the job that people want done.
Another, even more remarkable, fact is that apparently people voluntarily stick devastatingly ugly things on their faces and stare at TV's, in the idea that 3D illusions apparently enhance the viewing experience.
In both cases, the key issue seems to be whether the perceived benefit exceeds the blow to their fashion sense.
Charles Brett is flat out wrong in his first paragraph, and @Chris Miller's observation (above) that "most people" don't refer to Gibibytes isn't actually relevant.
I submit that "most people" are correct in their belief that a megabyte is a million bytes and a gigabyte is a billion of them. The fact that "computer science" (at least, according to Charles Brett) seems to think that an integer power of two is a better definition is not relevant (nor correct, come to that).
The reason for the absolute lack of relevance is that the same companies that are pricing data plans in megabytes (and confusing poor Charles Brett into thinking they're actually talking about Mebibytes) ALSO talk about data rates. And while the data storage industry got lazy and conflate mega- and mebi-, the data communications never did: modems came in 300, 1200, 9600, 14400, 28800, 33600, 56000 bits per second, with the higher rate ones being (correctly) referred to as 14.4k, 28.8k, 33.6k, 56k bits per second. And a T1 line runs at 1.544mbits per second, meaning 1,544,000 bits per second.
So if your carrier (as mine does) offers 3GB of data before dropping the data rate from "3G/4G to 2G speeds" (i.e. from about 21Mbps to about 56Kbps), you need a distorted mind to interpret the "GB" as binary and the "Mb/Kb" as decimal.
Anyway, the rest of the article is doing nothing more than pointing out the bleeding obvious, namely that either the supplier or the consumer could pay for the "freight" costs. Simple examples include the WiFi service offered by many airlines: accessing the airline's website is frequently free, and accessing some content providers likewise, but general internet access requires payment. Another example can be found in Amazon's Whispernet for Kindle: buy from Amazon, and you get the content delivered for free.
The premise of the article is codswallop: tape is great as long as the use cases for recovery permit enough time to accomplish the recovery.
So it's great for true disaster recovery, and its great for "archival snapshots" (to show the rozzers, f'rinstance).
It's also great for the "we probably will never need this data, but if we do, it will be priceless".
And example of that can be found here: http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-111408a.html
They could either recover the data, OR go back to the moon. And since the use for the data was, err, going back to the moon, the value of the data that successfully recovered from those tapes is simply incalculable.
I mean, those tapes contained the original Earthrise.
T-Mobile just don't know how to run a mobile network
This is just another example of T-Mo's US incompetence.
First, of all the US carriers, they are the ONLY one to not understand the point of carrier lock-in. Unlike the smooth operators like AT&T & Verizon, T-Mo are incapable of grasping that you have to forbid customers from changing the SIM (a technique that Verizon handles by not using GSM in the first place). T-Mo, believe it or not, will GIVE you the unlock code if you, err, ask for it. Oh, sure, they have rules about how the handset has have been active on their network for 30 days (or some such), but they'll waive that if you e.g. spent a lot of money buying the handset.
Then they support WiFi calling (not VOIP, but using WiFi for the "last mile"), which works extremely well in, e.g., hotels with WiFi and allows one's US phone number to be used exactly as if it were in the US on T-Mo's network, even when you're in some hotel in Osaka or Dusseldorf (hmm... I'll have to check about Beijing, 'cos it may not get out of the Chinese Firewall).
And now they're making it unnecessary to change the blasted SIM OR use WiFi calling, even though they make it practical to do both of those things.
Oh, and the twits support tethering etc. without mandatory raping OR pillaging, too.
Fools. Fools I say.
@Algingautr you do realize you're interrupting some good old EU bashing here by posting those so-called "facts", right?
I mean, that response you posted seems rational, and it reports a rather different viewpoint: it was an MoU (not a regulation), the MoU has expired, the EU is looking at the results, considering whether it worked, and on the basis of the previous experience looking to see if it would be worthwhile doing something similar and/or more ambitious again.
How are people supposed to getting hysterically nationalistic about that ?
(OK, the bit about getting an answer in Dutch is, obviously, a hint that IF you asked the question in that language, your answer would have been something like:
Ja! Ve vill force der stupid Englanders and Yankee scum to zeir knees! Vive Edam!
Re: RIM fail as well as Apple
Granted, that won't totally do my laptop (a bit of a monster that would _like_ 120W) I'd be happy with a 100W system that would run the thing or charge the battery, but not both (which is what happens when I plug in a 90W adapter instead of the 120W one).
And it works over the normal USB connectors.
Re: Here we go again
No, the EU hasn't produced an Apple, a Microsoft, or a Google.
But they have produced an ARM, which Apple, Microsoft, and Google all rely on.
Re: Best connector
Why no MagSafe on any other device (except some TomToms)? Perhaps you missed the information that Apple is a litigious troll?
The simple answer is that Apple blustered and threatened, and no vendor wanted to fight them for a benefit that, while real, is small (or perceived as quite small). I know people do suffer from accidents that would have been prevented by MagSafe, but despite Apple's marketing efforts, it doesn't seem to be enough of a problem that people worry about it (my HP laptop's connector generally just pops out with no magnets involved)!
Actually, I think your assertion is flatly and fatally incorrect.
It _is_ a reasonable assertion for a smartphone or a tablet. But for a headset? A feature phone? Not even close: Lightning requires support circuitry to handle the symmetry, which is reasonable, even elegant, for the use case that Lightning was designed for (i.e. carrying high-speed a/v signals and incidentally power), but for a huge number of DEVICES it's ridiculous overkill.
So, there is an existing population of millions of devices, some of which need no or only speed (e.g. 12Mbps) communications, while others need medium (100's of Mbps) or high (Gbps) data rates.Is there any rational use case to insist that the complexity of Lightning must be forced on the low end?
Of course not. USB would win in your scenario. Not because it's "better", but because it is a simpler, cheaper solution for the low end, and more low end devices get bought (and the associate charger eventually dumped) than do high end devices.
Whether you like it or not is one thing, but "fragile" is a bogus description based on FUD. The "notch" in the middle actually improves the strength of the thing compared to e.g. HDMI, SATA, DisplayPort, etc., as well as providing 100% backward compatibility.
Re: Have you seen the new micro USB 3.0 cable?
P.s. I forgot to mention that the USB Power Delivery standard does exactly what I described: up to 60W using 20V over a MICRO USB connector, and up to 100W (again, at 20V) using larger connectors -- again, limited by that 5A thing.
Re: Have you seen the new micro USB 3.0 cable?
Hideous is in the eye of the beholder, but "new" it is not.
Based on actual testing, the Micro USB (and Micro USB "B") are far more resilient than Mini USB, both in life expectancy and in failure modes.
However, the level of obtuseness here is astounding: the issue is not about the connector, but about how the charger and device communicate. A USB device can "demand" 500mA without much in the way of negotiation, and so a 500mA charger would do fine. But 500mA is a low charge rate for tablets and most smartphones, so clever engineers pondered the problem of how a smart device (tablet, phone, headset, etc) could interrogate the charging brick to see what current it was designed for, and if the brick signalled that it could handle more than 500mA (e.g. 2000mA), then the smart device should feel free to suck 2A, but otherwise it should trickle at 500mA lest it melt the fuse in the brick, etc. etc.
Now, Apple (as usual) have their own "magic" way of figuring out the power delivery capability of a USB brick: the voltages on the (USB) data lines (D+ and D-) are driven to particular voltages, and thereby signal whether the brick can provide 500mA, 1000mA, or 2000mA. Of course, this sort of trick doesn't actually define quite useful things like maximum inrush current, but it's a good start...
HOWEVER... whether it's with a USB connector or a Lightning connector on the device, the charging VOLTAGE is more-or-less standardized at 5V, which is mildly problematic since the USB "A" type connector on the brick is pretty much only good for 5A, and the operating inefficiencies of having to use a boost converter in cases where the battery is more naturally a 12V or 20V thing are obvious.
So wouldn't it be just lovely if there was a standard by which a device could indicate "hey, I'll take 500mA @5V if that's all you can do, but I'd prefer 3A @ 20V if you've got it"?
And THAT's what this is about: it's not an issue of one charger that can charge both an iPhone and a Galaxy S4, but rather one charger than can charge your Bluetooth headset and your "NotePod 12s" 17-inch gaming tablet.
@Steve Davies 3: your argument seems to fail on its face: yes, ECC RAM is more expensive and less common than the non-ECC variants. But nothing that ARM does or does not do changes that. So comparing an Atom solution with an ARM one you either have to agree (bizarrely) that your data doesn't matter and ECC is therefore unimportant or you have to buy much the same ECC RAM whether you use an ARM or an Atom.
As to the number of DIMM slots, within reason that's often a choice the implementer, not the chipset,
Re: Google is providing DNS not hosting, check your facts
.... errr, dude, if you're in the IT biz, now would be a good time to either:
b) take some continuing education.
According to the actual DNS records, the nameservers are all in the UNC.EDU domain. Not Google.
Google, though, handles the email hosting.
Ibilio handles the web hosting (i.e. www.groklaw.net is in fact groklaw.ibilio.org).
Once again, for emphasis: GOOGLE HANDLES THE EMAIL HOSTING.
Have a nice retirement...
It's a little misleading to suggest that the "the DoD requirements are higher than those required for the FIPS 140-2" because you're mixing apples and oranges (err... pears and pomegranates, to avoid names already used in the mobile biz).
In reality, FIPS 140-2 certification is a necessary (but not sufficient) _element_ of the DoD certification requirements; there is no way a company could "bypass" getting the FIPS 140 certification and just get the DoD approval, which is what the "requirements are higher" implies.
[ Maybe I'm just picking nits -- no, really -- but if the article had used "broader" in place of "higher", I wouldn't have commented... ]
Re: Simple Answer
Bang on: no-one should be complaining about the security, the only issue is that the time waiting for it is unpaid.
Tangentially, the most creative and sensible scheme I've seen involved having a pack of cards in a gambling casino-type "shoe" on the security guard's desk. Every employee took a card, and if it had a big red dot on it, then their bags were searched; no red dot, no search.
Management could increase or decrease the number of cards with dots, but it was obviously and manifestly random and so extremely effective without being intrusive.
Re: Proper mobile benchmarking
Ah, but are they really cheating? The handset is actually running the benchmark, and if the battery life is worsened while benchmarks are being run, then surely it is a failure of the individual performing the tests that they assume stupid things about the linearity of current draw under varied conditions.
"Cheating" would be if the system didn't do the work, e.g. by optimizing out routines that it had been told weren't important to the benchmark.
All this is is a system that is optimized to run those benchmarks. Whoopie. If that really matters to you, is there anything fundamentally preventing you from applying those same optimizations to whatever app you care about (i.e. stuff the name of the app into the tweak file)?
Clearly you have no idea what a HUD does: it is precisely because you do worry about school kids running out between parked cars that you want to have them.
Your knowledge of the situational awareness of a pilot compared to a driver is naive: a pilot needs three dimensional awareness, while a drive typically only needs two: the school kid isn't going to pop up from the middle of the road or from the sky, by the AA missile might.
The whole point of a HUD is that it keeps the eyes looking out, and a head-mounted HUD based on something like Glass will allow drives to see their speed and (potentially) anti-collision warnings when they are distracted and looking "the wrong way".
Unit error... stick to Bulgarian Airbags?
"4.8TB of capacity and 100GB/s of bandwidth" sounds a bit daft: you could fill the thing in 48 seconds.
So should it be 4.8PB or 4.8EB?
Re: What about pre-flight tests?
Err.. the sensor was apparently a vertical motion sensor. So until the thing actually starts to move, no-one knows there's a problem.
Re: Use the fines to prop up physical book publishers/sellers
Yeah! Simon&Schuster, Harper Collins, Penguin etc. were all conspiring to kill themselves!
Nobody in the book publishing business likes books, because you have to print the suckers, transport them, remember not to leave them out in the rain, accept returns when the stinkers don't sell, pulp the returned stinkers, etc.
The rest of Dan's "argument" is identical to what people said about digital cameras killing photography, video/DVDs killing movie making, and probably about "gramophones" killing live performances. Everything about cover art, typesetting, graphics will survive, and thrive (in no small part because the added cost of extra bits for multi-color printing is trivial compared to the difference in cost of putting photos and graphics on paper).
And, yeah, sorry Dan, but "Hamlet" on a Kindle is still friggin' Hamlet. It doesn't cease to be literature because you don't like the format, just as Beethoven's 9th doesn't morph into pop music when you encode it as some soulless collection of bits in a (MP3) file.
I would much rather control a digital version which *I* can back up, duplicate, and have than a cheap paperback sitting on a shelf demonstrating that the bookbinders that Dan loves so much can do a really crappy cheap job, too. Books I love I'll always pay more for a hardcover, but why should I subsidize an inefficient "throwaway" technology?
The real problem is that no-one has, yet, come up with a better solution than the "shelf" for marketing the things.
Re: Common sense prevails
While there is a kernel of truth to the market dominance argument, several factors each independently criminalize Apple's actions and/or disprove their assertions.
1. If it is the government's sole responsibility to police the market (which it isn't, but no matter), then Apple could have lodged a complaint with the FTC about Amazon's practice. They did not.
2. As it isn't the government's sole responsibility, Apple could have sued Amazon for the practice. They did not.
(Both those points the judge made).
3. Apple could also have used the power of the marketplace to compete head-to-head with Amazon, e.g. by promoting more loss leaders in an effort to turn iTunes-for-books into the, err, iTunes-for-music. So Apple has demonstrated (through iTunes-for-music) that they understand very well the concept of creating a de facto monopoly for certain types of product.
4. Had Apple truly been worried about Amazon's dominance, they could have produced subsidized iPads or iPad Nano's to compete head-to-head with Kindle. But obviously Apple doesn't mind dominance as long as it doesn't interfere with their goal of making obscene amounts of money (e.g. iTunes).
5. The reason Apple hated Amazon's supposed monopoly on eBooks (as opposed to Apple's near-equivalent lever of dominance in music) was that -- particularly in 2010 -- the iPad was being sold as a one-size-fits-all solution with "amazing" battery life, "goes 10 hours without a charge", blah blah blah. The Kindle, on the other hand, goes weeks without a charge, has a better screen for reading books, etc. etc. etc. So the real issue was never who made money on eBooks as to how to steer the public to buy iPads for all their needs as opposed to iPad having to compete with Kindle for one segment of the potential-tablet-customer market.
6. The other reason for this attack is that Apple doesn't want any kind of traditional market forces working on the online media market. The agency model is therefore Apple's perfect business model: set whatever price the publisher likes like, no-one will undercut iTunes, and Apple gets 30% of whatever price you chose. They want a walled garden, and they want the fewest possible reason for people to even think about venturing out of the garden.
Executive summary: Apple is a scummy company, and pretty much always has been, and this isn't news.
Final note: the reason the judge's comments were so non-controversial was that Apple was the only defendant left standing: every other defendant had plead guilty, admitted fault and paid up.
Stupid prosecutors, stupider cops
The state (of Texas) has a high bar to reach to successfully prosecute this guy.
The First Amendment will only NOT apply if one of two situations apply: the first is the ghastly "Fire in a Crowded Theater" one, where the speech risks damage or injury, while the second is the "fighting words" doctrine. In this case, the facts-as-reported don't seem to provide enough specificity to qualify (which kindergarten? Who exactly is threatened?)
As the comment was made in a game/entertainment context, it becomes much harder to make the case that a "reasonable person" _could_ have interpreted the speech as an immediate threat.
My guess is that the kid pissed off the prosecutor and cops and they over-reacted, and now they dare not backtrack because they will be liable for being asshats. Their best hope is to pressure the kid to reach a plea agreement that admits guilt of some crime (maliciously loitering with intent to jaywalk, or something), which then releases the cops from wrongful arrest liability ('cos he admitted he was a criminal).
So for the kid, his best hope is for the judge to have actually read the First Amendment and toss the complaint as impermissible restraint of speech, while for the cops and state the best outcome results from them pressuring him so hard that he pleads guilty to _something_.
@Darryl... you seem to be implying that the quarter day/cross quarter day controversy has been resolved? When did this occur?
For those less well versed in this earth-shattering issue, the question was whether the seasons began on quarter days, or on the cross quarter days -- the former being approximately the solstice and equinox dates, the latter being the days half way between a solstice and an equinox. Or to be a little more formal: Lady Day, Midsummer Day, Michaelmas and Christmas for the quarter days, and Candlemas, May Day, Lammas and All Hallows for the cross quarter days.
Obviously, if the seasons began on the cross-quarter days, then summer begins on Mayday and runs until Lammas, and Midsummer Day is, well, in the middle, and the middle of winter is Christmas day. Otherwise, summer begins on "Midsummer's Day" and runs until Michaelmas, and winter doesn't start until Christmas, which makes the carol "In the Bleak Midwinter" a bit weird (although it scans better than "In the Bleak Early February").
Personally, I'm with that Mr. Shakespeare, who quite explicitly referred to the longest day of the year as "Midsummer", which makes the cross-quarter day camp correct and everyone else, well, heathen barbarians. Or something.
@Chad, the use of the word "cloud" here is marketing-blaffle: you don't actually send your files to "the could" where a pool of crack CPU's render the image.
What Adobe is talking about is nothing more than regular license checks to their "cloud based authentication server" (i.e. an IP address somewhere), together with more frequent updates.
Difference between this and the boxed version: if you stop paying, after 30 days the software stops working.
Re: Only in San Francisco!
The ban on plastic bags actually makes sense from a purely functional "run the city" perspective: those sorts of bags are a recurring source of blockages on drains and the like, so the use of cheap plastic bags drives the cost of maintaining the city's services up.
What DOESN'T make sense is the "pay 10c for a paper bag" thing that came in last year. That's the one that drives the reusable bag stuff, and is driven by philosophy, not practicality.
I was (and am) quite happy with the plastic bag ban, since paper bags were basically just as functional most of the time. But mandatory charging for paper bags is irritating: why shouldn't a business give away or charge for packaging, at its discretion?
Re: not sure but
Umm, no, @Andy Prough, decomposition in water does NOT happen twice as fast; its more complicated than that. Look at this: http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/notes/water.pdf (specifically page 11), which notes that if the water temperature is consistently below 45F/7C there may be no appreciable decomposition for weeks (and incidentally water slows the process, not accelerates it).
Elsewhere, we find that the water temperature in the bay around Providence tends to "warm rapidly" beginning in April (see e.g. http://omp.gso.uri.edu/ompweb/doee/science/physical/cycle1.htm), so it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that the water temperature in the Providence River may have been below 7C up until quite recently, and as the water warmed, so decay accelerated, resulting the body coming to the surface and being found.
I think it perfectly reasonable to consider what might have happened had death occurred after the attacks, but Occam's Razor would suggest that someone unaccountably disappearing for several weeks, then accidentally dieing and be found is less satisfactory an answer compared to the individual falling into the river and remaining submerged until the water temperature rises enough to start decomposition ("foul play is not suspected" suggests accident, not suicide or homicide).
The real issue is that, as previously noted, there are nearly 10,000 separate tax rates and authorities, and a business doing $1,000,001 in internet business is going to have to buy and maintain systems to handle that, which is reasonable if you're Amazon or selling high-value stuff, but a total crock if you're a small-to-medium size business.
Still, it does open the door to "reseller companies" located in Delaware, Montana, Oregon, and New Hampshire (ignoring Alaska because the increased freight eliminates it). Those four states have no sales tax. So I establish Acme Resales, Inc. which is a (say) Montana corporation that will arrange to buy whatever I want and then sell it on to me for, say, a 2% fee. True, there would be double shipping involved, but that could be offset by a "shipping consolidation" service whereby everything I buy is shipped on to me in package.
But wait, you say: surely Acme Resales will have to pay the tax when it hits $1M? Ah... says I.... that's where it gets cunning: Acme Resales is not a single company, but a group of them. Say, 50 of them, with imaginative names like "Acme Resales Week 01" and "Acme Resales Thanksgiving"...
Hmmmm.... on balance, I prefer the 50-something state plan instead (previous mentioned as the 51st state, but DC is a tax jurisdiction, as is Puerto Rico, Guam (I think) and the US Military...
A better idea...
Funnily enough, I was thinking just yesterday that the touch-screen (aftermarket) MP3-playing "radio" in my car is woefully inept compared to state-of-the-(prior)-art tablets.
Which leads me to ponder the idea of a car with, say, an iPad mini in place of the radio/satnav/"trip computer" stuff. I would have suggested a Nexus 7, but for this application (only) the Apple Lightning connector is a more elegant solution (technically; commercially, it's typical Apple scumminess, but that's another matter).
We know the Lightning interface can carry a lot of data (although quite what is a mystery, due to typical Apple scumminess) up to and including HDMI video, and it's bidirectional. So one could design a vehicle dashboard with audio interfaces, vehicle interfaces, and a feed from a GPS. The iPad mini could them handle the user interface, providing audio (from internal music), controlling audio (from an embedded radio), satnav (from an embedded GPS), etc.
Another nice feature of Lightning is that it's quite robust;; so when the device you build your car for dies and the replacement has moved the connector an inch to the right, you "just" need a new fascia insert for the new device.
Best bit is that different car users can have their own devices, and when you leave the car, you carry it with you...
My take is that the 15KWh figure was selected precisely because it is the same sort of storage density as lead acid batteries; given the choice, a kinetic energy store is preferable to a chemical one, simply because of the toxicity of the latter.
Re: Every article I've seen about this neglects to mention the most important thing
Why wouldn't a SDR make it through security? The thing isn't a weapon, explosive or liquid, so on what grounds would someone deny you from carrying it on board?
I've carried X-ray opaque metal boxes on board aircraft many times; depending on where you are, security may choose to swab the device for residue, but in some airports, they don't even do that.
For example, true dialog with TSA after a Pelican case containing one of my opaque metal box goes through X-ray:
TSA: "What's in the case?"
Me: "Airborne Data Recorder."
TSA: "OK, have a good flight".
Really. They waved it through. Of course, that was at SEA-TAC, and people carrying random bits of aircraft stuff is probably more common than at, say, Santa Rosa, California.
These responses, while likely reasonable from a purely practical standpoint, serve primarily to obscure the significance of the allegations.
Sure, in good weather and low stress conditions, pilots will notice bogus information... but what if the weather and stress levels are bad? Again, it's likely that the risk is low, but...
... why the heck AREN'T the digital radio messages signed?
Basically, they're saying that, while the door is never locked, it's hard to find and someone would notice if you walked in. All true, but why not turn the key, too?
@Barrie Shepherd... Hear! Hear!
While we're at it, an act of downloading copyrighted material may not even be any kind of offense; the content producers categorically "turn a blind eye" to some acts simply because it is in their best interests. Hence the HBO bloke's apparent change of heart: he is opposed to _illegal_ sharing, but if he (HBO) happen to want it shared, then it's not illegal, and he can go back to being appreciative of the effects of the practice.
Of course, no content producer is going to make a habit of _saying_ they want something shared, but how often do you see _TV_ production companies filing copyright infringement suits? (compared to music and film companies, for example)/
Re: "Get Out Of Jail Free" card (for specific combinations of "Jail", "Free" and circs)
@Gav, au contraire, the whole POINT here is that the sort of blanket guarantee that others have been talking about is problematic, but I explicitly wrote about a letter specific to the Assange situation.
Sure, such a letter could potentially create a precedent the next time someone who published a whole bunch of US secrets was due to be extradited to Sweden to answer questions, but we have a lot of history to know that such situations are rare.
Re: @Malcolm Weir
Perhaps you missed the total absence of any real or implied offer of immunity in my example? Perhaps you missed the key frickin' point which is that the Swedes cannot offer the sort of promise you have fabricated? Perhaps you'd like to exert that thing between the ears before making devastating responses to things that haven't been written?
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- 20 Freescale staff on vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
- Did Apple's iOS literally make you SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked