Why aren't backbones using 100 Gbps (an established standard) and WDM for up to 88 channels of 100 Gbps?
You mean besides cost? Yeah, that pesky factor that everyone is willing ignore because they want things now, now, now. Also just because the backbone is using high capacity fiber does not mean consumers will get it. Google is probably the biggest user of fiber out there and is certainly the biggest user of dark fiber. I'm sure Google is using the highest capacity they can get at a reasonable cost.
Windows RT is not Windows. It is Windows' retarded younger sibling.
RT has no backwards compatibility but apps built using new frameworks by MS can run in RT and 8.
Well if you read any of the articles, there is no real information or than the contention that pressure from Google has delayed the release of this tablet. It is not explained further. I don't know how reliable this considering the following statement:
Currently, only Intel's X86 chip can support dual operating systems, giving consumers an option to run either Android or Windows, but on a separate basis. From Intel's standpoint, tablets that have both Windows and Android dual OS is positive for its business model, and vendors can also increase brand value through dual-system products.
ARM runs on multiple operating systems and in fact, Windows RT and Android can run on the same tablet if MS chooses this path not ARM. Apple could make OS X for ARM; however, the performance may be lacking.
Anyway, from a probability perspective it seems highly unlikely that a plane would disappear from radar precisely at the time that a data transponder stopped sending position fixes, unless, you know, the plane crashed right there. I mean, the media makes it sound like the search radius is "flight speed * remaining potential flight time at current fuel burn rate".
My reading is that ACARS updates position only few minutes whereas radar update times is faster. As for search area, the initial search area is where the plane disappeared off the coast of Vietnam. The max search area is based on remaining fuel. It is theoretically possible as the plane may have changed courses. Not probable, but possible.
And you miss mine
No I didn't. Your point is irrelevant.
Your birth certificate defines you.
What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.
It can also be faked.
What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.
Your Social Security ID is thus a fake.
What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.
Your driving licence is thus a fake.
What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.
Your passport is thus a fake.
What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.
You are not who you say you are.
What does this have to do whether Apple can know any particular iPad belong to an individual especially when the the individual's relatives do not know basic information like the AppleID of the that individual.
At some point - someone has to trust something.
Finally, some semblance of a point. Apple has said they will trust a court. Period.
If your birth certificate is enough... then her death certificate, will, and solicitor's word is enough.
Again, her death certificate only says she died. The will and solicitor only says that her children get her possessions. Nowhere has anyone said legally that the iPad they have was once her possession. All they have is the word of her children which does not protect Apple from any legal liability. A court can say this. Apple will unlock the device when they get this legal proof. I'm sure that this isn't the first time that someone has tried to game a situation.
Go into the store and remote unlock it while in the possession of the company. Problem solved.
You don't get the point. Apple can technically unlock the device. They cannot be certain that the iPad that the children have is actually their mother's. Anyone can lie. They are not going to find out as this is a legal question. When the court gives them a court order, they'll do it.
You're telling me that with all their telemetry (gps data, user account information) they can't figure out which device is attached to which (for example) Wifi MAC address or serial number?
Again you don't get the point. A MAC address or serial number tells nothing about who owns any particular iPad especially when the children don't know the AppleID (user account information) of their mother. AppleID accounts do not have to contain any identifying information other than a email address.
I don't have an iPad (or a tablet of any kind) so maybe I'm not understanding this.. does Apple really not know who the device and/or user account belongs to?
Apple knows whose Apple ID the device is locked to. The children do not have the Apple ID or password.
Surely Apple products have some kind of user system, and when you create your user account you reveal your name and probably address, and if the person ever bought anything there's a credit card linked to it as well... no?
Only if someone provides such information to Apple. An AppleID does not require an address or credit card. Only an email address. As for purchasing, remember that iPads are given as gifts. Even if Apple could track down who sold the device and to whom it was sold, they still can't sure who the owner is.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra