respectively, no, yes, yes, yes, no, no, and it's complicated.
respectively, no, yes, yes, yes, no, no, and it's complicated.
For example, I have had a couple of occasions of fraud on my account - they both happened when the "accounts got out" (massive breach of the credit union's credit card file). The first racked up three charges for $900.00 in Japan The next was a flight in India (in rupees) that came to well over $1,000 plus the foreign currency conversion fee. However, I have had the same card processor block the card and deny the purchases when I made two orders Newegg.com in the same day. The "fraud detection" is completely broken.
Isn't it likely that they blocked the new egg purchases because the account was hacked and previous purchases that day were fraudulent?
Closing the barn door after the horse got out-- but there may have been other horses in the barn that could get out.
The Apple Developer Terms and Conditions DOES prohibit the release of Trade Secrets regarding "Pre-Release Materials", so yes, it is a de facto NDA, which iFixit clearly violated.
Congratulations-- this is the 23rd post in the thread responding to the comment "What NDA?"
Did you read the article? iFixit admits this:
Just where exactly in the quoted text does the phrase "NDA" occur?
Oh-- it doesn't.
iFixit knew that Apple would not be happy with them disassembling it but did it anyway.
"not happy" is not a synonym for "signed a NDA."
Reasonable speculation. Plausible. Fits the known facts. Very likely it's even correct.
Still: this is a speculation.
While this is scant information, I would assume
verb: assume; 3rd person present: assumes; past tense: assumed; past participle: assumed; gerund or present participle: assuming
1. suppose to be the case, without proof.
Nice speculation. You get such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
They very publicly break the NDA for personal profit and expect no action? They're lucky the actions by Apple weren't more sever honestly.
But was the NDA valid?
Ah, that's slashdot for you.
One poster speculates that they signed a NDA (phrasing it as a statement, not a speculation) and that they violated the hypothetical terms of the hypothetical NDA that they hypothetically agreed to. Another poster speculates on whether the hypothetical NDA, whose hypothetical terms we don't actually know, was valid.
To quote Twain, "There is something fascinating about slashdot. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
One anecdote that is related indirectly to the topic is the ignorance of the nature of stars. Someone in my family didn't know that stars are like our sun but much further away. There was no malice or contradiction of beliefs and they took it as a VERY awesome fact, but that sort of gap in knowledge combined with religious fervor can, and does, lead to the outright denial of even the possibility of life elsewhere.
The first person to clearly state the hypothesis that stars are other suns like ours, but much farther away, was Giordano Bruno-- who also said that since they're like the sun, they undoubtedly also have planets with life. A pretty far-thinking hypothesis, considering that Copernicus' work saying that the Earth circled the sun (instead of vice versa) was still newly published when he asserted it.
Of course, he was burned at the stake for it.
So what's the endgame of all this spying? Is it to turn America into a totalitarian police state?
The endgame of this particular spying seems to be that they decided not to, for reasons that seem quite good to me.
"Any proposed solution almost certainly would quickly become a focal point for attacks. Rather than sparking more discussion, government-proposed technical approaches would almost certainly be perceived as proposals to introduce 'backdoors' or vulnerabilities in technology products and services and increase tensions rather [than] build cooperation."
So you do confirm that tiny solar panels on a tiny rover can generate about 140 watts for up to four hours per Martian day. That gives us the data (known solar panel type, surface area, power generated) to know how many and how big the solar panels would need to be for a Mars base.
The Mars Exploration Rovers were powered by 1.3 m^2 of solar cells.
If you want more power, make larger solar arrays.
Solar power works on Mars. That really should not be controversial; we've been doing it since Pathfinder. If you want an alternative power source, use a nuclear reactor.
Or use both; your choice.
We don't even have the practical technology to make our own deserts places people can live,
Well... Las Vegas
let alone the airless lifeless desert which is Mars. Talk to me about a cloud city on Venus though... that is a hot idea.
And once there, water and soil could be extracted.
(Gotta love the passive voice. Always a favorite of PR firms and politicians.
Gotta love the passive voice Nazis; if they don't have anything else to say, that's always a good cheap shot. No content whatsoever, but whatever.
We could extract water from the soil, because it is present in subsurface ice, as well as in the form of water of hydration.
With what kind of (heavy) machinery would the water and soil be extracted?
And what would power it? Don't say "solar power", because the Sun appears much smaller when viewed from Mars, and thus receives much less energy.
Solar or nuclear, take your pick. Each has advantages.
Incident sunlight is about 500 W/m^2, about half that at Earth's surface, although it depends on season and dust loading in the atmosphere. You don't seem to be aware of it, but we have been operating a solar-powered rover on Mars for well over ten years. We know solar energy works on Mars: we have done it, we are doing it.
plus the whole poisoning China thing with harvesting rare earths
Do you even know what rare earth elements are? Almost all solar panels manufactured today are crystalline silicon. Silicon isn't a rare earth element.
He was likely referring to what's needed by the wind generators.
Perhaps that is what he might have been referring to, if he knew what he was talking about, but it is not what he did say. Or he might have seen a blog post about indium or gallium, which aren't a rare-earth elements and aren't used in silicon panels, but are often brought up in the same discussions in which people talk about rare earths.
Either way, though, I'd advise not paying much attention to anything he posts until you have verified it against a reputable source.
A freelance is one who gets paid by the word -- per piece or perhaps. -- Robert Benchley