tisme

Yes, but hosts typically respond to outside pressure and it could very well be that someone else's stuff gets taken down with your stuff being collateral damage.

In that case it pays off handily if you have your content spread. Of course, if you're going to do something that is illegal then it doesn't really matter where you host, then you are basically just counting down until you get booted.

Fortunately hosting is a commodity and you can get what rackspace sells from any number of providers. Don't like the terms? Don't do business with Rackspace. Vote with your feet and your dollars and make sure you tell them you're leaving because you don't like their terms of service. If enough of their customers do that they'll get the message eventually.

And if they don't get that particular message they'll have to move on some other metric (perhaps price) to get people to continue to host with them in spite of their terms of service.

Personally I wouldn't have a problem hosting with them under these terms, I'd simply ignore the terms and factor in the risk of being kicked out by spreading whatever I was hosting there across multiple providers. That's a good strategy anyway, even when you think you're in compliance with the terms of service where ever you host your stuff.

If they advertise with certain features then you should be able to use those features.

A bit of evidence to underscore just how much difference:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369307/Japan-tsunam...

If the same thing were to happen in Bangladesh it likely would take a bit longer to fix.

I was not aware I was attacking you.

> However I'm seriously skeptical that anyone would actually choose an Android tablet instead of an iPad because of this particular incident. It's a ridiculous prospect, and indicative of a consumer that has no real preferences about the device they buy, they're just running purely on spite.

People make decisions based on many factors:

- price

- utility

- brand loyalty / brand image

I have several Apple devices in my household, until they better their ways on the legal front there will not be another. In my case that meant that I bought one device from an Apple competitor, and held off on another purchase because I can't find something that suits my needs that does not have an Apple logo on it.

You can apply your critical thinking skills to statements of facts where you are in possession of the facts. In this case you are essentially calling people liars when you are not in a position to know their minds or circumstances and where you don't have all the relevant facts.

Giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to them stating their reasons for acting or not acting in some particular case is typically a decent thing to do, even if you personally would not behave in that way.

So, the OP is likely honest with you and all those visiting here about their motivations, as am I. And we do employ our critical thinking skills in evaluating where our next purchases are being made.

>> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4737400

That's the second time you post an almost identical comment in a thread about people not buying apple products due to their behaviour and you're telling them they are not truthful.

What reason would someone have to say anything whatsoever about a decision they've made? It's not as if they have Samsung stock or are shorting Apple. They are simple statements of fact. If someone states something about themselves then your best bet is to believe they know better than you what made them decide.

(1) you don't know me

(2) I actually was, but decided not to, what you believe is not in any way material to that.

This is a first for HN actually, someone telling me they know me better than I know myself. Incredible.

Privacy protection of the citizens and intellectual property protection have preciously little to do with each other. Storing your data in the cloud should come with automatic extension of the rights that you'd normally have to data stored on your own devices. Anything less will be a disaster, not just for the citizens but also for all those that earn a living building cloud services. A ruling like this has enormous implications that extend far beyond the piracy debate.

The RIAA doesn't have any bits worth protecting in the same way that people's private information warrants protection.

So artist 'x' is a citizen and their privacy (and hence their private data) warrants protection just as much as any other citizens privacy. Whether or not the data they produce and release into mainstream culture (which is in the end an affair between citizens) warrants economic protection is an entirely different matter.

> I can't picture the person who would know and care about this, and have it affect their purchasing decision.

It affects mine. That's only one data point and I'm sure there are millions who it won't affect.

Heal your wounds, save some dough and same player shoots again.

You have to play a lot of chess games before you start winning. Start-ups are no different, the learning curve is quite steep but if you persevere at some point it will start to pay off. If your first start-up takes off in a couple of weeks or months that's the exception not the rule.

Establishing any kind of business normally takes about three years so you have to plan for that.

Incredible how bad a loser Apple is. If you're ordered to do something like this make it plain that you got the message.

So: Above the fold, in a font no lighter or smaller than the rest of the page. No tricks or gimmicks (resizing the ipad mini image? Popup links??) to hide the text.

All they're doing is to risk yet another do-over which will hit them in the middle of Christmas shopping.

This is all window dressing. Elections do not decide who wins. Funding does. And as long as corporations can outspend private citizens companies decide elections.

If you wanted to reform elections in the USA then you would have to start to curb the direct influence of corporations on the elections, compared to that the electoral college is a minor detail.

I read that as 'I'm throwing all that I've got, time, resources, anything towards achieving my goal'. That's no guarantee for success but it works a lot better than doing nothing at all.

In order to win you have to first enter the games. Most people that are claiming this is 'magic thinking', survivor bias or generally down on achievement have never actually done any of this, let alone entered the game.

A very heartfelt congratulations, I would give up a lot to trade with you at the moment, you must be feeling on top of the world.

Games are a great area to work in, you get to learn a lot more about systems level programming from building a game than you'd get from building a web-app. Games are never finished either, you can always improve on them, add levels and so on so they're a great way to grow your skills in managing progressively larger codebases.

Once again, congratulations! And I hope to see much more of what you've made here.

That's not it. This is an entirely different bug, the wifi 'enable' slider is grayed out and stays grayed out. Several iPhones in my vicinity (all 4s) have the exact same problem and so far I haven't found a way to fix it.

Is it known if this fixes the 'dead wifi' bug?

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/09/wi-fi-issues-plague-i...

I gathered he let him rest because that was what was written in the script.

The people most affected by this storm are likely not able to see the poll.

What cheap lies? I'm well aware of how old that design is.

If copying is wrong it is wrong regardless of how long ago the original was made. Or is there some magical cut-off date by which copying suddenly is ok? Why 14 years? Why not 13 or 10 or 50? It strikes me as pretty arbitrary. For a company to go all out in accusing others of copying I think they should be above all that and come up with entirely original designs. Why take a 30 year old tape recorder and mimic that, is that really the mark of originality that Apple stands for? It seems quite hypocritical to me.

Man what luck for Apple that Braun didn't take out a design patent on this.

Even then it will have to make economic sense to switch. After all the equation is not x > y but $n using tech x buys more computing power than $n using tech y.

Isn't cutting off at some confidence level on the 'do not do this' list for A/B testing? So far I understood that you test until you reach a predefined number of conversions, and then you check your significance to see if the result you obtained is valid. Not until you 'hit confidence'.

See for instance: http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-run-an-ab-test.html

Is there anybody here that can shed some light on this?

The peaks in your scope image clearly show a phase shift, which is kind of logical if you take into account the fact that the main component in a switched mode supply is a coil.

If you look a little more carefully at your scope trace you'll see the coils reactance at work in the lower trace, the peak is where the FET in the supply is closed and is drawing real power, the purple trace past the peak and beyond the 0 crossing is inverted and drops slowly back to 0 before the next peak hits. If you use the controls on your scope to zoom in on the bottom trace by increasing the vertical sensitivity you'll get a much better idea of what I'm getting at here. You'll see '0' voltage and yet current is still flowing.

You can't correct for power factor by simply increasing the resolution and averaging. The base frequency of your oscilloscope does not enter into the discussion here, it could be 500 Hz for all I care and that would be enough.

Furthermore, the power factor of a switched mode supply changes as a function of the load applied and gets (much) worse if that load is also reactive or capacitive. Under some circumstances it is possible to draw negative power from the wall socket if you do a naive measurement, or you'll see wall socket power decrease as output current increases.

All this is possible because voltage and current are more or less out of phase with each other.

The kill-a-watt will work well with some reactive loads (such as CFLs) as long as they're of the ballast type.

A switched mode supply presents challenges that can't be met at the cost constraints of a consumer device like that.

Vampire power is a new term, I'm not familiar with it. Dead load (or simply the losses) is anything that does not end up in your consumer (the live load), I'm not sure if that is an accurate translation of the terms. It normally goes up as a function of the amount of power consumed, the base line (consumption without any load at all) is probably your 'vampire power'.

Total efficiency is 100 * ((output power)/(input power)) and will in practice be anywhere from 60% to 98% depending on how well load and supply are matched, and can vary wildly from one powersupply to another due to component variations.

Finally, classical power factor correction applies to sinusoidal wave forms, as you've already discovered switched mode supplies waveforms on both the input and the output side are anything but sinusoidal further complicating an already hairy problem.