Slashdot Mirror

right here, it says that "Upgradeable firmware enables support for future audio formats." Maybe if you write them and ask them nicely they'll do that for you. But I have no idea.

This is not completely clear - it seems as though you can use iTunes to download from any Mac, but you can't use the autosync feature from more than one machine at a time, and the autosync feature only goes one way, from the Mac to the iPod.

The pdf FAQ reads: To transfer music between your computers, or to add songs to iPod from both systems, you can selectively drag and drop songs, albums, or playlists between iPod and either computer using the manual update mode. It is not clear if the "manual update mode" is part of iTunes or just a feature of the standard Finder interface.

My message to timothy:

Please check facts first. Neither iPod story is correct. The iPod has 5 GB of storage as has been widely reported and is the number given on the Apple site. The iPod does not have copy protection of the sort mentioned by jchristopher. The manual mode does allow MP3's to be moved back and forth between different Macintoshes. The two auto-sync modes only allow one way Mac-to-Pod movement of music. But since the manual mode is there, you can do what jchristopher says you cannot. One thing that will have to be hacked is the FireWire disk mode, since it store hard drive data separately from music files. The music function of the iPod will not play separate hard drive files (out of the box) even if they are music files -- hacking will be required. The other area which will need some pronto hacking is to allow MP3 exchange over the FireWire cable between iPods, as this is not a built-in feature (so far as the faqs tell us). Please correct the 10 Gig oversight.

Aw Jeez.

The iPod has 5 GB of storage.

It also does not have any copy protection, but it won't auto-sync between two machines, you have to do it manually (just drag & drop the files).

Hope that clears things up just a little.

I sync my Rio 500 using iTunes...

I have the older Rio. I think it was the first revision of thir first model. It sync's only with their software, and it needs a par port which I don't have on my Mac anyway.

Actually, that brings up my sole complaint regarding this device. It requires iTunes 2, which AFAIK only runs on OS X.

The iTunes2 FAQ says:

iTunes 2 works with all Apple systems that have built-in USB ports. iTunes 2 for Mac OS 9 requires Mac OS 9.0.4 or later; CD burning in Mac OS 9 requires Mac OS 9.1. Mac OS 9.2.1 is highly recommended. iTunes 2 for Mac OS X is available for systems running Mac OS X version 10.1.

So it looks like it will work under OS9. See page 5 of the iTunes2 FAQ.

P.S. the VA Apple store claims they will have an iPod this weekend for demoing (none for sale for ~4 weeks though).

P.P.S. you can get OS9.2 for free, ask for the OSX upgrade CD at your retailer (free), it comes with a full OS9.2 as well as the upgrade to OSX.

Apple claims up to 5 hours for the iBook, and the same for the PowerBook G4.

Apple claims up to 5 hours for the iBook, and the same for the PowerBook G4.

First, as others have noted, this is just another beta.

Having said that, if you want to get the sources, stop Slashdotting openoffice.org and get it from Akamai. At least they've got the bandwidth to deal with the load.

b&

nidump(8), reads the specified NetInfo domain and dumps its contents to stdout. What's NetInfo? It's the MacOS X (derived from NeXT?) way of storing system info like user accounts, groups, passwords, hostnames, interfaces, etc. On OS X (and Server), most of the config data that would be stored in /etc on other Unix systems is stored in a NetInfo database in a hierarchical format. Machines can also be configured to use a remote NetInfo server. More info can be found in the 'Understanding and Using NetInfo' PDF.

it looks like www.websidestory.com is the responsible party. i wonder how many sites they've fitted out like this...

at least the code doesn't work on our browser! can anyone out there work out exactly what information the script is divulging?

Here is a copy of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 second draft.

As well as the "Mobilization Against Terrorism Act".

All I can say is, be careful what you wish for and what saying "Oh whats a little ID card."

It won't stop there.

1. I think the IBM thinkpad looks the best. I don't know why, but I prefer it to the iBook 'wax fruit' case.

I hope my new iBook doesn't come with a "wax fruit" case! Supposedly, they look more like this, which, in my opinion, is a lot better looking than the "clamshell" versions of yester[year month day].

Or is this guy look a little bit upset at having his picture taken?
Nevertheless, I'd like to see one of the replica analytical engines, or a Turing machine on display at one of these shows... Now that would be worth the price of admission!

As any of the alien life forms that have visited our planet will tell you, the only true way to test for life is with an Anal Probe.

The set-up is simple. I had to buy a new Apple Airport hub for each end of the link.

I checked a recent link about designing Airport nets and some other Airport sites. They don't reveal any clues about this being possible.

I checked the Cisco/Aironet site. For the 340 Series WLAN gear they have a product called an Ethernet Bridge which is what you would use to do what Cringely said he did. This is different from their Access Points and Base stations . A Cisco base station looks to be equivalent to an Airport.

Does anyone have any references on how to do this with an Airport? I'm finding Cringely's story a little hard to believe.

Kevin

What are you smoking? Look how well they're doing! They lost $49 mil this quarter, up from only losing $23 mil this quarter last year. That's doing well?

Security
AirPort offers password protection and encryption capabilities to deliver a level of security
comparable to that offered by traditional cabled networks. Users can be required to enter a
password to log on to the wireless network. When transmitting information, AirPort uses 40-bit
encryption to scramble data. In addition, access control and closed network features can be
employed.

- A.P.

--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?

- A.P.

--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?

Honestly, I don't think it's all that similar to Beowulf clustering (which tends to be focused on high performance or high availability, while JXTA trades off performance for portability/implementability) and the only similarity to Gnutella is that it's peer-to-peer.

The most obvious difference between JXTA and the popular P2P systems (like Napster, Gnutella, Freenet, Mojo Nation, Jabber, etc.) is that JXTA isn't an application; it's a toolkit for building P2P apps. Unfortunately, that means in the short term it doesn't really do anything. But it appears (from a very cursory inspection of the docs) to handle mundane details like finding other peers, sending messages (over a variety of protocols apparently including Bluetooth, not just TCP), relaying through NATs and firewalls, etc.

If you want to play with JXTA, the Getting Started PDF has a tutorial for using the shell.

BTW, here's a convenient Mac OS X package of the JXTA Shell since Sun didn't build one.

The picture is from This page. Which describes their network tech. here is the orginal picture.

Enjoy

:-)

------

As evidenced by the Flower Power iMac, Steve Jobs is certifiably insane. He deserves your sympathy and pity, not criticism.

As for the patent, hell, even Apple has published prior art (i.e., more than a year before the date of filing of the patent), and they're aware of it. If you look at the patent, you'll see a list of references that include volumes of Inside Macintosh from 1988. To a large extent, I think this patent is a defensive patent. Perhaps there is some legal patent mumbo-jumbo we're not aware of, too.

The only original innovation here seems to be the idea of having widgets behave in an entirely different way in different themes. Not a big step, or one that (IMHO) should be patentable, but the blame for allowing such a patent (and thus forcing companies to apply for them to avoid losing control over their own innovations) lies on the USPTO.

Umm, hate to burst your bubble, but the next iteration of MacOS X Server will be based on Darwin. Check out the MacOS X Server FAQ PDF at: Apple's MacOS X Server site.

Directly from the FAQ: "A modern open source UNIX-like foundation--called Darwin--delivers powerful features, including systemwide protected memory, full preemptive multitasking, symmetric multiprocessing, advanced memory management, and the latest in security standards."

Apple has basically plopped AppleShare IP onto the top of MacOS X and Aquafied the tools that they had already created for the original MacOS X Server. And they added some other stuff ;)

RYan

What? First to *use* USB (not just put it on the board).

That's an argument about their choice of peripherals, not about their support of i/o standards. It's marketing, not engineering. (Not that marketing is not important, just a different discussion.)

First to use Firewire. Using 32bit Nubus when PCs where using ISA slots.

Still using Nubus years after the PC had moved to PCI. Indeed, I'd count Nubus along with SCSI--in both cases Apple went with a clearly superior solution early on, but ended up being held back as the mainstream PC standards, driven by the much larger marketplace, managed to improve much faster and yet be much cheaper than what Apple used.

The "laughably inferior video card" may be so for FPS, but actually performs quite well for graphic artists. Makes me wonder why they specced it.

"The Macintosh does not have any decent 3d support, so therefore we can pretend that 3d support is not important." Any $9 graphics card is just fine for 2d, although I seriously doubt that 16 MB and a 230 MHz RAMDAC are really good enough for any serious graphic artists. The simple fact is that the Mac does not do 3d well, and that that is simply pitiful in this day and age. And no, 3d is not just used for games; you may be shocked, but there are actually graphics artists that work in three dimensions too! (They use PCs and Unix workstations.)

BTW, the only decent 802.11 system out there that can hold a candle to the AirPort system is the Lucent Orinoco system, which is slightly more expensive and a lot harder to set up.

I don't know how hard it is to set up, but IIRC for what you admit is only a slightly higher price it has a much greater wireless range.

How many makers right now are putting out machines with DDR RAM? Last I checked, not many. Sure they're ramping up, but Apple would be stupid (and possibly insane) to be on the top of the curve for every trend. Their machines would be even more overpriced and they could end up with a Rambus/Intel fiasco on their hands if they made the wrong choice. Better to let someone like Intel make that mistake and fight the battles worth fighting (i.e the ones pretty much won already like USB, firewire)

As this thread was initially about system *performance* (as opposed to capabilities), let me tell you that DDR is MUCH more "a battle worth fighting" on this metric. But you have a very valid point--indeed, I agree with you completely. The thing is, what you're saying assumes that Apple will be designing and validating its own chipsets, incompatible with the real world, every time they want to add a feature. In such an environment, it is indeed not worth it to come out with a DDR chipset now. Moreover, while it would have been worth it to come out with a PC133 chispet a year ago and a DDR chipset in around 3 months time, the fact that Apple is the one designing and validating every new chipset is the reason these chipsets are always a year behind the times--it's a very complicated process and Apple's engineers are understandably stretched thin to try to replicate the work of dozens of companies in the PC world.

That's the problem with having a vertical monopoly; there's not enough room for differentiated product lines and innovation. In the PC world, there are 2 or 3 major chipset manufacturers competing to come out with the fastest chipsets with the most new features, and another couple players who drop in to keep competition high. There are about a dozen major motherboard manufacturers, who compete to best implement these chipsets with the most features at the lowest price. Because the PC RAM market is so large, you have all the DRAM manufacturers in the world driving chipset innovation as well. Finally, because PCs are used for general purpose tasks and because there's an independent benchmarking industry in the PC marketplace, all these people know that they won't be able to get away with a single toy SIMD benchmark as an overall measure of "performance"--thus they all feel pressure to create components which actually work fast over a wide variety of circumstances. Hence the PC market is moving into 2.1 and 3.2 GB/s FSBs while the Mac is finally hitting 1.1 GB/s. Oh, and while we're on the subject, it turns out I was wrong: you won't be able to buy a G4 with on-die L2 cache until the G4+ is released in March. Only then will the G4 finally be approaching clock-for-clock parity with x86 chips (according to SPECcpu, i.e. a real benchmark suite).

Now, I'm not saying there aren't some important tangible benefits to Apple's vertical monopoly. I just don't think they're worth the drawback: machines which cost twice as much as the equivalent PC did when it was released 9 months ago.

One final word re: price/performance -- find a notebook that can compete in that area with the new powerbook. Good luck.

Here you finally have a point: the new powerbook is very impressive and indeed competitive with PCs in price/performance. One important reason why is that AMD has not yet had a viable notebook CPU for the mainstream and performance ends of the market, so therefore Intel has a monopoly over that segment and thus performance notebooks tend to cost as much as powerbooks. Conversely, Apple has seen itself frozen out of the market it practically invented with the first powerbooks, as the portable market becomes more and more dominated by corporate consumers. Thus you have a reversal of the situation in the desktop PC market: Intel is getting away with monopoly pricing, while Apple is heavily discounting to try to break back into a market they've nearly lost.

Still, no matter how I might try to talk bad about it, there's no doubt the new powerbooks are very competitive. On the other hand, the situation is decidedly *not* as Apple has presented it. Here's what Apple has to say on the matter:


Sony Vaio Z505...........PowerBook G4

12.1-inch display........15.2-inch wide-screen display
Magnesium alloy..........99.5% pure grade CP1 titanium
650MHz Pentium III.......400 MHz PowerPC G4
No optical drive.........Slot-loading DVD-ROM
2 hours battery life.....5 hours battery life
Not wireless ready.......AirPort antenna built-in
1.15 inches thick........1 inch thick
$2549*...................$2599*

(Taken from here.)

Now let's look at what the actual facts on that Sony Z505 really are.

First off, let's take note of the fact that contrary to Apple's blatant misrepresentation, the Z505 with a P3-650 actually costs $2250, not "$2549". But what's $300 among friends? Well, we can use some of that money to buy the Z505 a 6-hour battery, so hahaha on you. The cost is now $2450, or $150 less than the Mac. Also while the powerbook may be a miraculous 3.8 mm thinner than the Z505, the important measure is of course weight; the powerbook, at 5.3 pounds, is 41% heavier than the 3.75 pound Z505--which makes sense, as they really serve different purposes. Indeed, the low weight (and its huge popularity) is the reason the Z505 is so underpowered for its price (for a PC that is), but we'll disregard that for now.

Unfortunately, there's no way to buy the Vaio as unloaded as those powerbooks: in particular, no way to buy it without at least Word 2000. Nor is there any way to purchase Word 2001 with our brand new powerbook at the Apple Store. We could buy it from MS for $400 but that doesn't seem quite fair. Instead we'll upgrade both machines to Office.

Where does that put us now?


Sony Vaio Z505...........PowerBook G4

12.1-inch display........15.2-inch wide-screen display
Magnesium alloy..........99.5% pure grade CP1 titanium
650MHz Pentium III.......400 MHz PowerPC G4
No optical drive.........Slot-loading DVD-ROM
6 hours battery life.....5 hours battery life
Not wireless ready.......AirPort antenna built-in
1.15 inches thick........1 inch thick
12 GB HD.................10 GB HD
3.75 pounds*.............5.3 pounds
$2650....................$3060

*Longer battery adds weight from this original measurement, but I couldn't find out how much.

What's missing? Well, the DVD player, for one thing. An external one adds $400 to the Z505's cost, making it just a hair cheaper than the powerbook. The 650 MHz P3 is in reality a good deal faster than the 400 MHz G4, but by using the right programs an argument can be made that the G4 comes close. "AirPort antenna built-in" is a red-herring, since you still need to spend $100 for the AirPort card. I looked it up, and the first place I checked had an Orinoco card for $160. Again, I'm almost positive this card has much better range than AirPort. Eh, let's look it up, shall we? Well, AirPort only goes a measely up to 150 feet. Orinoco goes...let's see...up to 1750 feet. Hmm. Guess the "built-in antenna" isn't working too well, is it??

So what do we end up with? The new powerbook is almost exactly the same price as a similarly configured Z505, except that the Z505 has a tad more HD space, has an extra hour on the battery, and, sorry to say, is the faster machine. Alternatively, you can get the Z505 without a DVD player and save $400.

Meanwhile, the powerbook has a luscious 15.2" screen, while the Z505 is stuck with a 12.1" which, while quite small, at least manages to almost hit the resolution of the powerbook (1024x768 vs. 1152x768). The benefit of giving up the nice screen and the internal DVD is up to 1.55 pounds of heft and of course that extra hour.

In other words, it's arguably a tossup. Of course it's a bad comparison because one is a sub-notebook and the other a full-sizer, but Apple chose it, not me. Still, it's worth noting that the Z505 is perhaps the most overpriced laptop around, so it's not such a surprise that Apple chose it when making a comparison.

Well phew! Aren't we enlightened? Did I pass? (It wasn't that tough, I let Apple "find a notebook that can compete in [price/performance] with the new powerbook" for me!)

Now it's my turn: find a desktop Mac that can compete in (price/1.5)/performance with a similarly equipped desktop PC--and I mean in a wide variety of benchmarks, not just Photoshop and RC5. (Indeed, it would be tough to do that even with Photoshop, assuming one actually used a complete Photoshop benchmark like PSbench.)

Good luck. Unfortunately, there are very few good cross-platform benchmarks to consult; the most well-respected cross-platform benchmark in the world, SPECcpu, shows the G4 in a rather unflattering light--indeed, because of this Motorola hasn't even released official scores for the G4, making it the only current general-purpose CPU family I can think of for which SPEC scores are not available. Oh wait, I lied: there's no SPEC scores for Cyrix chips either. However, there are SPEC scores for the P3, P4, the AMD K7, for Sun's UltraSparc II and III, for IBM's POWER3 chip which is sorta related to the G3 kinda sorta, for the Alpha EV67, and the MIPS R12000 and the HP PA-RISC 8600-just in the past year. The point is, every real chip releases SPEC scores, usually early and often. The best we have for the brand-spanking-new G4+ is an *estimate* for the outdated (in fact retired) SPEC95 suite, and man it's not too pretty. Of course, Motorola can always complain that they don't have a very good Fortran compiler, which is key to a good SPECfp score (their SPECint score sucks too, though); still, this is no one's fault but their own, unless of course they never meant the G4 or G4+ to be a high-performance general-purpose chip (oh that's right, they didn't; they built it for the embedded market).

Other cross-platform benchmarks are invariably much less trustworthy, because they are almost always binary only and are never of the breadth or depth of the SPEC suite. Picking Photoshop, for example, is just plain dumb, as Photoshop is simply better optimized on the Mac than on the PC (alternatively, we could benchmark Word and see which runs it faster). There's a nice collection of published cross-platform Mac vs. x86 results here; it's worth perusing, even though most of these programs make *very* poor overall benchmarks, taken as a whole they at least provide some semblence of a big picture. Needless to say, I think your task will be pretty difficult, even if there were a good way to compare performance across the two platforms.

Since OSX isn't really playing there...

Take a look at the new Mac OS X server pages put up at Apple over the Expo. Don't forget to download the pdf FAQ , and think about competition in the server space when reading things like: native file sharing for Macintosh, Windows, Unix, and Linux clients... . Apache is included, and ...integrated into Apache is WebDAV... . Also supported: Java Servlets, JavaServer Pages, MySQL, PHP, Perl, Unix, and Mac CGI scripts. WebObjects will be an included part of the package.

I don't really think MS has woken up to the threat OS X could be. Expect big news at Apple's World Wide Developer Conference this spring.

--

Maybe I have my info wrong, but the ADC is a littl e more than just power, DVI, and USB; the monitors hooked up to them (LCD and the like) actually use the USB port to transmit calibration data, IIRC, though you'll have to scroll down to the bottom of the PDF linked in order to get an inkling of some of this capability...



Geek dating!

How's this? ;-)

Per Curiam

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 00-836GEORGE W. BUSH, PETITIONER v. PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD ET AL.ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT[December 4, 2000]

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court of the State of Florida interpreted its elections statutes in proceedings brought to require manual recounts of ballots, and the certification of the recount results, for votes cast in the quadrennial Presidential election held on November 7, 2000. Governor George W. Bush, Republican candidate for the Presidency, filed a petition for certiorari to review the Florida Supreme Court decision. We granted certiorari on two of the questions presented by petitioner: whether the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, by effectively changing the State's elector appointment procedures after election day, violated the Due Process Clause or 3 U.S.C. 5, and whether the decision of that court changed the manner in which the State's electors are to be selected, in violation of the legislature's power to designate the manner for selection under Art. II, 1, cl. 2 of the United States Contitution. 531 U.S. ____ (2000).

On November 8, 2000, the day following the Presidential election, the Florida Division of Elections reported that Governor Bush had received 2,909,135 votes, and respondent Democrat Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., had received 2,907,351, a margin of 1,784 in Governor Bush's favor. Under Fla. Stat. 102.141(4) (2000), because the margin of victory was equal to or less than one-half of one percent of the votes cast, an automatic machine recount occurred. The recount resulted in a much smaller margin of victory for Governor Bush. Vice President Gore then exercised his statutory right to submit written requests for manual recounts to the canvassing board of any county. See 102.166. He requested recounts in four counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade.

The parties urged conflicting interpretations of the Florida Election Code respecting the authority of the canvassing boards, the Secretary of State (hereinafter Secretary), and the Elections Canvassing Commission. On November 14, in an action brought by Volusia County, and joined by the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, Vice President Gore, and the Florida Democratic Party, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the statutory 7-day deadline was mandatory, but that the Volusia board could amend its returns at a later date. The court further ruled that the Secretary, after "considering all attendant facts and circumstances," App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a, could exercise her discretion in deciding whether to include the late amended returns in the statewide certification.

The Secretary responded by issuing a set of criteria by which she would decide whether to allow a late filing. The Secretary ordered that, by 2 p.m. the following day, November 15, any county desiring to forward late returns submit a written statement of the facts and circumstances justifying a later filing. Four counties submitted statements and, after reviewing the submissions, the Secretary determined that none justified an extension of the filing deadline. On November 16, the Florida Democratic Party and Vice President Gore filed an emergency motion in the state court, arguing that the Secretary had acted arbitrarily and in contempt of the court's earlier ruling. The following day, the court denied the motion, ruling that the Secretary had not acted arbitrarily and had exercised her discretion in a reasonable manner consistent with the court's earlier ruling. The Democratic Party and Vice President Gore appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which certified the matter to the Florida Supreme Court. That court accepted jurisdiction and sua sponte entered an order enjoining the Secretary and the Elections Canvassing Commission from finally certifying the results of the election and declaring a winner until further order of that court.

The Supreme Court, with the expedition requisite for the controversy, issued its decision on November 21, Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, Nos. SC00-2346, SC00-2348, and SC00-2349 (Nov. 21, 2000), App. to Pet. for Cert. 1a. As the court saw the matter, there were two principal questions: whether a discrepancy between an original machine return and a sample manual recount resulting from the way a ballot has been marked or punched is an "error in vote tabulation" justifying a full manual recount; and how to reconcile what it spoke of as two conflicts in Florida's election laws: (a) between the time frame for conduction a manual recount under Fla. Stat. 102.166 (2000) and the time frame for submitting county returns under 102.111 and 102.112, and (b) between 102.111, which provides that the Secretary "shall ... ignor[e]" late election returns, and 102.112, which provides that she "may ... ignor[e]" such returns.

With regard to the first issue, the court held that, under the plain text of the statute, a discrepancy between a sample manual recount and machine returns due to the way in which a ballot was punched or marked did constitute an "error in vote tabulation" sufficient to trigger the statutory provisions for a full manual recount.

With regard to the second issue, the court held that the "shall ... ignor[e]" provision of 102.111 conflicts with the "may ... ignor[e]" provision of 102.112, and that the "may ... ignor[e]" provision controlled. The court turned to the questions whether and when the Secretary may ignore late manual recounts. The court relied in part upon the right to vote set forth in the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution in concluding that late manual recounts could be rejected only under limited circumstances. The court then stated: "[B]ecause of our reluctance to rewrite the Florida Election Code, we conclude that we must invoke the equitable powers of this Court to fashion a remedy...." App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a. The court thus imposed a deadline of November 26, at 5 p.m., for a return of ballot counts. The 7-day deadline of 102.111, assuming it would have applied, was effectively extended by 12 days. The court further directed the Secretary to accept manual counts submitted prior to that deadline.

As a general rule, this Court defers to a state court's interpretation of a state statute. But in the case of a law enacted by a state legislature applicable not only to elections to state offices, but also to the selection of Presidential electors, the legislature is not acting solely under the authority given it by the people of the State, but by virtue of a direct grand of authority made under Art. II, 1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution. That provision reads:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...."

Although we did not address the same question petitioner raises here, in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 25 (1892), we said:

"[Art. II, 1, cl. 2] does not read that the people or the citizens shall appoint, but that `each State shall'; and if the words `in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct,' had been omitted, it would seem that the legislative power of appointment could not have been successfully questioned in the absence of any provision in the state constitution in that regard. Hence the insertion of those words, while operating as a limitation upon the State in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power, cannot be held to operate as a limitation on that power itself."

There are expressions in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida that may be read to indicate that it construed the Florida Election Code without regard to the extent to which the Florida Constitution could, considtent with Art. II, 1, cl. 2, "circumscribe the legislative power." The opinion states, for example, that "[t]o the extent that the Legislature may enact laws regulating the electoral process, those laws are valid only if they impose no `unreasonable or unnecessary' restraints on the right of suffrage" guaranteed by the state constitution. App. to Pet. for Cert. 30a. The opinion also states that "[b]ecause election laws are intended to facilitate the right of suffrage, such laws must be liberally construed in favor of the citizens' right to vote...." Ibid.

In addition, 3 U.S.C. 5 provides in pertinent part:

"If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as herinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned."

The parties before us agree that whatever else may be the effect of this section, it creates a "safe harbor" for a State insofar as congressional consideration of its electoral votes is concerned. If the state legislature has provided for final determination of contests or controversies by a law made prior to election day, that determination shall be conclusive if made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors. The Florida Supreme Court cited 3 U.S.C. 1-10 in a footnote of its opinion, App. to Pet. for Cert. 32a, n. 55, but did not discuss 5. Since 5 contains a principle of federal law that would assure finality of the State's determination if made pursuant to a state law in effect before the election, a legislative wish to take advantage of the "safe harbor" would counsel against any construction of the Election Code the Congress might deem to be a change in the law.

After reviewing the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, we find "that there is considerable uncertainty as to the precise grounds for the decision." Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551, 555 (1940). This is sufficient reason for us to decline at this time to review the federal questions asserted to be present. See ibid.

"It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state constitutions. But it is equally important that ambiguous or obscure adjudications by state courts do not stand as barriers to a determination by this Court of the validity under the federal constitution of state action. Intelligent exercise of our appellate powers compels us to ask for the elimination of the obscurities and ambiguities from the opinions in such cases." Id., at 557.

Specifically, we are unclear as to the extent to which the Florida Supreme Court saw the Florida Constitution as circumscribing the legislature's authority under Art. II, 1, cl. 2. We are also unclear as to the consideration the Florida Supreme Court accorded to 3 U.S.C. 5. The judgement of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

According to the actual decision, Governor George W. Bush ... filed a petition for certiorari to review the Florida Supreme Court decision. (The above link to the decision on MSNBC spaz's out due to junkbuster.) A petition for certiorari is a request for the Supreme Court to review the decision. The decision by the SC was that the Florida court wasn't clear in their decision and needed to revisit it. The Florida court can essentially write a new decision, ruling the same way but answering the SC's specific questions as to the grounds of their decision. If they do so, the SC may either accept or reject the decision.

The ruling, oddly enough, was an unsigned ruling (definitely not normal) where the court asserted that there was "there is considerable uncertanty as to the precise grounds for the decision" in the Florida Court's decision. Therefore they have invalidated the decision based upon precendent and sent it back to Florida to Reconsider. See the story from CNN

In the WumpusWorld of Law the Supreme court has determines that the Florida State Supreme court fell into a pit but thy have extra life to try again.

Despite the hopes of many this does not hand either side a victory really. In some sense it is better for bush because it invalidates a ruling favorable to Gore but it does not nevessarily give him the victory.

It seems like we won't really know until we hit the hard deadline of December 18th when the Electoral College meets. On that day (or more accurately 6 days before it the 12th, the State of Florda, by federal law, must have appointed it's electors.

I guess we stiull have time to wait before moving off. Perhaps I'll see you in Monaco.

Irvu.

US supreme court DID NOT say that Bush won. The case was remanded for further proceedings, which means the Florida Supreme Court would have to take another look at it. Article here at "CNN".
The actual ruling can be read here in this "document".

decision

I'd rather have an autonomous vacuum cleaner look like...a vacuum cleaner.

I think I tend to agree with you. There *MAY* be a sound reason for having them shaped to look like and mimick human movement, but the biggest reason I can see for it is that that's what people expect.. Given this age of GUI interfaces, perhaps what they're looking at the "user friendliness" angle. I.e. if it looks more human, it'll be easier to interact with as if it were human.

People who are already technophobic might feel silly talking to a box on the floor that sucks up the crumbs, but they'll feel right at home talking to MS-JoeBot.

But look on the bright side! If they weren't humanoid robots, they wouldn't be able to ;boogie !


-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)

--

'course, you might have to be left-handed to notice this...we spend all our time complaining about how the man is screwing us over.

okay, there's a bug in this thing...you'll have to remove the %20 from the link...something's wrong with the line breaks.

For those of you who still wish to blame this fiasco on stupid users, check out this graph.

Anyone still want to tell me that there's nothing funny going on here? Keep in mind that this is a largely jewish community, and that Buchanan is on record saying that Hitler was an admirable man in several ways.

The link above doesn't seem to work. The picture is linked from the picture at ;ht tp://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/09/el ection.president/index.html Here's another direct Akamai link which may or may not work. Remove the space (or '%20') to make it work.

The photo doesn't show much. The pages are metal-framed, so they coudl've been sexured quite well as opposed to as if they were just cardboard. But, that doesn't mean they were. I'm only suggesting it as a devil's advocate and no one has refuted or confirmed it yet.

In my own experience where I voted, our books are mounted such that the pages leave a gap between them such that a different column of holes is exposed for eahc page turn. The whole book was quite loose in addition to the actual pages.

What are you missing? Well, one thing were missing is a better photo of the real setup to show if play in the book was possible.

Regarding what we're missing regarding other mistaken votes is this. We know that Gore and Bush both have extremely high precentages in ANY county ANYWHERE. Let's say 48% each to give room for third parties. With that large portion of Gore voters compared to a smaller population of [whatever-third-party-candidate-was-below-Buchanan ], and the same liklihood to "screw up", more Gore voters, as a number, would screw up than Buchanan voters. If we say there are 1,000,000 voters in the county, 480,000 would've wanted to vote for Gore, and say, 4,800 for [other candidate]. Assuming a 10% screw-up rate, that 48,000 Gore votes that wentto Buchanan and 480 that went to [other candidate].

So, yes, voters for [other candidate] could've screwed up too, but a much smaller number than for Gore.

Ballot Link
If I don't understand something on my tax form, and fill it out wrong, it is my problem. The same rule applies here. Yes they should consider ballot construction more carefully, but the vote was done in accordance to all the rules of the union, no laws were broken.Too bad!

link: Florida Exit Polls by CNN.

Although imho exit polls are bogus.

-- .sig --

(Urk, the Slashdot lameness filter choked on the very long URLs, you'll need to delete the spaces inserted. Grumble.)

• Low Quality - 224x164 4.7 Mb Quicktime 4
  http://a864.g.akamai.net/5/864/51/a1fd2644e6dcf8/1 a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80669d84574a 8d80d3cb12453c02589f25382e94ab71c8fbe3095f662cf48b b2f/realmyst_144.mov
• Medium Quality - 344x224 8.9 Mb Quicktime 4
  http://a1168.g.akamai.net/5/1168/51/94e9a89268a4 ce/1a1a1aaa2198c62797 0773d80669d8 457 4a8d80d3cb12453c02589f25382e94ab71c8fbe3095f662cf4 8bb2f/realmyst_ISDN.mov
• High Quality - 448x328 15.8 Mb Quicktime 4
  http://a1440.g.akamai.net/5/1440/51/2b1dc47f9c5b 96/1a1a1aaa2198c62797 0773d80669d8 457 4a8d80d3cb12453c02589f25382e94ab71c8fbe3095f662cf4 8bb2f/realmyst_T1.mov

These are direct links to the .mov files, suitable for downloading and viewing at your leisure.

(Urk, the Slashdot lameness filter choked on the very long URLs, you'll need to delete the spaces inserted. Grumble.)

• Low Quality - 224x164 4.7 Mb Quicktime 4
  http://a864.g.akamai.net/5/864/51/a1fd2644e6dcf8/1 a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80669d84574a 8d80d3cb12453c02589f25382e94ab71c8fbe3095f662cf48b b2f/realmyst_144.mov
• Medium Quality - 344x224 8.9 Mb Quicktime 4
  http://a1168.g.akamai.net/5/1168/51/94e9a89268a4 ce/1a1a1aaa2198c62797 0773d80669d8 457 4a8d80d3cb12453c02589f25382e94ab71c8fbe3095f662cf4 8bb2f/realmyst_ISDN.mov
• High Quality - 448x328 15.8 Mb Quicktime 4
  http://a1440.g.akamai.net/5/1440/51/2b1dc47f9c5b 96/1a1a1aaa2198c62797 0773d80669d8 457 4a8d80d3cb12453c02589f25382e94ab71c8fbe3095f662cf4 8bb2f/realmyst_T1.mov

These are direct links to the .mov files, suitable for downloading and viewing at your leisure.

(Urk, the Slashdot lameness filter choked on the very long URLs, you'll need to delete the spaces inserted. Grumble.)

• Low Quality - 224x164 4.7 Mb Quicktime 4
  http://a864.g.akamai.net/5/864/51/a1fd2644e6dcf8/1 a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80669d84574a 8d80d3cb12453c02589f25382e94ab71c8fbe3095f662cf48b b2f/realmyst_144.mov
• Medium Quality - 344x224 8.9 Mb Quicktime 4
  http://a1168.g.akamai.net/5/1168/51/94e9a89268a4 ce/1a1a1aaa2198c62797 0773d80669d8 457 4a8d80d3cb12453c02589f25382e94ab71c8fbe3095f662cf4 8bb2f/realmyst_ISDN.mov
• High Quality - 448x328 15.8 Mb Quicktime 4
  http://a1440.g.akamai.net/5/1440/51/2b1dc47f9c5b 96/1a1a1aaa2198c62797 0773d80669d8 457 4a8d80d3cb12453c02589f25382e94ab71c8fbe3095f662cf4 8bb2f/realmyst_T1.mov

These are direct links to the .mov files, suitable for downloading and viewing at your leisure.

I recommend using wget The way Akamai works you can replace a1388 in the first part of the hostname with any number from 1 to 2047 for example: http://a2047.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/oo_605_src.tar.gz is the same file as
http://a0.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice605/a noncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOffic e605/oo_605_src.tar.gz

Platform independent source code: http://a1376.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/oo_605_src.tar.gz

Solver[output tree]: http://a1412.g.akamai.net/7/1412/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/solver605_win32intel.tar.gz http://a1400.g.akamai.net/7/1400/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/solver605_solarissparc.tar.gz

Build instructions: http://www.openoffice.org/build.html

OpenOffice binaries: http://a1484.g.akamai.net/7/1484/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/linux_install_605.tar.gz http://a1496.g.akamai.net/7/1496/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/solaris_install_605.tar.gz http://a1508.g.akamai.net/7/1508/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/winnt_install_605.tar.gz http://a1520.g.akamai.net/7/1520/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/winnt_install_605.zip

I recommend using wget The way Akamai works you can replace a1388 in the first part of the hostname with any number from 1 to 2047 for example: http://a2047.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/oo_605_src.tar.gz is the same file as
http://a0.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice605/a noncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOffic e605/oo_605_src.tar.gz

Platform independent source code: http://a1376.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/oo_605_src.tar.gz

Solver[output tree]: http://a1412.g.akamai.net/7/1412/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/solver605_win32intel.tar.gz http://a1400.g.akamai.net/7/1400/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/solver605_solarissparc.tar.gz

Build instructions: http://www.openoffice.org/build.html

OpenOffice binaries: http://a1484.g.akamai.net/7/1484/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/linux_install_605.tar.gz http://a1496.g.akamai.net/7/1496/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/solaris_install_605.tar.gz http://a1508.g.akamai.net/7/1508/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/winnt_install_605.tar.gz http://a1520.g.akamai.net/7/1520/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/winnt_install_605.zip

I recommend using wget The way Akamai works you can replace a1388 in the first part of the hostname with any number from 1 to 2047 for example: http://a2047.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/oo_605_src.tar.gz is the same file as
http://a0.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice605/a noncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOffic e605/oo_605_src.tar.gz

Platform independent source code: http://a1376.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/oo_605_src.tar.gz

Solver[output tree]: http://a1412.g.akamai.net/7/1412/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/solver605_win32intel.tar.gz http://a1400.g.akamai.net/7/1400/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/solver605_solarissparc.tar.gz

Build instructions: http://www.openoffice.org/build.html

OpenOffice binaries: http://a1484.g.akamai.net/7/1484/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/linux_install_605.tar.gz http://a1496.g.akamai.net/7/1496/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/solaris_install_605.tar.gz http://a1508.g.akamai.net/7/1508/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/winnt_install_605.tar.gz http://a1520.g.akamai.net/7/1520/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/winnt_install_605.zip

I recommend using wget The way Akamai works you can replace a1388 in the first part of the hostname with any number from 1 to 2047 for example: http://a2047.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/oo_605_src.tar.gz is the same file as
http://a0.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice605/a noncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOffic e605/oo_605_src.tar.gz

Platform independent source code: http://a1376.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/oo_605_src.tar.gz

Solver[output tree]: http://a1412.g.akamai.net/7/1412/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/solver605_win32intel.tar.gz http://a1400.g.akamai.net/7/1400/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/solver605_solarissparc.tar.gz

Build instructions: http://www.openoffice.org/build.html

OpenOffice binaries: http://a1484.g.akamai.net/7/1484/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/linux_install_605.tar.gz http://a1496.g.akamai.net/7/1496/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/solaris_install_605.tar.gz http://a1508.g.akamai.net/7/1508/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/winnt_install_605.tar.gz http://a1520.g.akamai.net/7/1520/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/winnt_install_605.zip

I recommend using wget The way Akamai works you can replace a1388 in the first part of the hostname with any number from 1 to 2047 for example: http://a2047.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/oo_605_src.tar.gz is the same file as
http://a0.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice605/a noncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOffic e605/oo_605_src.tar.gz

Platform independent source code: http://a1376.g.akamai.net/7/1376/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/oo_605_src.tar.gz

Solver[output tree]: http://a1412.g.akamai.net/7/1412/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/solver605_win32intel.tar.gz http://a1400.g.akamai.net/7/1400/2064/OpenOffice60 5/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOf fice605/solver605_solarissparc.tar.gz

Build instructions: http://www.openoffice.org/build.html

OpenOffice binaries: http://a1484.g.akamai.net/7/1484/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/linux_install_605.tar.gz http://a1496.g.akamai.net/7/1496/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/solaris_install_605.tar.gz http://a1508.g.akamai.net/7/1508/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/winnt_install_605.tar.gz http://a1520.g.akamai.net/7/1520/2064/OpenOffice60 5b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenO ffice605/winnt_install_605.zip