For some reason I still remember something like the above. We used to use it to strip any floppy protection, or to pick some random address to basically prevent someone else from doing this.
We started with the old TRS-80 model one though. We had the old cassette tape storage, where you had to note on the tape with a pen as to what number to start 'playing' or 'recording' your program back.
43 states still have these state Line Item Veto powers on their books, which is curious since the SCOTUS did throw out a similar act at the federal level (see Clinton vs. the City of New York), but that specific instance threw out a Line Item veto by the president. I don't believe it addressed state legislatures.
The problem being that the Executive could adversely impact, or change the implementation of a bill in a way that was not officially sanctioned by the legislature. It's a valid concern.
No, SCOTUS struck down a line item veto by the executive. Everything is within scope when it comes to congress within the general confines of the Constitution. This is simply a procedural change in and of itself, and it would not require the force of law behind it.These are called 'Riders' and have been used throughout our history as a nation. Other countries deal with these with varying degrees of success. Some forbid them outright, some forbid the mixing of two types of amendments (for example, tacking on a social rider to a budget item, etc).
Because rather than just allowing the amendment in without any safeguards, it would require a majority vote. If the majority is still interested in adding it for political purposes, then that doesn't break the system, but it does prevent rouge amendments from individuals from being introduced.
He disagreed with political parties, not with amendments or efficiency. He saw parties as diluting the message (the message getting lost in a larger parties platform). A good example would be the difference between a social conservative and a fiscal conservative. Especially right now, we see social issues burying fiscal issues in the Republican Party, who in turn has trouble focusing on helpful legislation due to intra party factions. They are now ruled by the more fringe elements of their party, and fiscal maters in reality take a back seat to social issues.
I don't see this as largely relevant when discussing how quickly a bill passes in regards to amendments. In this case, the people proposing these amendments are not doing so to slow down this legislation, but rather to piggyback on a more popular bill in the hopes that their amendments will be more palatable in the larger scheme of things.
A yes/no simple majority vote would be easy enough to decide if an amendment is related. Sometimes a simple solution is also the best one;) If they want to play politics claiming gun clip laws are related to Cybersecurity, then they could answer to their opponents when they are up for re-election. They could also consider penalties for those that suggest an amendment that is voted 'No' (not related) to prevent such spamming.
I disagree. If they knew the basic system was flawed, making it inefficient would only delay any perceived protection, inevitably ending up in the same place eventually while only taking longer to get there. Claiming they designed it as such specifically to protect our rights has no basis in proof. A good example is the filibuster. It was never intended to be used in the manner it is today. It's use today is used to endlessly stall legislation. The founding fathers didn't design that. It was added later. They also couldn't foresee what our legal system would look like 300 years later.
The very fact that we have amendments to our Constitution indicates that they couldn't foresee everything, and that social values change and that the law had to change to reflect that.
Amendments in and of themselves aren't inherently evil. If they introduce legislation that has a gap, or isn't clearly defined, an amendment can be used to shore up weaknesses and to address various concerns.
That said, allow anyone to introduce ANY amendment, related or not, just seems asinine. Limiting the scope only to related amendments makes sense.
I wish they would change the rules to allow only amendments related to the legislation in question. It would seem such a simple thing would make congress much more efficient. Then again, I seriously doubt that was ever a priority for them.
Because Apple already submitted images into evidence dating back to 2003 for the iPad and from 2005 for the iPhone. The images linked above are from 2006, making them irrelevant 'noise'. Unless Samsung can submit certified designs pre-dating those from Apple, then they are just attempting to push meaningless evidence at the jury in hopes that it will confuse, which is probably why the judge didn't allow these images.
If someone here can show a link to some sort of evidence where Samsung has submitted direct evidence of such, I have yet to see it, and so does the judge given the evidence presented so far.
Everyone seems to forget that Samsung was machining these phones for Apple, so of course they knew exactly what they looked like and operated long before they hit the public. The iPhone was released in June 2007 with early prototypes created in 2005. They would have engaged Samsung long before 2007 to begin the process of contracting with them to produce these phones from their factory.
The evidence presented was disallowed because it added nothing of value. It doesn't pre-date the evidence submitted by Apple and is therefore irrelevant.
Unfortunately Samsung they failed to convince the judge that their evidence was relevant, which is why it wasn't allowed. The article and image, linked in the summary are from 2006. Apple had already submitted design prototype images into evidence for the iPhone dating back to 2005, and iPad prototypes dating back to 2003.
Remember that Samsung would have already been involved in producing iPhone components by 2006 since the iPhone was released in June of 2007. They would have engaged Samsung long before the release date (obviously in order to have the phones for sale in 2007), meaning sometime predaiting the 2006 timeframe. That also happens to correspond to the timeframes that Samsung's designs morphed from their older pre-iPhone designs, to designs that were decidedly very similar to the iPhone design.
When you have a company producing the handsets you are going to sell, and that same companies products suddenly take change in design direction and begin to look very similar to the designs it is currently manufacturing, it tends to look a bit suspicious.
You are confusing what was disallowed by the judge and the images that Samsung actually leaked. The information released by Samsung that pissed off the judge was showing a prototype that Apple created.
The F700 is being discussed because Apple was allowed to argue that the F700 was a copy of the iPhone design. Samsung said they intended to release information which would 'prove they did not copy the iPhone design' but the judge had disallowed it. Instead, Samsung went to the media with the image you see in the link above. The image shown is actually an Apple design.
Samsung is also not allowed to bring up a reference that Shin Nishibori, an Apple design inventor, made regarding Sony's influence on the iPhone. In a deposition, Nishibori referred to a conversation he had with Apple's design chief, Jonathan Ive, in which Ive reportedly asked Nishibori what a Sony-made iPhone would look like.
Perhaps you should get your news from more than one source?
This design was created by Apple by an Apple designer aiming at what an iPhone would look like if Sony made it. It was excluded from evidence because it isn't relevant to the case, and it was designed by Apple. This is not a Samsung design, it is an Apple design created by Apple designer Shin Nishibori. Apple has already shown court documents with prototypes from 2005, predating any F700 designs from Samsung by a year.
This design was created by Nishibori as a personal project when he was speaking with Jonathan Ive. Ive basically said
"Well, Shin, I have something to talk to you about." He said, "You can do this as an aside of your job and enjoy - I want you to enjoy doing this. But if Sony were to make a iPhone, what would it be like? Would you make it for me?"
Apple had already established it's iPhone design and has images of such from 2005. This unfulfilled prototype was from 2006.
Can't agree more./. is becoming a joke as a 'news for nerds' site. They turn into the trollfest we see above. Every single post above is flamebait.
The fact that OS X broke out of the marginal OS arena is good news for any non-windows platform, regardless of who makes it. It's also of interest to the enterprise crowd looking for alternatives to Windows 8, and not only due to the fact that this happens to be OS X but also because they may look at other alternatives if Windows grip on the computer market isn't rock solid.
It still sets a really bad precedent. If corporations are 'people', then they should be treated the same. This is one of those things that really infuriates me that corporations get away with some pretty nasty (illegal) activities, and pay a paltry fine and walk free, while average people are (rightly) jailed and prosecuted.
In addition, the warming could have a cascade effect with the permafrost on the ocen floor releasing Methane in greater amounts as well, which would also add to the heating cycle.
Although methane currently accounts for only 15% of warming (a far distant second to CO2's 75% contribution to warming), it is also a concern if you factor in the amounts they believe may be locked in the permafrost under the ocean floor.
I typically just create a second partition, and install it on that. It comes with a boot manager. It's a simple matter to choose which to boot into. I've been using it for a few months and overall I've had no problems once it was released as a beta.
If/When you are ready to make the switch, just restore your Mountain Lion on top of your old Lion or Snow Leopard partition via Disk Manager. Nothing lost and no reconfiguration needed.
If you are a Mac user, as a drinker of the Kool-Aid you have no choice. Whatever is coming out is insanely great, you simply must believe that because any other thought would lead to madness. Windows folk will simply bitterly cling to Windows 7 until it end of lifes and hope policy changes, as it often does. They are more like Star Trek fans, they admit there is a pattern to which releases suck and don't suck.
Perhaps you neglected to mention that you are as 'locked in" to your preconceptions about Apple, Microsoft, and even Linux to the point that you just assumes the 'competition' is doing something boneheaded, even though a read through the article in question would answer most of your preconceptions. The fact that it's marked insightful is pretty telling.
In what way has OS X "succumbed to tablet madness"?. When the your description of OS X is entirely counter to reality and shows that you have no clue as to what this version of OS X looks like, what the last version looked like, or the version before that, it speaks volumes. Slashdot is about anything that is anti-Apple, Anti-Microsoft, or pro-linux/android. It's no longer someplace to go for an adult discussion of new tech, new software, or new features. It's turned into an Android Thunderdome. I expect this post will be marked 'troll' or 'flamebait', or oddly enough 'Offtopic' even though the thread is an OS X thread because it speaks ill of the general bent of Slashdot these days. They've all put their blinders on and have turned into a Fox News of Technology unless the posts in question praise Google or Android regardless of the story.
OS X It looks nothing like a tablet OS and is nothing like Windows 8's push to tablefiy it's OS. It borrows some features that work well on a desktop or that are cloud centric, but that's about the extent of it (excluding Launchpad, which for the life of me I still can't figure out why they put it on the desktop). For most Mac users, it's just an OS Update. I'm betting a large number of Mac users can't even tell you the version of the OS, or the name for that matter, just as you would find on a Windows machine, or possibly a Linux machine if they are of the non-geek orientation.
Is wanting to upgrade to get some decent new features 'drinking the Kool-Aid'? I'm betting that for the majority of us, it's not a religious war. It's just a computer that fits our needs, and this is just an update that adds some decent features for $20 bucks.
According to TFA, they observed this via ice cores, not via some sort of manmade records or anything of that sort (excluding the 30 years of satellite data of course). At this point, they consider this an interesting but non-threatening event, with the proviso that if it happens again in the next year or two, then it will be much more concerning.
From TFA:
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."
The new phone is supposed to have a 4" screen, but they increased it on the vertical rather than via it's width. Smuggled screenshots of various front casings and whatnot are showing about the same width as the 4 and 4S, so the new phone, although it has a larger screen, should still fit comfortably in your hand.
How are they censoring him? He uploaded an exploit into the App Store. If he wanted to bring attention to it, all he had to do was to contact Apple or put something on the net. Instead he violated the terms of use and his developer agreement and uploaded said exploit instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Poke (ADD=4AD4, Find = 18, Change=20)
For some reason I still remember something like the above. We used to use it to strip any floppy protection, or to pick some random address to basically prevent someone else from doing this.
We started with the old TRS-80 model one though. We had the old cassette tape storage, where you had to note on the tape with a pen as to what number to start 'playing' or 'recording' your program back.
Those were the days..lol
I was personally hoping for "J-Pop American Fun Time Now! UI"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj1OnORTnAM
43 states still have these state Line Item Veto powers on their books, which is curious since the SCOTUS did throw out a similar act at the federal level (see Clinton vs. the City of New York), but that specific instance threw out a Line Item veto by the president. I don't believe it addressed state legislatures.
The problem being that the Executive could adversely impact, or change the implementation of a bill in a way that was not officially sanctioned by the legislature. It's a valid concern.
Here's a bit more info on the history of these Amendments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation)
No, SCOTUS struck down a line item veto by the executive. Everything is within scope when it comes to congress within the general confines of the Constitution. This is simply a procedural change in and of itself, and it would not require the force of law behind it.These are called 'Riders' and have been used throughout our history as a nation. Other countries deal with these with varying degrees of success. Some forbid them outright, some forbid the mixing of two types of amendments (for example, tacking on a social rider to a budget item, etc).
Because rather than just allowing the amendment in without any safeguards, it would require a majority vote. If the majority is still interested in adding it for political purposes, then that doesn't break the system, but it does prevent rouge amendments from individuals from being introduced.
He disagreed with political parties, not with amendments or efficiency. He saw parties as diluting the message (the message getting lost in a larger parties platform). A good example would be the difference between a social conservative and a fiscal conservative. Especially right now, we see social issues burying fiscal issues in the Republican Party, who in turn has trouble focusing on helpful legislation due to intra party factions. They are now ruled by the more fringe elements of their party, and fiscal maters in reality take a back seat to social issues.
I don't see this as largely relevant when discussing how quickly a bill passes in regards to amendments. In this case, the people proposing these amendments are not doing so to slow down this legislation, but rather to piggyback on a more popular bill in the hopes that their amendments will be more palatable in the larger scheme of things.
A yes/no simple majority vote would be easy enough to decide if an amendment is related. Sometimes a simple solution is also the best one ;) If they want to play politics claiming gun clip laws are related to Cybersecurity, then they could answer to their opponents when they are up for re-election. They could also consider penalties for those that suggest an amendment that is voted 'No' (not related) to prevent such spamming.
I disagree. If they knew the basic system was flawed, making it inefficient would only delay any perceived protection, inevitably ending up in the same place eventually while only taking longer to get there. Claiming they designed it as such specifically to protect our rights has no basis in proof. A good example is the filibuster. It was never intended to be used in the manner it is today. It's use today is used to endlessly stall legislation. The founding fathers didn't design that. It was added later. They also couldn't foresee what our legal system would look like 300 years later.
The very fact that we have amendments to our Constitution indicates that they couldn't foresee everything, and that social values change and that the law had to change to reflect that.
Amendments in and of themselves aren't inherently evil. If they introduce legislation that has a gap, or isn't clearly defined, an amendment can be used to shore up weaknesses and to address various concerns.
That said, allow anyone to introduce ANY amendment, related or not, just seems asinine. Limiting the scope only to related amendments makes sense.
I wish they would change the rules to allow only amendments related to the legislation in question. It would seem such a simple thing would make congress much more efficient. Then again, I seriously doubt that was ever a priority for them.
Because Apple already submitted images into evidence dating back to 2003 for the iPad and from 2005 for the iPhone. The images linked above are from 2006, making them irrelevant 'noise'. Unless Samsung can submit certified designs pre-dating those from Apple, then they are just attempting to push meaningless evidence at the jury in hopes that it will confuse, which is probably why the judge didn't allow these images.
If someone here can show a link to some sort of evidence where Samsung has submitted direct evidence of such, I have yet to see it, and so does the judge given the evidence presented so far.
Everyone seems to forget that Samsung was machining these phones for Apple, so of course they knew exactly what they looked like and operated long before they hit the public. The iPhone was released in June 2007 with early prototypes created in 2005. They would have engaged Samsung long before 2007 to begin the process of contracting with them to produce these phones from their factory.
The evidence presented was disallowed because it added nothing of value. It doesn't pre-date the evidence submitted by Apple and is therefore irrelevant.
Unfortunately Samsung they failed to convince the judge that their evidence was relevant, which is why it wasn't allowed. The article and image, linked in the summary are from 2006. Apple had already submitted design prototype images into evidence for the iPhone dating back to 2005, and iPad prototypes dating back to 2003.
Remember that Samsung would have already been involved in producing iPhone components by 2006 since the iPhone was released in June of 2007. They would have engaged Samsung long before the release date (obviously in order to have the phones for sale in 2007), meaning sometime predaiting the 2006 timeframe. That also happens to correspond to the timeframes that Samsung's designs morphed from their older pre-iPhone designs, to designs that were decidedly very similar to the iPhone design.
When you have a company producing the handsets you are going to sell, and that same companies products suddenly take change in design direction and begin to look very similar to the designs it is currently manufacturing, it tends to look a bit suspicious.
You are confusing what was disallowed by the judge and the images that Samsung actually leaked. The information released by Samsung that pissed off the judge was showing a prototype that Apple created.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57483967-37/judge-chides-samsung-for-handing-nixed-evidence-to-media/
The F700 is being discussed because Apple was allowed to argue that the F700 was a copy of the iPhone design. Samsung said they intended to release information which would 'prove they did not copy the iPhone design' but the judge had disallowed it. Instead, Samsung went to the media with the image you see in the link above. The image shown is actually an Apple design.
Here's a story directly related to TFA.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407919,00.asp
Perhaps you should get your news from more than one source?
This design was created by Apple by an Apple designer aiming at what an iPhone would look like if Sony made it. It was excluded from evidence because it isn't relevant to the case, and it was designed by Apple. This is not a Samsung design, it is an Apple design created by Apple designer Shin Nishibori. Apple has already shown court documents with prototypes from 2005, predating any F700 designs from Samsung by a year.
This design was created by Nishibori as a personal project when he was speaking with Jonathan Ive. Ive basically said
Apple had already established it's iPhone design and has images of such from 2005. This unfulfilled prototype was from 2006.
Can't agree more. /. is becoming a joke as a 'news for nerds' site. They turn into the trollfest we see above. Every single post above is flamebait.
The fact that OS X broke out of the marginal OS arena is good news for any non-windows platform, regardless of who makes it. It's also of interest to the enterprise crowd looking for alternatives to Windows 8, and not only due to the fact that this happens to be OS X but also because they may look at other alternatives if Windows grip on the computer market isn't rock solid.
It still sets a really bad precedent. If corporations are 'people', then they should be treated the same. This is one of those things that really infuriates me that corporations get away with some pretty nasty (illegal) activities, and pay a paltry fine and walk free, while average people are (rightly) jailed and prosecuted.
If the government was doing this, they tell us.. They'd say, you know, Duck and Cover!
Note: for those that don't get the joke, see the last few minutes of Transformers....
Yes. I'm still wondering why Murdoch and his FOX ties to hacking haven't resulted in an arrest. Why are CEO's immune while 'regular' people are not?
In addition, the warming could have a cascade effect with the permafrost on the ocen floor releasing Methane in greater amounts as well, which would also add to the heating cycle.
Although methane currently accounts for only 15% of warming (a far distant second to CO2's 75% contribution to warming), it is also a concern if you factor in the amounts they believe may be locked in the permafrost under the ocean floor.
I typically just create a second partition, and install it on that. It comes with a boot manager. It's a simple matter to choose which to boot into. I've been using it for a few months and overall I've had no problems once it was released as a beta.
If/When you are ready to make the switch, just restore your Mountain Lion on top of your old Lion or Snow Leopard partition via Disk Manager. Nothing lost and no reconfiguration needed.
Perhaps you neglected to mention that you are as 'locked in" to your preconceptions about Apple, Microsoft, and even Linux to the point that you just assumes the 'competition' is doing something boneheaded, even though a read through the article in question would answer most of your preconceptions. The fact that it's marked insightful is pretty telling.
In what way has OS X "succumbed to tablet madness"?. When the your description of OS X is entirely counter to reality and shows that you have no clue as to what this version of OS X looks like, what the last version looked like, or the version before that, it speaks volumes. Slashdot is about anything that is anti-Apple, Anti-Microsoft, or pro-linux/android. It's no longer someplace to go for an adult discussion of new tech, new software, or new features. It's turned into an Android Thunderdome. I expect this post will be marked 'troll' or 'flamebait', or oddly enough 'Offtopic' even though the thread is an OS X thread because it speaks ill of the general bent of Slashdot these days. They've all put their blinders on and have turned into a Fox News of Technology unless the posts in question praise Google or Android regardless of the story.
OS X It looks nothing like a tablet OS and is nothing like Windows 8's push to tablefiy it's OS. It borrows some features that work well on a desktop or that are cloud centric, but that's about the extent of it (excluding Launchpad, which for the life of me I still can't figure out why they put it on the desktop). For most Mac users, it's just an OS Update. I'm betting a large number of Mac users can't even tell you the version of the OS, or the name for that matter, just as you would find on a Windows machine, or possibly a Linux machine if they are of the non-geek orientation.
Is wanting to upgrade to get some decent new features 'drinking the Kool-Aid'? I'm betting that for the majority of us, it's not a religious war. It's just a computer that fits our needs, and this is just an update that adds some decent features for $20 bucks.
According to TFA, they observed this via ice cores, not via some sort of manmade records or anything of that sort (excluding the 30 years of satellite data of course). At this point, they consider this an interesting but non-threatening event, with the proviso that if it happens again in the next year or two, then it will be much more concerning.
From TFA:
The new phone is supposed to have a 4" screen, but they increased it on the vertical rather than via it's width. Smuggled screenshots of various front casings and whatnot are showing about the same width as the 4 and 4S, so the new phone, although it has a larger screen, should still fit comfortably in your hand.
How are they censoring him? He uploaded an exploit into the App Store. If he wanted to bring attention to it, all he had to do was to contact Apple or put something on the net. Instead he violated the terms of use and his developer agreement and uploaded said exploit instead.