Nope, haven't heard anything new yet to explain the fear.
Well, you haven't heard anything you agree with, but it's been explained. I'm sorry that everyone else on earth doesn't find it necessary to seek your approval before forming their own judgements.
Or is is just uni-directional. You cannot make something retroactively illegal but you can make it retroactively legal.
That is correct. You cannot retroactively put someone in danger for choices that were perfectly okay when made, but you can retroactively say that what was done was okay. And while in this circumstance, it's an unconscionable choice to do so, it really wouldn't make any sense to prohibit universally.
Unless we are able to predict every possible action and place it on the correct side of the legal/illegal line, we have to make allowances that sometimes people will find themselves in a set of circumstances that we hadn't anticipated where we find otherwise bad behavior to be completely acceptable or even desirable.
"In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
That is, Congress can prevent a case like this from ever being heard by the Federal Courts System.
That's not at all what the clause you're quoting means. The clause is only discussing whether the Supreme Court is an originating court or only a court of appeals for a given case. Congress cannot (short of amending the Constitution) say that the federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever to review a case. They can decide which courts hear which cases to begin with, and only to a certain degree.
This was, ultimately, what Marbury v Madison was all about -- the SC said "we can't rule on this case, it has to go to a lower court first and then be appealed to us, we only have appellate jurisdiction".
They still have to get FISA approval for domestic tapping.
Yes, they do. And they didn't. That's the whole point of granting them immunity -- if they didn't break the law, they wouldn't need immunity. QED. I think the cake is all yours.
What law did the Telco's break? Again, they are not legally obligated to protect your rights.
Nobody is suing them for not protecting their rights. They're suing them for actively violating their rights. There's a pretty big difference between just not stopping someone else from breaking the law, and you yourself engaging in a criminal conspiracy to violate numerous laws.
What makes you think that a Democrat is any less likely to wiretap without warrants (among other abuses) as the current administration, given that they'll do as much as possible to put a Dem in the White House?
because the Dems are out of power right now, so letting the White House twist in the wind as court cases dig up dirty activities only makes them look better by comparison? It's not like it does the White House any good to veto a FISA bill, it only makes their own job harder (assuming they follow the law, which of course is a big assumption).
At least, that's the idea behind our adversarial system of court/government/markets -- that what is bad for my rival is good for me, and in the end all sides keep each other in check.
Well, there was also the minor issue of them being the largest ally of the Soviet Union, they now are the US's single largest ideological opponent on Earth, as well as the largest economic rival.
There's also the minor issue of China's direct and indirect military action against the US in both Korea and Vietnam, and their periodic military threats against both Taiwan and Japan.
Their ongoing sponsorship of the government of North Korea certainly doesn't win them many friends in the western world.
There always can be incompatibility problems. So you release it in the order of people who are most able to find and deal with those.
Well, yes, isn't that the whole point of this article and the upset? Developers of software are the only ones able to test and fix their software. It's useless for beta testers and Volume License customers to report bugs to a developer if he doesn't have access to the same OS version for another two weeks.
The idea of providing a final OS release to some customers before your own platform developers is just insane.
I suspect this is not fixed, but I don't know. Anyone?
It's not broken, so don't ever expect it to be "fixed". When designing the backup system, they chose to use fewer real-time computing resources so that it was essentially invisible to the users (and thus wouldn't get turned off by everyone for "slowing down the computer") and make restoration trivially simple and fast, at the expense of disk space. You can disagree with their choices, but they're the same tradeoffs every backup system designer has to make.
I use rdiff-backup for some of my data where frequent small updates of large files are an issue, but I'm under no illusions that running a CPU at 100% for 30 minutes for every backup would be acceptable out-of-the-box behavior for most consumers. It especially wouldn't be acceptable to spend days or weeks calculating deltas when restoring a hard drive full of files that have been modified over the course of months or years.
It's a lot easier and cheaper to add disk space than processing power, as much as I'd love to see deltas offered I think I would have made the same choices Apple did if I were in charge of designing TM.
I had read that Finder was much improved in this regard in Leopard. Is this not the case!?
99% of the really annoying stuff in Finder was indeed fixed in 10.5, don't let everyone's desire for perfection fool you. It would be awesome to truly get every Finder window and operation as a totally separate process, though.
You mean the feature that doesn't render all of the screen real estate to the left and right of the Dock useless? Nor is it useful for file transfer operations.
I'm not sure what you mean by either of these. You can pin the dock to a corner if you like, and you can use the space around it just fine. I have one utility I nestle to the right of my dock.
No, it's not a temporary storage location, all it deals with is aliases. But there is plenty of software to make it useful for file manipulation, it's just not the sort of thing every Joe needs.
Yes, as completely different as command-Tabbing back to the application. *Sigh* I guess this just isn't a big deal to those of us who prefer keyboard actions to mouse actions.
That's actually the point of the criticism -- if an application is minimized, you have to use the mouse to get it back, command-Tab doesn't un-minimize. It's us keyboard folks who are annoyed by the minimize behavior, not mouse users.
Granted, I just never minimize anything and tend to use Expose and Hide for my window management, but it would be nice for a minimized application/document to be restored if you activate it.
You know, it's funny... I've often found it easier to crack a piece of software than it is to track down my legitimate license. I can imagine does that with VIsta. If I were running a legitimate version of Vista and changed my hardware (or whatever causes Vista to require a to require you to reregister), I'd sooner install a crack than spend any amount of time on the phone with Microsoft.
Pretty much every game and piece of software I run is actually a cracked copy of something I bought at retail, for exactly this reason. It's a lot faster and easier to download a crack than it is to deal with most copy-protection and activation once you've rebuilt a computer a couple of times. Of course with games, the main hassle is just being able to play without having a CD in the drive.
So Canovas seems to be of the opinion that child porn is more stimulating than adult porn; and if so, wouldn't that make Canovas a pedohile?
Yeah, that was my reaction as well. I know plenty of guys who did get "bored" with standard playboy-type porn after seeing too much, and they look for harder, Hustler-type stuff, but I'd never heard someone suggest that the epitome of sexual stimulation comes from child porn (quite the opposite, they tend to want the exaggerated feminity of GGG breasts). I think the cops should be seeing exactly what this guys "investigations" involve.
Experts, who are aware of that topic and its harmful effects thereof are speaking on this and it is upon us, netizens and technical crowd to create a environment that is safe for your and my child.
I don't think it is any of our responsibility to make the internet as a whole an environment that is safe for children. In fact, that's quite the opposite of what I think most adults want.
If indeed, there are genetic causations for such behaviors (namely ALL human sexual behaviors) then simply criminalizing it, and punishing those affected, and tarring all technologies involved with 'bad' labels is simply a head in the sand reaction
Well, no. You seem to think that unless we can "solve" a problem 100% at the root cause, it is not worth addressing in any way. The issue is not whether or not sexual proclivities are genetic or voluntary (Indeed, I think most people these days tend to lean towards agreeing there is a strong genetic component of most major sexual attractions).
The issue is that we each have the choice whether to act on our particular desires and impulses. We punish people for choosing to do something harmful, such as having sex with a child, not for simply having the desire.
No doubt many people have a much lower frustration/anger threshold than others, that doesn't mean we simply let them get away with assault or murder. Hopefully they can find help to deal with issues that they unfortunately are saddled with, and hopefully society can meet them halfway in providing that help, but society is not going to meet them halfway in simply allowing them to do whatever they like in terms of damaging other people.
I'm also in Paul's district, have met and spoken with him several times and dated a high-ranking member of his staff, and always vote for him.
But yes, he is clearly insane (as are most of his staff and rabid supporters, including the one I dated, but that doesn't affect my judgement of him:P).
I vote for him because he speaks honestly and passionately about things that need to be talked about, in a way that major party candidates don't feel they can.
We're supposed to trust this entirely unfounded speculation, when they use logic like this?
"Apple is hiring a television production firm in preparation for a high-profile late February announcement. That event, however, will likely detail the widely anticipated release of a software developer's kit for Apple's iPhone and iPod Touch."
Why in the world would Apple prepare a high-profile media announcement for an SDK? That's just about the LEAST Apple-ish move anyone familiar with them could imagine! Consumers don't give a crap about SDKs. Even if they had major 3rd party software to launch with the SDK release, I can't think of a time Apple has ever made a big deal on TV about a specific piece of software. Forbes needs a reality check on their crystal ball.
It's far more likely that the "Get a Mac" commercial campaign is changing, as rumors have been circulating for a few weeks.
I've done all of the locations you're talking about (though I wonder if you're really going to EBC 2 -- I assume you just mean regular base camp at Everest, since climbing through the icefall isn't the kind of thing you just show up and do, and camp 2 is above the icefall). For all the hyperbole about stuff failing at high altitudes, in several years and dozens of off the shelf computers which have spend months up there, we haven't really had any hard drive or LCD issues on Everest. The big problem is actually dust, which you'll get everywhere in the third world.
That said, I wouldn't go on such a long trip without a Thinkpad or a Toughbook (maybe a Macbook/Pro/Air).
Screw burning DVDs, you'll lose half of them to theft or damage, and the drive increases the size/weight of the computer. Buy flash media -- miniSD is the smallest that isn't crazy expensive -- and store everything on there. You can fit a dozen miniSD cards in the coin pocket of a pair of jeans and have a 100 gigs of storage in a place nobody will look. The big thing there is that if they get wet or dusty it doesn't do anything to the data, nobody will pickpocket them, you can carry them on the plane, etc. It's not cheap, but spending 60 years regretting losing the pictures is even worse. You can also easily buy more in normal stopovers like Singapore if you need, and mail home the older ones from there in a standard fedex envelope.
In MacOS, there's no keyboard access to it...And don't even get me started on the lack of keyboard accelerators. It seems that Apple doesn't think many of its users prefer the keyboard (which might very well be the case)...
Command-period has been the "cancel" keyboard shortcut on Mac OS for over 20 years, I suspect it will work where you're talking about with the progress bar.
And check out "full keyboard access" stuff in the system preferences, you'll find that not only can you use the keyboard for menu activation and such, you can also create your own custom shortcuts for almost any operation in any application you like. The keyboarding capabilities of the Mac OS are superior, overall, to pretty much any other system I can think of. Add on Quicksilver or something similar and it can get downright crazy how much you can accomplish in arbitrary applications without touching a mouse.
If you're somewhat new to the Mac, I recommend picking up one of David Pogue's books, he provides a great mixture of theory and practical information about how things are designed to work.
There's a big difference between making corporations be legally independent entities (for liability, financial and other reasons), and making them legally "persons" under the law. Nobody is suggesting abolishing corporations, just that they don't need free speech and such.
It just seems ridiculous to me that this man admits doing everything he needed to do to commit copyright infringement, but the EFF claims that since the RIAA doesn't know what other people did or didn't do (downloading the files), he's not at fault.
Nobody is saying he's not at fault, just that he hasn't committed copyright infringement according to the law. Attempting to commit a crime and failing is not illegal (though you might be committing another crime in the attempt), you have to actually commit a crime.
For example, if you saw a car parked on the street with keys in it and you took it for a joy ride, thinking you were stealing it, it wouldn't be illegal if it turned out the car was purchased for you by your parents. It doesn't matter what your belief or intent is, if what you're doing isn't actually breaking the law you aren't guilty of any crime. That's what is at the heart of this issue -- is it a copyright violation if the material is never actually distributed to anyone, regardless of whether the guy intended for it to be distributed?
If the purpose of modern copyright is to encourage the creation of artistic works, I can guaran-fucking-tee you that taking away people's own creative work is pretty much the worst possible way to achieve that.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you haven't heard anything you agree with, but it's been explained. I'm sorry that everyone else on earth doesn't find it necessary to seek your approval before forming their own judgements.
That is correct. You cannot retroactively put someone in danger for choices that were perfectly okay when made, but you can retroactively say that what was done was okay. And while in this circumstance, it's an unconscionable choice to do so, it really wouldn't make any sense to prohibit universally.
Unless we are able to predict every possible action and place it on the correct side of the legal/illegal line, we have to make allowances that sometimes people will find themselves in a set of circumstances that we hadn't anticipated where we find otherwise bad behavior to be completely acceptable or even desirable.
That's not at all what the clause you're quoting means. The clause is only discussing whether the Supreme Court is an originating court or only a court of appeals for a given case. Congress cannot (short of amending the Constitution) say that the federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever to review a case. They can decide which courts hear which cases to begin with, and only to a certain degree.
This was, ultimately, what Marbury v Madison was all about -- the SC said "we can't rule on this case, it has to go to a lower court first and then be appealed to us, we only have appellate jurisdiction".
Yes, they do. And they didn't. That's the whole point of granting them immunity -- if they didn't break the law, they wouldn't need immunity. QED. I think the cake is all yours.
Nobody is suing them for not protecting their rights. They're suing them for actively violating their rights. There's a pretty big difference between just not stopping someone else from breaking the law, and you yourself engaging in a criminal conspiracy to violate numerous laws.
because the Dems are out of power right now, so letting the White House twist in the wind as court cases dig up dirty activities only makes them look better by comparison? It's not like it does the White House any good to veto a FISA bill, it only makes their own job harder (assuming they follow the law, which of course is a big assumption).
At least, that's the idea behind our adversarial system of court/government/markets -- that what is bad for my rival is good for me, and in the end all sides keep each other in check.
Well, there was also the minor issue of them being the largest ally of the Soviet Union, they now are the US's single largest ideological opponent on Earth, as well as the largest economic rival.
There's also the minor issue of China's direct and indirect military action against the US in both Korea and Vietnam, and their periodic military threats against both Taiwan and Japan.
Their ongoing sponsorship of the government of North Korea certainly doesn't win them many friends in the western world.
Well, yes, isn't that the whole point of this article and the upset? Developers of software are the only ones able to test and fix their software. It's useless for beta testers and Volume License customers to report bugs to a developer if he doesn't have access to the same OS version for another two weeks.
The idea of providing a final OS release to some customers before your own platform developers is just insane.
1024k cylinder boundary, has nothing to do with disk format, just the use of 1970s technology to manage the boot process.
It's not broken, so don't ever expect it to be "fixed". When designing the backup system, they chose to use fewer real-time computing resources so that it was essentially invisible to the users (and thus wouldn't get turned off by everyone for "slowing down the computer") and make restoration trivially simple and fast, at the expense of disk space. You can disagree with their choices, but they're the same tradeoffs every backup system designer has to make.
I use rdiff-backup for some of my data where frequent small updates of large files are an issue, but I'm under no illusions that running a CPU at 100% for 30 minutes for every backup would be acceptable out-of-the-box behavior for most consumers. It especially wouldn't be acceptable to spend days or weeks calculating deltas when restoring a hard drive full of files that have been modified over the course of months or years.
It's a lot easier and cheaper to add disk space than processing power, as much as I'd love to see deltas offered I think I would have made the same choices Apple did if I were in charge of designing TM.
99% of the really annoying stuff in Finder was indeed fixed in 10.5, don't let everyone's desire for perfection fool you. It would be awesome to truly get every Finder window and operation as a totally separate process, though.
I'm not sure what you mean by either of these. You can pin the dock to a corner if you like, and you can use the space around it just fine. I have one utility I nestle to the right of my dock.
No, it's not a temporary storage location, all it deals with is aliases. But there is plenty of software to make it useful for file manipulation, it's just not the sort of thing every Joe needs.
That's actually the point of the criticism -- if an application is minimized, you have to use the mouse to get it back, command-Tab doesn't un-minimize. It's us keyboard folks who are annoyed by the minimize behavior, not mouse users.
Granted, I just never minimize anything and tend to use Expose and Hide for my window management, but it would be nice for a minimized application/document to be restored if you activate it.
Pretty much every game and piece of software I run is actually a cracked copy of something I bought at retail, for exactly this reason. It's a lot faster and easier to download a crack than it is to deal with most copy-protection and activation once you've rebuilt a computer a couple of times. Of course with games, the main hassle is just being able to play without having a CD in the drive.
Yeah, that was my reaction as well. I know plenty of guys who did get "bored" with standard playboy-type porn after seeing too much, and they look for harder, Hustler-type stuff, but I'd never heard someone suggest that the epitome of sexual stimulation comes from child porn (quite the opposite, they tend to want the exaggerated feminity of GGG breasts). I think the cops should be seeing exactly what this guys "investigations" involve.
I don't think it is any of our responsibility to make the internet as a whole an environment that is safe for children. In fact, that's quite the opposite of what I think most adults want.
Well, no. You seem to think that unless we can "solve" a problem 100% at the root cause, it is not worth addressing in any way. The issue is not whether or not sexual proclivities are genetic or voluntary (Indeed, I think most people these days tend to lean towards agreeing there is a strong genetic component of most major sexual attractions).
The issue is that we each have the choice whether to act on our particular desires and impulses. We punish people for choosing to do something harmful, such as having sex with a child, not for simply having the desire.
No doubt many people have a much lower frustration/anger threshold than others, that doesn't mean we simply let them get away with assault or murder. Hopefully they can find help to deal with issues that they unfortunately are saddled with, and hopefully society can meet them halfway in providing that help, but society is not going to meet them halfway in simply allowing them to do whatever they like in terms of damaging other people.
I'm also in Paul's district, have met and spoken with him several times and dated a high-ranking member of his staff, and always vote for him.
:P).
But yes, he is clearly insane (as are most of his staff and rabid supporters, including the one I dated, but that doesn't affect my judgement of him
I vote for him because he speaks honestly and passionately about things that need to be talked about, in a way that major party candidates don't feel they can.
Why in the world would Apple prepare a high-profile media announcement for an SDK? That's just about the LEAST Apple-ish move anyone familiar with them could imagine! Consumers don't give a crap about SDKs. Even if they had major 3rd party software to launch with the SDK release, I can't think of a time Apple has ever made a big deal on TV about a specific piece of software. Forbes needs a reality check on their crystal ball.
It's far more likely that the "Get a Mac" commercial campaign is changing, as rumors have been circulating for a few weeks.
I've done all of the locations you're talking about (though I wonder if you're really going to EBC 2 -- I assume you just mean regular base camp at Everest, since climbing through the icefall isn't the kind of thing you just show up and do, and camp 2 is above the icefall). For all the hyperbole about stuff failing at high altitudes, in several years and dozens of off the shelf computers which have spend months up there, we haven't really had any hard drive or LCD issues on Everest. The big problem is actually dust, which you'll get everywhere in the third world.
That said, I wouldn't go on such a long trip without a Thinkpad or a Toughbook (maybe a Macbook/Pro/Air).
Screw burning DVDs, you'll lose half of them to theft or damage, and the drive increases the size/weight of the computer. Buy flash media -- miniSD is the smallest that isn't crazy expensive -- and store everything on there. You can fit a dozen miniSD cards in the coin pocket of a pair of jeans and have a 100 gigs of storage in a place nobody will look. The big thing there is that if they get wet or dusty it doesn't do anything to the data, nobody will pickpocket them, you can carry them on the plane, etc. It's not cheap, but spending 60 years regretting losing the pictures is even worse. You can also easily buy more in normal stopovers like Singapore if you need, and mail home the older ones from there in a standard fedex envelope.
Some people have very short memories.
Command-period has been the "cancel" keyboard shortcut on Mac OS for over 20 years, I suspect it will work where you're talking about with the progress bar.
And check out "full keyboard access" stuff in the system preferences, you'll find that not only can you use the keyboard for menu activation and such, you can also create your own custom shortcuts for almost any operation in any application you like. The keyboarding capabilities of the Mac OS are superior, overall, to pretty much any other system I can think of. Add on Quicksilver or something similar and it can get downright crazy how much you can accomplish in arbitrary applications without touching a mouse.
If you're somewhat new to the Mac, I recommend picking up one of David Pogue's books, he provides a great mixture of theory and practical information about how things are designed to work.
There's a big difference between making corporations be legally independent entities (for liability, financial and other reasons), and making them legally "persons" under the law. Nobody is suggesting abolishing corporations, just that they don't need free speech and such.
Nobody is saying he's not at fault, just that he hasn't committed copyright infringement according to the law. Attempting to commit a crime and failing is not illegal (though you might be committing another crime in the attempt), you have to actually commit a crime.
For example, if you saw a car parked on the street with keys in it and you took it for a joy ride, thinking you were stealing it, it wouldn't be illegal if it turned out the car was purchased for you by your parents. It doesn't matter what your belief or intent is, if what you're doing isn't actually breaking the law you aren't guilty of any crime. That's what is at the heart of this issue -- is it a copyright violation if the material is never actually distributed to anyone, regardless of whether the guy intended for it to be distributed?
If the purpose of modern copyright is to encourage the creation of artistic works, I can guaran-fucking-tee you that taking away people's own creative work is pretty much the worst possible way to achieve that.