Heat and noise are only problems if you actually use the MBP to its full capabilities ( >50% CPU usage on each core). Doing anything meaningful in CS2 or Parallels will turn the fans up to full speed in approximately 30 seconds, at which point they become noticable. Although the fans have become better tuned (willing to go up to 3,000 rpm more easily) in recent iterations, smcFanControl is still your friend if you actually want to use the MBP on your lap.
This is an interlocutory order. TakeTwo can't appeal this order forcing them to turn over the game. If TakeTwo loses the full trial, then they can appeal and claim that the order should have never been issued. It's a civil proceudure rule.
Yes. But why let the technical details stand in the way of a provocative message? The war that both sides are fighting is not localized to this event.
That aside, I'm not surprised. Most state judges have little concept of the first amendment.
Not this one, otherwise Jack Thompson would have been allowed to enjoin Rockstar from releasing the game much earlier in this proceeding without as much evidence gathering.
Even if they lose at the trial level, they will almost certainly prevail on appeal. Video games are protected as expression just like speech, books, and flag burning. All this will do is stir up a media shitstorm, you'll see a bunch of Tipper Gore wannabes out whining about "saving the children," from violence, and then we'll go back to executing criminals, engaging in war, and watching Sunday afternoon football. God Bless America.
Sadly, I think you fail to describe the edge case.
(Of course, I've not followed this case closely, and interstate commerce is one of three potential actionable items to immediately come to mind were I to contemplate litigation to remove something from a list.)
would be sufficient for a U.S. court to be involved. If e-spammer as a U.S. company can show that e-mail to/from one of their (potential) U.S. customers was blocked or unreasonably delayed by virtue of its e-spammer domain name being listed in the e-blacklist, and that the customer's ISP was using the list, then the situation should legitimately interest a U.S. court.
If such an action is not a concern of the government, I would be able to stand on my side of Canada and launch mortar into freight crossing the WA/ID border without worrying about breaking laws pertaining to commerce (ignoring weapons, safety, noise, traffic and vandalism issues).
So, if I as a Canadian were to mail, from Canada, postcards to your residential and business neighbours outlining my negative opinion of your factually-supported youthful indiscretions, you'd be fine if your (non-Canadian) courts didn't try to stop my activities after I failed to show up to your lawsuit against me about the postcards?
Also, depending on the details, the parties in this circumstance may be subject to laws pertaining to interference in Interstate commerce, libel and extortion (among other things), so I would expect a just magistrate to intervene according to U.S. law.
Not that I expect or desire an order by anything less than a federal court against an internationally-sanctioned body to have even a remote chance to stick...
Perhaps the students should submit essays with a cover page that consists of an EULA to that effect and password-protect the ability to edit and possibly do other things with the file. Doing so would allow the young content producers to protect their work under DMCA non-circumvention provisions and reverse the onus to show that the turnitin service and school are operating legally.
The actual colours are time of day/year dependent and likely contain IR, UV and other components that are not well represented with consumer monitors or JPEGs.
The Jounalist who wrote the New Yorker had a somewhat borring story about academia and the quest for recognition and tried spicing it up a little bit. She may have crossed the ethincal line while doing so.
"[S]picing it up a little bit" would be to use writing skills to convey in detail the euphoria or sense of accomplishment or exhilaration that one or more of the people involved felt when they made some important breakthrough (or, perhaps the reasons for the lack thereof). Spicing it up a bit would be to convince a few of the many supposed detractors of the profession, or the mathematicians to get them to speak convincingly on record directly against academia or one of its members. A good journalist can create interest and intrigue without resorting to falsehoods (or at least cloak them in enough creative flair that litigation would be fruitless). We are not informed from this discussion whether the people on the sharp end of this claim are good journalists.
When the first and most important duty of the profession is to accurately recount events for the historical record, knowingly distorting the truth is beyond crossing the ethical line. The author here may or may not have distorted the truth, but a sufficient number of individuals quoted within the story and elsewhere in the field have raised a set of very similar concerns backed by evidence about the accuracy and fairness of the story that it merits a second look. With some additional old facts now in play, it is up to The New Yorker to demonstrate that they did not lie.
>>You're either good technically or a good artist. Not both. That's the way it's always been.
> I'd say this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci) would disagree with you. Just to name one.
Citing a single counterexample from centuries ago when OP claimed that such individuals are very rare proves OP's point, especially when your counterexample is one data point among six billion.
Plus, just how much can you do with a 1U rack mount server anyway?
Blades. I'm waiting for the all-in-one xgrid box that is upgradable by hot-swapping in minis that also work at standalone workstations. Sixteen or 24 $500 dual-core x86-64 blades (or $350 model without drives) in a $1500 1U chasis would seriously destroy most similar clusters for price, performance and power consumption. Also, the idea of stuffing 1344+ processors into an ad-hoc cluster on one rack is sexy for a number of reasons.
Certain design choices already point in this direction.
releasing the tape to all media outlets and finding the right reporters to damage the police and the DA as much as they can
The ability to reporter-shop for a filter and aggregator who biases the truth in any particular direction for public consumption is much more dangerous than a small number of corrupt officers.
Earth 2 and Voyager called. They want their child back.
TOS was great because it explored contemporary societal issues in a non-confrontational way to expose the possibilities and repercussions of deciding from among ambiguous choices. DS9 was great because it was able to tell a good story toward the middle. Anything like a prequel that tries to backfill into the viewers' nostalgia for Kirk and the TOS gang will undoubtedly disappoint because there are as many different pre-existing conceptions of what that should be, as there are Star Trek fans. No story can ever live up to every fan's expectations, and any story obsessed with the pre-history of a story unfamiliar to the new crowd will undoubtedly disappoint.
For the franchise to continue to succeed, the producers and writers need to stop riding on the coat-tails of nostalgia and embark on a New Idea Trek, whose seven-year mission would be to explore strange new plot-lines, to investigate contemporary and new issues, to boldly go where few Trek writers have gone in the last decade.
if there is no light to reflect off of us, there is no light to reflect off of our eyes, which means we can't see.
?!? !!???? ????!
We see things by sensing light that bounced off other things; our eyes don't emit or significantly reflect light to make things visible (otherwise, I'd have to light up the entire Grand Canyon every time I wanted to look at it).
That is to be expected when a PR flack writes a media release about how new research in an unfamiliar field affects people operating in yet another unfamiliar field, and is supposed to tie it in with modern trends they know nothing about.
And it's not just U of T. At my local research university, researchers are coached not to go beyond the three pre-scripted main points abou the research (those most valuable to the university receiving good press and future research funding) even if the real discovery or science is somewhere else entirely. To get to anything beyond the PR fluff, the journalist would have to know more than the communications department by actually reading the paper that is about to get published before the interview, and then convince the researcher that it's OK to talk about things not on the list of prepared points. Even if all that happens, the reporter is likely to get a more interesting story, but the quotes for it would suck because the researcher must think outside what was rehersed with the PR folk.
(Not that this investigative reporting thing happens often when the story gets assigned in the newsroom at 10 a.m. and copy and photos are due at 4 p.m. It's much easier to reword the press release, especially when the general public wouldn't notice the difference. But I digress...)
As has been suggested, it's all about context. For the vast majority of Linux, OS X and even Windows users, the operating system is just a toolset and perhaps an environment to accomplish a task. And in the perfect world, all of a user's time should be spent using, not necessarily understanding or maintaining the tools.
When I need an application server, I don't care if the stack is built on Linux or OS X because I do not directly interact with the kernel, device drivers, or how memory ports are handled. For the purposes of the task at hand, my OS X MBP is functionally identical to my RHEL workstation, so treating both containers for FOSS stuff as "Linux" is fine.
When I need to do visual design, I don't care if the stack is built on Windows or OS X because, again, my purpose is not to directly interact with the GUI widgets or anything close to the hardware. For the purposes of the task at hand, my OS X MBP is functionally identical to my Windows workstation, so ignoring microkernel-something or HAL-whatever aren't problems.
When all I need is information from the Internet, perhaps to troubleshoot a piece of hardware, anything that runs a browser is equally functional, and nothing outside the browser's environment (window) really makes a difference to the experience, so OS X, RHEL and Windows are all just ways to get to Firefox.
And surprisingly, the world hasn't exploded because of these technically inaccurate conceptual shortcuts.
This looks like a software license compared against a website terms of use rather than a new version of the license. But nonetheless it looks like the restriction against customer technical support use appears to be missing in the new version, with no additional restrictions placed on use of the software itself as compared with the old license.
If a surgeon botches your valve replacement: a) Are you dead? Probably, and this is bad for you personally. b) Eliminate the particular surgeon. Can the situation from happen again? Yes. Different surgeon can make the same mistake. c) Eliminate heart surgery. Can the situation happen again? No. The possibility of making that particular mistake is eliminated. But people are being inconvenienced, possibly dying). d) Should the technique be banned because you are personally inconvenienced (even by death) by a rare but fatal exception to the regular success of the operation? Absolutely not. Asking to eliminate something that provides broad benefit due to personal distaste for potential negative consequences would be incredibly selfish.
Slashdot Mirror
I also use Avast! antivirus, which hits very little on performance, but apparently work great because I've never had a virus.
This will also appearently work great since it won't warn you if you get infected today.
I'd rather have something that throws a bunch of windows on false positives than an AV program that stays silent.
So what you're saying is that Master Chief needs to show some T&A?
Heat and noise are only problems if you actually use the MBP to its full capabilities ( >50% CPU usage on each core). Doing anything meaningful in CS2 or Parallels will turn the fans up to full speed in approximately 30 seconds, at which point they become noticable. Although the fans have become better tuned (willing to go up to 3,000 rpm more easily) in recent iterations, smcFanControl is still your friend if you actually want to use the MBP on your lap.
Craptastic Haiku
contestents generated
superior prose
This is an interlocutory order. TakeTwo can't appeal this order forcing them to turn over the game. If TakeTwo loses the full trial, then they can appeal and claim that the order should have never been issued. It's a civil proceudure rule.
Yes. But why let the technical details stand in the way of a provocative message? The war that both sides are fighting is not localized to this event.
That aside, I'm not surprised. Most state judges have little concept of the first amendment.
Not this one, otherwise Jack Thompson would have been allowed to enjoin Rockstar from releasing the game much earlier in this proceeding without as much evidence gathering.
Even if they lose at the trial level, they will almost certainly prevail on appeal. Video games are protected as expression just like speech, books, and flag burning. All this will do is stir up a media shitstorm, you'll see a bunch of Tipper Gore wannabes out whining about "saving the children," from violence, and then we'll go back to executing criminals, engaging in war, and watching Sunday afternoon football. God Bless America.
Sadly, I think you fail to describe the edge case.
(Of course, I've not followed this case closely, and interstate commerce is one of three potential actionable items to immediately come to mind were I to contemplate litigation to remove something from a list.)
...interference in interstate commerce...
would be sufficient for a U.S. court to be involved. If e-spammer as a U.S. company can show that e-mail to/from one of their (potential) U.S. customers was blocked or unreasonably delayed by virtue of its e-spammer domain name being listed in the e-blacklist, and that the customer's ISP was using the list, then the situation should legitimately interest a U.S. court.
If such an action is not a concern of the government, I would be able to stand on my side of Canada and launch mortar into freight crossing the WA/ID border without worrying about breaking laws pertaining to commerce (ignoring weapons, safety, noise, traffic and vandalism issues).
If the mail admin is acting inappropriately (in your opinion)
If the mail admin is truly acting inappropriately, the users would never know enough to form opinions about it.
So, if I as a Canadian were to mail, from Canada, postcards to your residential and business neighbours outlining my negative opinion of your factually-supported youthful indiscretions, you'd be fine if your (non-Canadian) courts didn't try to stop my activities after I failed to show up to your lawsuit against me about the postcards?
Also, depending on the details, the parties in this circumstance may be subject to laws pertaining to interference in Interstate commerce, libel and extortion (among other things), so I would expect a just magistrate to intervene according to U.S. law.
Not that I expect or desire an order by anything less than a federal court against an internationally-sanctioned body to have even a remote chance to stick...
Perhaps the students should submit essays with a cover page that consists of an EULA to that effect and password-protect the ability to edit and possibly do other things with the file. Doing so would allow the young content producers to protect their work under DMCA non-circumvention provisions and reverse the onus to show that the turnitin service and school are operating legally.
Truncating it, sure, but no real modifications.
WASHINGTON (DC) -- Congress shall make no law...
The actual colours are time of day/year dependent and likely contain IR, UV and other components that are not well represented with consumer monitors or JPEGs.
The Jounalist who wrote the New Yorker had a somewhat borring story about academia and the quest for recognition and tried spicing it up a little bit. She may have crossed the ethincal line while doing so.
"[S]picing it up a little bit" would be to use writing skills to convey in detail the euphoria or sense of accomplishment or exhilaration that one or more of the people involved felt when they made some important breakthrough (or, perhaps the reasons for the lack thereof). Spicing it up a bit would be to convince a few of the many supposed detractors of the profession, or the mathematicians to get them to speak convincingly on record directly against academia or one of its members. A good journalist can create interest and intrigue without resorting to falsehoods (or at least cloak them in enough creative flair that litigation would be fruitless). We are not informed from this discussion whether the people on the sharp end of this claim are good journalists.
When the first and most important duty of the profession is to accurately recount events for the historical record, knowingly distorting the truth is beyond crossing the ethical line. The author here may or may not have distorted the truth, but a sufficient number of individuals quoted within the story and elsewhere in the field have raised a set of very similar concerns backed by evidence about the accuracy and fairness of the story that it merits a second look. With some additional old facts now in play, it is up to The New Yorker to demonstrate that they did not lie.
>>You're either good technically or a good artist. Not both. That's the way it's always been.
> I'd say this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci) would disagree with you. Just to name one.
Citing a single counterexample from centuries ago when OP claimed that such individuals are very rare proves OP's point, especially when your counterexample is one data point among six billion.
Solar-powered iPod?
Plus, just how much can you do with a 1U rack mount server anyway?
Blades. I'm waiting for the all-in-one xgrid box that is upgradable by hot-swapping in minis that also work at standalone workstations. Sixteen or 24 $500 dual-core x86-64 blades (or $350 model without drives) in a $1500 1U chasis would seriously destroy most similar clusters for price, performance and power consumption. Also, the idea of stuffing 1344+ processors into an ad-hoc cluster on one rack is sexy for a number of reasons.
Certain design choices already point in this direction.
releasing the tape to all media outlets and finding the right reporters to damage the police and the DA as much as they can
The ability to reporter-shop for a filter and aggregator who biases the truth in any particular direction for public consumption is much more dangerous than a small number of corrupt officers.
Earth 2 and Voyager called. They want their child back.
TOS was great because it explored contemporary societal issues in a non-confrontational way to expose the possibilities and repercussions of deciding from among ambiguous choices. DS9 was great because it was able to tell a good story toward the middle. Anything like a prequel that tries to backfill into the viewers' nostalgia for Kirk and the TOS gang will undoubtedly disappoint because there are as many different pre-existing conceptions of what that should be, as there are Star Trek fans. No story can ever live up to every fan's expectations, and any story obsessed with the pre-history of a story unfamiliar to the new crowd will undoubtedly disappoint.
For the franchise to continue to succeed, the producers and writers need to stop riding on the coat-tails of nostalgia and embark on a New Idea Trek, whose seven-year mission would be to explore strange new plot-lines, to investigate contemporary and new issues, to boldly go where few Trek writers have gone in the last decade.
if there is no light to reflect off of us, there is no light to reflect off of our eyes, which means we can't see.
?!? !!???? ????!
We see things by sensing light that bounced off other things; our eyes don't emit or significantly reflect light to make things visible (otherwise, I'd have to light up the entire Grand Canyon every time I wanted to look at it).
That is to be expected when a PR flack writes a media release about how new research in an unfamiliar field affects people operating in yet another unfamiliar field, and is supposed to tie it in with modern trends they know nothing about.
And it's not just U of T. At my local research university, researchers are coached not to go beyond the three pre-scripted main points abou the research (those most valuable to the university receiving good press and future research funding) even if the real discovery or science is somewhere else entirely. To get to anything beyond the PR fluff, the journalist would have to know more than the communications department by actually reading the paper that is about to get published before the interview, and then convince the researcher that it's OK to talk about things not on the list of prepared points. Even if all that happens, the reporter is likely to get a more interesting story, but the quotes for it would suck because the researcher must think outside what was rehersed with the PR folk.
(Not that this investigative reporting thing happens often when the story gets assigned in the newsroom at 10 a.m. and copy and photos are due at 4 p.m. It's much easier to reword the press release, especially when the general public wouldn't notice the difference. But I digress...)
If they can tell the difference, it means the emulation is not as good as it could be.
No, the emulation is better than good if leaving signs like VM video card strings in place keeps the script kiddies away.
Girl in picture: "What's an operating system?"
As has been suggested, it's all about context. For the vast majority of Linux, OS X and even Windows users, the operating system is just a toolset and perhaps an environment to accomplish a task. And in the perfect world, all of a user's time should be spent using, not necessarily understanding or maintaining the tools.
When I need an application server, I don't care if the stack is built on Linux or OS X because I do not directly interact with the kernel, device drivers, or how memory ports are handled. For the purposes of the task at hand, my OS X MBP is functionally identical to my RHEL workstation, so treating both containers for FOSS stuff as "Linux" is fine.
When I need to do visual design, I don't care if the stack is built on Windows or OS X because, again, my purpose is not to directly interact with the GUI widgets or anything close to the hardware. For the purposes of the task at hand, my OS X MBP is functionally identical to my Windows workstation, so ignoring microkernel-something or HAL-whatever aren't problems.
When all I need is information from the Internet, perhaps to troubleshoot a piece of hardware, anything that runs a browser is equally functional, and nothing outside the browser's environment (window) really makes a difference to the experience, so OS X, RHEL and Windows are all just ways to get to Firefox.
And surprisingly, the world hasn't exploded because of these technically inaccurate conceptual shortcuts.
This looks like a software license compared against a website terms of use rather than a new version of the license. But nonetheless it looks like the restriction against customer technical support use appears to be missing in the new version, with no additional restrictions placed on use of the software itself as compared with the old license.
If a surgeon botches your valve replacement:
a) Are you dead? Probably, and this is bad for you personally.
b) Eliminate the particular surgeon. Can the situation from happen again? Yes. Different surgeon can make the same mistake.
c) Eliminate heart surgery. Can the situation happen again? No. The possibility of making that particular mistake is eliminated. But people are being inconvenienced, possibly dying).
d) Should the technique be banned because you are personally inconvenienced (even by death) by a rare but fatal exception to the regular success of the operation? Absolutely not. Asking to eliminate something that provides broad benefit due to personal distaste for potential negative consequences would be incredibly selfish.