Google for it. I've seen a few designs that look pretty good out there. You'll have the same problem this case will have of leaking RF interference, but if that's not a problem for you, go for it.:)
Also worth noting why it'll be a long time before it's truly dead: the two devices at the bottom of that list. Symbol SPTs are used by a large number of warehouse stock control systems / courier delivery systems, and will survive as a legacy system long after every other user of PalmOS has bitten the dust.
I don't see too many instances of the Sinclair ZX-81 OS around anymore, but then I will admit I haven't performed an exhaustive search.
The Spectrum ROM is a direct descendent of the ZX81 one, containing much of the same code. I'm led to believe there are still a number of super-spectrum clone machines that are commonly used in Russia. Not to mention the hobbyist/demo scene which still survives for the original spectrum (although mostly in emulators rather than real hardware these days).
Low efficiency vehicles are already paying more at the gas-station and higher-efficiency vehicles get breaks every fill up. So, what exactly is the point of this new tax?
To increase the amount extra that low efficiency vehicles pay. We already have such a tax in the UK, BTW, and it works reasonably well: we have a much higher proportion of more efficient vehicles on the road than in the US.
I end up the other way and just going "I'm over 18, so why do you need to know my DoB?" and proceed to just hit "end" on their day/month/year picker and end up somewhere in the region of 113 having been born on New Year's Eve!
I designed a web site for a client once who insisted that the DOB input fields on their registration form should be drop downs, and that 1 Jan 1970 should be selected by default. When they started getting a lot of registrations with a DOB of 1 Jan 1970, they suggested disallowing this date...
Um, sorry, there are lifeforms on earth that do not require water to live. we even have non-carbon based lifeforms.
[citation needed] for both of these statements.
I'm pretty sure all known life on Earth is based on either RNA or DNA and the enzymes (i.e. polymerases) that are capable of replicating and otherwise manipulating these molecules. All of these things are carbon-based. And I'm led to believe that the enzymes only work when dissolved in water, and may require the DNA/RNA to be likewise dissolved.
There appears to be life on some of Jupiter's moons.
Again, [citation needed]. Yes, it is plausible that some of Jupiter's moons might support life, but this is a long way from saying there appears to be such life.
Oh, by the way, did you know the guy you're replying to is a physicist with NASA, working on the Mars rover missions, not to mention an award-winning science fiction writer? He probably knows somewhat more about this stuff than either of us.
"No life, as we know it, without water and raw materials." [...] Or maybe even "No Life, as we define it"
Depends on your definition of life. My personal favourite is "a self-perpetuating activity that consumes energy and results in a localised reduction of entropy," which requires only energy and some positive entropy to start with. Now, it's hard to say what form that entropy could take that wouldn't be considered "raw materials" but there are several theorised possible types of life that may plausibly work in a non-material environment (e.g. magnetic field life forms).
Well, that would indeed be a mistake. Britain is a free, democratic country governed by an unwritten constitution.
Actually, most of the British constitution is written. Starting with the Magna Carta, and continuing right up to the most recent Parliament Act, huge chunks of British constitutional law have been written. AFAIK there are only a few areas that are yet to be codified in a written form, and these basically come down to what extent a parliament can bind future parliaments (generally held to be "not at all") and what the rights of the monarch are in the parliamentary process (i.e., whether or not royal assent for an act could be withheld, which is something nobody really wants to address...).
No, I'm not a lawyer and haven't been to Britain. However, I have read up on the subject before pontificating about it, unlike you. If what I've posted is a mere slashdot meme, the writers and editors of the Wikipedia article on defamation seem to have bought into it, as well as the authors of every, single reference I've checked.
I've just read the relevant wikipedia article, and can't see where it says that even if the truth of a statement is proved the defence might not be allowed. Can you quote the exact text that gave you this impression?
For instance, this sentence suggests fairly strongly that showing the truth of the statement is (to put it simply) an automatic win: "A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true."
I do: you're allowed to bring it up as a defense, but even if you prove your point it may not be enough for you to win the case.
Yes, it will. Please stop spreading FUD about English law. Proof of the truth of a statement is an accepted defence in English libel law, and every source I see describing English libel law says so. Please provide a direct link and (preferably) quotation of one that says otherwise.
You misread the parent comment. Go back and read it again. The point is, that under US law (at least as described by the GGP post), if somebody publishes an article which (as an example of a libelous statement) calls you a murderer and you want to sue them for libel, you would have to be able to prove that you aren't a murderer. This is clearly impossible, so it renders US libel laws effectively impotent.
Unless this supposed difference between UK and US law isn't as clear as these articles we keep seeing are making it out to be.
Not so! As I've pointed out several times, if your claim defames me, it doesn't matter (in an English court) that it's true because the truth isn't, and never has been an absolute defense there.
Yes, you've pointed it out several times. But, as the GP was saying, you're wrong. The truth is an absolute defence here; you were, however, correct in your OP when you said it is an affirmative defence, i.e. you have to prove it.
See this useful summary. Relevant quote: "There are defences in law for libel. The publisher could prove the statement to be true [...]".
In your original post, you say this:
It wouldn't matter. IANAL, but I've looked into this sort of thing. Here in the US, the truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. That is, if you can prove that you told the truth, you've won your case because that's the way the law reads. In Britain, the truth is an affirmative defense.
This is all correct.
That means that you're allowed to prove that you told the truth, but it might not be enough to save you. British law considers statements to be slander or libel if they are harmful and/or defamatory regardless of the truth of the statements.
But these two sentences are wrong. I believe you misunderstand what an affirmative defence is.
Awww memories. Seems like an eternity ago it took me near 20 hours to do an NT4 install because the installer didn't like the motherboard's cache so I had to turn it off to do the install....on each and every PC in the department. Of course several failed numerous times and had to be reinstalled. No, I think I'll be doing only fresh installs of Win7...if any.
I once had to install XP on a machine that refused to boot from CD. So, basically, I had to get an OS on there that would be compatible with XP's installer program before I could do anything else.
The only thing I could find was an old DOS 5 boot disk. But it didn't have smartdrv.exe on it...
You know that first stage of installing XP, where it copies a basic, stripped down Windows kernel and the drivers it's using into a temporary directory, then reboots into Windows to do the main installation? The bit that normally takes like 30 seconds or so?
Seriously, who here hasn't charted out the $ to calorie ratios of all the menu items at popular fast food chains? They even make it easier by putting the calorie listings on the back of the place mat at mcdonalds!
It isn't worth it. The free sachets of mayo win every time.
But don't let that stop anyone from going all fscking crazy about the imaginary freedoms they never had on other platforms until Apple changed the smart phone game.
Huh? The first smartphone I used tethering on was a Nokia Communicator 9000, back in '96. When precisely did Apple get involved in the market?
A hack that has been disabled at AT&T's request, just like it would be on any other phone that has updates. Apple didn't "remove a feature" - the iPhone can still tether just fine - as long as your carrier supports it.
This doesn't appear to be true. Based on what I've read, tethering is only possible now if your carrier supports it *and* Apple supports your carrier. For instance, Orange here in the UK support tethering on most plans. But Orange isn't a supported carrier for iPhone (as Apple have an exclusive deal with O2), so even if a buy an unlocked iPhone from Apple, I wouldn't be able to use it for tethering on Orange.
I find this story interesting, perhaps for a different reason to why it was posted here. I walk past the WMG Digital Lab on my way to the bank whenever I go, and I'm quite impressed that they've managed to do the research, get a paper published and get it talked about here within a couple of months of the building work on the lab being completed...
The advantage of programming for say, x86, etc. is that the hardware will be out there and available for some time, and it will keep getting more clock cycles, etc. However, how long will the X Box be on the market? Will researchers be hunting pawn shops and garage sales in 5 years to replace broken hardware units?
XNA/Managed DirectX, the development environment he would have been using for this project, is somewhat hardware independent. The same software could be run on a PC, for instance, although a PC capable of running it would be more expensive than the xbox.
Slashdot Mirror
Google for it. I've seen a few designs that look pretty good out there. You'll have the same problem this case will have of leaking RF interference, but if that's not a problem for you, go for it. :)
Also worth noting why it'll be a long time before it's truly dead: the two devices at the bottom of that list. Symbol SPTs are used by a large number of warehouse stock control systems / courier delivery systems, and will survive as a legacy system long after every other user of PalmOS has bitten the dust.
PalmOS is still alive and well, although it has been sold by Palm to another company and renamed Garnet. See http://www.access-company.com/products/accesspowered/handhelds.html for a list of current devices with this OS.
I don't see too many instances of the Sinclair ZX-81 OS around anymore, but then I will admit I haven't performed an exhaustive search.
The Spectrum ROM is a direct descendent of the ZX81 one, containing much of the same code. I'm led to believe there are still a number of super-spectrum clone machines that are commonly used in Russia. Not to mention the hobbyist/demo scene which still survives for the original spectrum (although mostly in emulators rather than real hardware these days).
And somebody open-sourced CP/M.
Not to mention the millions of machines running WinME, which still has the DOS kernel under it, which is derived from a cheap CP/M clone...
Low efficiency vehicles are already paying more at the gas-station and higher-efficiency vehicles get breaks every fill up. So, what exactly is the point of this new tax?
To increase the amount extra that low efficiency vehicles pay. We already have such a tax in the UK, BTW, and it works reasonably well: we have a much higher proportion of more efficient vehicles on the road than in the US.
Don't have mod points myself (never seem to get 'em these days...), but if I did this post would definitely be worth modding.
I end up the other way and just going "I'm over 18, so why do you need to know my DoB?" and proceed to just hit "end" on their day/month/year picker and end up somewhere in the region of 113 having been born on New Year's Eve!
I designed a web site for a client once who insisted that the DOB input fields on their registration form should be drop downs, and that 1 Jan 1970 should be selected by default. When they started getting a lot of registrations with a DOB of 1 Jan 1970, they suggested disallowing this date...
Um, sorry, there are lifeforms on earth that do not require water to live. we even have non-carbon based lifeforms.
[citation needed] for both of these statements.
I'm pretty sure all known life on Earth is based on either RNA or DNA and the enzymes (i.e. polymerases) that are capable of replicating and otherwise manipulating these molecules. All of these things are carbon-based. And I'm led to believe that the enzymes only work when dissolved in water, and may require the DNA/RNA to be likewise dissolved.
There appears to be life on some of Jupiter's moons.
Again, [citation needed]. Yes, it is plausible that some of Jupiter's moons might support life, but this is a long way from saying there appears to be such life.
Oh, by the way, did you know the guy you're replying to is a physicist with NASA, working on the Mars rover missions, not to mention an award-winning science fiction writer? He probably knows somewhat more about this stuff than either of us.
"No life, as we know it, without water and raw materials." [...] Or maybe even "No Life, as we define it"
Depends on your definition of life. My personal favourite is "a self-perpetuating activity that consumes energy and results in a localised reduction of entropy," which requires only energy and some positive entropy to start with. Now, it's hard to say what form that entropy could take that wouldn't be considered "raw materials" but there are several theorised possible types of life that may plausibly work in a non-material environment (e.g. magnetic field life forms).
In the UK, the "falsehood" element is missing; a true statement can be considered libelous. This makes life much harder for the defendant.
This is incorrect. If you can prove the statement is true, it is not libelous.
Well, that would indeed be a mistake. Britain is a free, democratic country governed by an unwritten constitution.
Actually, most of the British constitution is written. Starting with the Magna Carta, and continuing right up to the most recent Parliament Act, huge chunks of British constitutional law have been written. AFAIK there are only a few areas that are yet to be codified in a written form, and these basically come down to what extent a parliament can bind future parliaments (generally held to be "not at all") and what the rights of the monarch are in the parliamentary process (i.e., whether or not royal assent for an act could be withheld, which is something nobody really wants to address...).
No, I'm not a lawyer and haven't been to Britain. However, I have read up on the subject before pontificating about it, unlike you. If what I've posted is a mere slashdot meme, the writers and editors of the Wikipedia article on defamation seem to have bought into it, as well as the authors of every, single reference I've checked.
I've just read the relevant wikipedia article, and can't see where it says that even if the truth of a statement is proved the defence might not be allowed. Can you quote the exact text that gave you this impression?
For instance, this sentence suggests fairly strongly that showing the truth of the statement is (to put it simply) an automatic win: "A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true."
I do: you're allowed to bring it up as a defense, but even if you prove your point it may not be enough for you to win the case.
Yes, it will. Please stop spreading FUD about English law. Proof of the truth of a statement is an accepted defence in English libel law, and every source I see describing English libel law says so. Please provide a direct link and (preferably) quotation of one that says otherwise.
You misread the parent comment. Go back and read it again. The point is, that under US law (at least as described by the GGP post), if somebody publishes an article which (as an example of a libelous statement) calls you a murderer and you want to sue them for libel, you would have to be able to prove that you aren't a murderer. This is clearly impossible, so it renders US libel laws effectively impotent.
Unless this supposed difference between UK and US law isn't as clear as these articles we keep seeing are making it out to be.
Not so! As I've pointed out several times, if your claim defames me, it doesn't matter (in an English court) that it's true because the truth isn't, and never has been an absolute defense there.
Yes, you've pointed it out several times. But, as the GP was saying, you're wrong. The truth is an absolute defence here; you were, however, correct in your OP when you said it is an affirmative defence, i.e. you have to prove it.
See this useful summary. Relevant quote: "There are defences in law for libel. The publisher could prove the statement to be true [...]".
In your original post, you say this:
It wouldn't matter. IANAL, but I've looked into this sort of thing. Here in the US, the truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. That is, if you can prove that you told the truth, you've won your case because that's the way the law reads. In Britain, the truth is an affirmative defense.
This is all correct.
That means that you're allowed to prove that you told the truth, but it might not be enough to save you. British law considers statements to be slander or libel if they are harmful and/or defamatory regardless of the truth of the statements.
But these two sentences are wrong. I believe you misunderstand what an affirmative defence is.
are they willing to pay $100 more for Windows (the difference between the cost of the announced ARM-based netbooks and a typical x86 model)?
Not to mention probably sacrificing half the battery life.
Awww memories. Seems like an eternity ago it took me near 20 hours to do an NT4 install because the installer didn't like the motherboard's cache so I had to turn it off to do the install....on each and every PC in the department. Of course several failed numerous times and had to be reinstalled. No, I think I'll be doing only fresh installs of Win7...if any.
I once had to install XP on a machine that refused to boot from CD. So, basically, I had to get an OS on there that would be compatible with XP's installer program before I could do anything else.
The only thing I could find was an old DOS 5 boot disk. But it didn't have smartdrv.exe on it...
You know that first stage of installing XP, where it copies a basic, stripped down Windows kernel and the drivers it's using into a temporary directory, then reboots into Windows to do the main installation? The bit that normally takes like 30 seconds or so?
It took nearly a day.
I dunno if it's like the XP install process, which should have "take a drink for every two minutes the damned thing says there are 47 minutes left."
Or "have a shot each time the time remaining decreases by more than two minutes within five seconds."
You forgot to chug you drink for each reboot.
Jesus. You got some kind of deathwish or something?
Seriously, who here hasn't charted out the $ to calorie ratios of all the menu items at popular fast food chains? They even make it easier by putting the calorie listings on the back of the place mat at mcdonalds!
It isn't worth it. The free sachets of mayo win every time.
But don't let that stop anyone from going all fscking crazy about the imaginary freedoms they never had on other platforms until Apple changed the smart phone game.
Huh? The first smartphone I used tethering on was a Nokia Communicator 9000, back in '96. When precisely did Apple get involved in the market?
A hack that has been disabled at AT&T's request, just like it would be on any other phone that has updates. Apple didn't "remove a feature" - the iPhone can still tether just fine - as long as your carrier supports it.
This doesn't appear to be true. Based on what I've read, tethering is only possible now if your carrier supports it *and* Apple supports your carrier. For instance, Orange here in the UK support tethering on most plans. But Orange isn't a supported carrier for iPhone (as Apple have an exclusive deal with O2), so even if a buy an unlocked iPhone from Apple, I wouldn't be able to use it for tethering on Orange.
I find this story interesting, perhaps for a different reason to why it was posted here. I walk past the WMG Digital Lab on my way to the bank whenever I go, and I'm quite impressed that they've managed to do the research, get a paper published and get it talked about here within a couple of months of the building work on the lab being completed...
The advantage of programming for say, x86, etc. is that the hardware will be out there and available for some time, and it will keep getting more clock cycles, etc. However, how long will the X Box be on the market? Will researchers be hunting pawn shops and garage sales in 5 years to replace broken hardware units?
XNA/Managed DirectX, the development environment he would have been using for this project, is somewhat hardware independent. The same software could be run on a PC, for instance, although a PC capable of running it would be more expensive than the xbox.