Yes, but the argument is being made that these people don't recieve protection from the shield law because they aren't "Journalists".
The first amendment essentially grants "Journalist" rights to every citizen. A blog is as much a "press" as anything else. I don't see where in the first amendment the distinction of what is and is not "press" is made. In the old days I would make a one page flyer, printed on a "press". And that is 100% definately "the press". Benjamine Franklin had a huge distate for the abundance of such "Press" that he competed with, but as much as he hated the tabloids of his day, he recognised that they were also "Press" and were protected. Posting the same thing to the net is merely todays "press". Such protection for the "Press" already extends to TV and radio. Therefore the shield law should be in force.
Now of course even Journalists have limitations. Printing lies or divulging information that can be proven to hurt a person, company etc. without just cause. But Apple certainly has not shown how they have been harmed by any of these leaks. Therefore the journalists are off the hook, the shield law applies.
What apple really wants and the one thing they have a right to do is prosecute their own people or partners that violate the their NDA's. But that is their own problem and they should just stick to performing their own internal investigations and not relying on bully tactics on journalists to get the information.
The problem is, just because a person ate at a certain restraunt doesn't mean that they are the one that leaked the info. It would be impossible to tell which emplyee(s) leaked and which just ate there and never discussed work. It provides zero evidence that a particular person is guilty of leaking particular information.
That's why it is a fishing expedition or a lynching if you prefer. "Hey, that guy was in the vicinity of the murder, he must be the muderer! Get 'im!"
Here's another great idea you inspired that they could also never do (being a commercial company themselves and all).
When I am searching I virtually always want to do one of two distinct things:
1) Sarch only commercial sites for a product to purchase.
2) Search everything but commercial sites for information.
There really should be a "$" flag that you could add (or at least a "!$" flag) to control wheather you see commercial or non-commercial sites in the results list.
Everyone here would certinly claim that no one should use it but they would all be secretly using it anyway because it just plain works and does what they need it to do.
While the Linux screwdriver comes in 75 pieces and 150 options that must all be sorted before it can be used (This takes about a week on average).
Even then, you have to make your own screws for it becuase there are so many configuration combinations that the chance of anyone else's Linux screw working with your Linux screwdriver are nil.
Well... PSE has color management too, but it's too limited to be used professionally, this is exactly the case with The GIMP.
A previous poster said that PSE had no color management, but what he meant, and I understood, was that it did have color management but not good enough for his uses, therefore it had "none".
Again, GIMP and PSE are very comparible in features, GIMP and PS are not.
Right, but The GIMP doesn't have it either. That's why The GIMP and PSE are better comparisons to each other than GIMP and PS CS for example, that's all I was saying.
I am a "pro-sumer" photographer myself, I don't make money at it, but it is a/serious/ hobby and to me, spending $650 on PS CS to process my raws was a no brainer considering that I own 5+ grand of camera gear and I spend as much time using PS as I do taking pictures. PSE wasn't even a choice:)
But if I were someone else and I had to choose between The GIMP for free and PSE for it's usual price of $69 after rebate, I'd still choose PSE.
I've wxWindows extensively and it comes close but it is somewhat of a kludge in design and has various problems coexisting with other libraries on various OSes. It's namespace usage is horrible and often collides with other libraries.
So as close as it comes, it really misses point 2 by a good margin.
Well since you said it yourself, "CMYK". The GIMP will not be comparible to the full $700 Photoshop product, without CMYK or the host of other press features PS has.
There may be a day when The GIMP is comparible to Photoshop Elements 3 which is now "48bit". But PSE only costs $99 retail and is frequently single or dual rebated to $69 or even $49.
So compare free to $49, it's a lot more fair and a lot less FUD like. And frankly, PSE still wins hands down, and it wouldn't take even the poorsest student more than three pizzas to afford it. PSE is The GIMP's real goal, and it's pretty stiff competition, even given the price difference.
Actually, just saw another interesting article on the subject. Hubble photogrphed two colliding spiral galaxies. They were in a position such that one should have been able to see the behind galaxy through the empty spaces in the spiral arms of the front galaxy.
Only, you couldn't. The "empty space" between the spiral arms was completely black. Meaning that they were filled with interstellar "dust". Much more dust that was thought to exist there.
The amount of real matter just went up and dark matter went down as there is now known to be a lot more mass in simple matter contined, invisibly, within galaxies than was previously thought.
There is a lot of speculation on what the "other" dark matter is, but so far, everytime any real "dark" matter is actually found, it seems to always turs out to be... plain old matter that was not known to exist in a certain place or in a certain way.
As for your question, yeah, well it'll just take time, at some point it may all be accounted for, or not, well see:) There is supposed to be a satellite launch in a few years to try to detect some of the other dark matter theories, if some of these theoretical exotic particle theories are correct, then we should be able to detect them with the right equipment.
You are assuming that the battery resistance is the same. The reason that a certain battery type can produce a maximum current output is because of level of internal resistance.
The ability to deliver 3x the current means that they must have lowered the internal resistance which means that the amount of heat produced will be 1/3 per amp as a normal battery.
In other words, at the 3x current draw of a normal battery, it'll produce the same amount of heat.
Heat and current capacity are two faces of the same internal process of the battery.
And as others have pointed out, this will merely take the Li-Ion battery tech to the level of good old Ni-Cd in terms of charge time and discharge rate. Nice, but nothing earth shattering.
I guess individual hotel room meters would become common place. So just like the phone, you get charged for your personal energy usage as well.
Actually energy stealing is done all the time NOW. People bury extension cords from their neighbors house or a nereby buisness. One enterprising farmer actually buried some miles of cable on his property directly under a power line creating an open core transformer and leached a power off the grid.
But in all those cases, the culprit is eventually caught, even with today's relatively unsophisticated power monitoring systems.
Actually Dark Matter has been seen visually. In fact there were recent claims that it's existance was "proven" by visual inspection correllating to the already observed gravitational effects and predicted existance.
How?
By observing supernova. The immense amount of light given off by a super novae explosion actually illuminates this "Dark Matter" which is merely diffuse hydrogen uneavenly spread throughout the universe and allows us to actually see parts of it for a small period of time. "Proving" the existance of Dark Matter is one of the many things the Hubble is credited with being responsible for.
There have also been many other forms of indirect evidence that have all pointed to the same conclusion over the past 2-3 years.
The certainty of the existance and the makeup of what Dark Matter is made a giant leap in the confidence level in recent years and can be talked about with a lot more certainty that you are giving it.
Epson apparently does a similar thing with their printers as my brother fount out the other day.
At a predermined time (On time? Date? Droplets fired?) the printer shut down with the equivilent of an "Engine Check Light" and refuses to print. The driver brings up a generic error message about "serviceable parts are past their usable lifetime" even though the printer was working perfectly.
The printer is so old now that having it serviced is completely out of the question and given that new printers of much greater quality only cost $50, well...
Welcome to the peak of the throw away society! You no longer have to wait till normal, planned, obsolesence kicks in, electronic devices are now programed to fail!
Has it occurred to you that saying that humans are NOT responsible for controlling the climate is at this time an extremely unpopular view?
Has it not occurred to you that many times in the past the majority of scientists all went traipsing down a single path togeather only to find that their mass hysteria at agreeing with each other and shunning dissenting has led them to a completley wrong conclusion?
Science is (and always has been) rife with cronyism, and group-think. Dissention from the group is punished constantly by ridicule and censure. And yet, very often the minority, or even the one that sticks to his guns is the correct one.
Most of the "science" used today WRT climate prediction is all based on flimsey and incomplete data plugged into completely untested statistical models, coupled with scant knowledge of any of the mechanisms involved. Many non-reputable scientists are also using this hot topic to gain funding and recognition. What better way to get more money to keep you employed than to make show miraculous statements like that.
The chance that these guys are absolutely correct in all their modeling of this data set is about one in a million. Any true scientist or statistition would know this, yet it doesn't stop them from claiming that their experiment "Lays to rest any argument".
It is one of the more laughable statements yet made on this subject.
In fact > 5k years ago, the swings in Earth's climate were insanely huge. Iceages came and went in as little as 50 years, areas of the earth went from 100 feet of ice to desert and back hundreds of times.
The fact that the Earth's climate has been shockingly stable for the last 5k years is proof of one of three things:
1) There is a God and he is controlling the weather. 2) Human population (and it's billions of camp fires) is actually causing the weather to be more stable now than it has ever been in the past. 3) It's just random chaotic behavior and we've been lucky recently.
No single person's lifetime of "experience" in weather is proof of anything at all.
Not that people won't believe it like the (weather) morons they are, hell fantasy movies make people believe that ice age cold fronts can actually chase them down the street.
Please do not continue to add your "common sense" ignorance to the already clouded picture. The only thing that is ever "Obvious" to anyone is exactly what they wanted to believe in the first place or what they have been told by a person that they already decided they want to blieve. We need a hell of a lot less "Captain Obvious" around and lot more "Captain Actually Thinks".
Not a single thing in the article other than "We proved it".
Frankly, climate simulations should always be taken with a huge grain of salt. Such simulations when run into the future are virtually always wrong when checked with the facts later on. Second, any data points collected are from an insanely short periods of time and/or from an insanely small areas. The data is extremely two dimentional.
This is nothing more than people setting out to prove something they wanted to prove based on statistical models that they came up with and, surprise, they go the numbers they wanted, yet again.
The scarey thing is how they claim that their simulation should "lay to rest any argument". What utter rubbish! Such things are said all the time and decades later are virtually always refuted. Making such a claim in itself is all the evidence needed to completely discount the research as they were certainly "absolutely convinced" about their model and it's outcome.
Heh, well actually then, if they always used the generic term "open source" capitalized then fine, they can have "Open SOurce" all to them selves.
As long as they lay off anyone using the term "open source" in a sentence or statement. Including the development of "open source" licenses which are not "approved" by OSI.
So maybe I can't call my Whiz Bang License (WBL) an "Open Source" liscence, but I sure better be able to call it a "open source" license as long as I at least conform to the basic tennents of "open source" philosophy even if I violate OSI's "Open Source" license rulebook. Of course, the First Amendment allows me to do so anyway even if technically it was a "closed source" license, as long as I wanted to put up with being harassed incessently by everyone on/.:)
I could live with them owning "Open Source" as long as they owned nothing of "open source". Any bets as to whether they would?
Did you bother to update the default setting of "block adult content" before you went searching for dirty content? Merely searching for the mild word "nude" brings up an insane amount of "dirty pics".
Slashdot Mirror
Insightful?
Why bother having a website at all if you just build it and forget about it?
How about:
1) Keeping your website up to date. Isn't that what it's there for? To inform people about you, your buisness or your products?
2) Don't put information up that expires. If you are really lazy, just put your logo, description and address. Then there is no updating required.
Putting up "factual" information then letting it go out of date but warning people that it may be out of date at any time is just stupid.
"a very large stick to batter upstart developers"
Would that be a stick of butter then?
Yes, but the argument is being made that these people don't recieve protection from the shield law because they aren't "Journalists".
The first amendment essentially grants "Journalist" rights to every citizen. A blog is as much a "press" as anything else. I don't see where in the first amendment the distinction of what is and is not "press" is made. In the old days I would make a one page flyer, printed on a "press". And that is 100% definately "the press". Benjamine Franklin had a huge distate for the abundance of such "Press" that he competed with, but as much as he hated the tabloids of his day, he recognised that they were also "Press" and were protected. Posting the same thing to the net is merely todays "press". Such protection for the "Press" already extends to TV and radio. Therefore the shield law should be in force.
Now of course even Journalists have limitations. Printing lies or divulging information that can be proven to hurt a person, company etc. without just cause. But Apple certainly has not shown how they have been harmed by any of these leaks. Therefore the journalists are off the hook, the shield law applies.
What apple really wants and the one thing they have a right to do is prosecute their own people or partners that violate the their NDA's. But that is their own problem and they should just stick to performing their own internal investigations and not relying on bully tactics on journalists to get the information.
The problem is, just because a person ate at a certain restraunt doesn't mean that they are the one that leaked the info. It would be impossible to tell which emplyee(s) leaked and which just ate there and never discussed work. It provides zero evidence that a particular person is guilty of leaking particular information.
That's why it is a fishing expedition or a lynching if you prefer. "Hey, that guy was in the vicinity of the murder, he must be the muderer! Get 'im!"
It would never last a minute in court.
Heh, well they could NEVER do that :)
Here's another great idea you inspired that they could also never do (being a commercial company themselves and all).
When I am searching I virtually always want to do one of two distinct things:
1) Sarch only commercial sites for a product to purchase.
2) Search everything but commercial sites for information.
There really should be a "$" flag that you could add (or at least a "!$" flag) to control wheather you see commercial or non-commercial sites in the results list.
Everyone here would certinly claim that no one should use it but they would all be secretly using it anyway because it just plain works and does what they need it to do.
While the Linux screwdriver comes in 75 pieces and 150 options that must all be sorted before it can be used (This takes about a week on average).
Even then, you have to make your own screws for it becuase there are so many configuration combinations that the chance of anyone else's Linux screw working with your Linux screwdriver are nil.
Well... PSE has color management too, but it's too limited to be used professionally, this is exactly the case with The GIMP.
A previous poster said that PSE had no color management, but what he meant, and I understood, was that it did have color management but not good enough for his uses, therefore it had "none".
Again, GIMP and PSE are very comparible in features, GIMP and PS are not.
Right, but The GIMP doesn't have it either. That's why The GIMP and PSE are better comparisons to each other than GIMP and PS CS for example, that's all I was saying.
/serious/ hobby and to me, spending $650 on PS CS to process my raws was a no brainer considering that I own 5+ grand of camera gear and I spend as much time using PS as I do taking pictures. PSE wasn't even a choice :)
I am a "pro-sumer" photographer myself, I don't make money at it, but it is a
But if I were someone else and I had to choose between The GIMP for free and PSE for it's usual price of $69 after rebate, I'd still choose PSE.
I've wxWindows extensively and it comes close but it is somewhat of a kludge in design and has various problems coexisting with other libraries on various OSes. It's namespace usage is horrible and often collides with other libraries.
So as close as it comes, it really misses point 2 by a good margin.
If we get one that:
1) Works
2) Is clean
3) Is usable verbatim on Linux, Windows and Mac
4) Is not supidly licensed
Then yes, we need another GUI library!
So far there is not a single library that fits all 4 of those definitions.
Well since you said it yourself, "CMYK". The GIMP will not be comparible to the full $700 Photoshop product, without CMYK or the host of other press features PS has.
There may be a day when The GIMP is comparible to Photoshop Elements 3 which is now "48bit". But PSE only costs $99 retail and is frequently single or dual rebated to $69 or even $49.
So compare free to $49, it's a lot more fair and a lot less FUD like. And frankly, PSE still wins hands down, and it wouldn't take even the poorsest student more than three pizzas to afford it. PSE is The GIMP's real goal, and it's pretty stiff competition, even given the price difference.
While I think that this issue is appaling, how is this not a national issue?
How would XM for instance be able to comply with the individual regulations of 10,000 seperate counties when they only have two broadcast satelites?
Actually, just saw another interesting article on the subject. Hubble photogrphed two colliding spiral galaxies. They were in a position such that one should have been able to see the behind galaxy through the empty spaces in the spiral arms of the front galaxy.
:) There is supposed to be a satellite launch in a few years to try to detect some of the other dark matter theories, if some of these theoretical exotic particle theories are correct, then we should be able to detect them with the right equipment.
Only, you couldn't. The "empty space" between the spiral arms was completely black. Meaning that they were filled with interstellar "dust". Much more dust that was thought to exist there.
The amount of real matter just went up and dark matter went down as there is now known to be a lot more mass in simple matter contined, invisibly, within galaxies than was previously thought.
There is a lot of speculation on what the "other" dark matter is, but so far, everytime any real "dark" matter is actually found, it seems to always turs out to be... plain old matter that was not known to exist in a certain place or in a certain way.
As for your question, yeah, well it'll just take time, at some point it may all be accounted for, or not, well see
You are assuming that the battery resistance is the same. The reason that a certain battery type can produce a maximum current output is because of level of internal resistance.
The ability to deliver 3x the current means that they must have lowered the internal resistance which means that the amount of heat produced will be 1/3 per amp as a normal battery.
In other words, at the 3x current draw of a normal battery, it'll produce the same amount of heat.
Heat and current capacity are two faces of the same internal process of the battery.
And as others have pointed out, this will merely take the Li-Ion battery tech to the level of good old Ni-Cd in terms of charge time and discharge rate. Nice, but nothing earth shattering.
I guess individual hotel room meters would become common place. So just like the phone, you get charged for your personal energy usage as well.
Actually energy stealing is done all the time NOW. People bury extension cords from their neighbors house or a nereby buisness. One enterprising farmer actually buried some miles of cable on his property directly under a power line creating an open core transformer and leached a power off the grid.
But in all those cases, the culprit is eventually caught, even with today's relatively unsophisticated power monitoring systems.
Actually Dark Matter has been seen visually. In fact there were recent claims that it's existance was "proven" by visual inspection correllating to the already observed gravitational effects and predicted existance.
How?
By observing supernova. The immense amount of light given off by a super novae explosion actually illuminates this "Dark Matter" which is merely diffuse hydrogen uneavenly spread throughout the universe and allows us to actually see parts of it for a small period of time. "Proving" the existance of Dark Matter is one of the many things the Hubble is credited with being responsible for.
There have also been many other forms of indirect evidence that have all pointed to the same conclusion over the past 2-3 years.
The certainty of the existance and the makeup of what Dark Matter is made a giant leap in the confidence level in recent years and can be talked about with a lot more certainty that you are giving it.
Now as to the subject of Dark Energy...
Oh, hey thanks!
:(
Too bad The Epson guy wasn't as helpful
Epson apparently does a similar thing with their printers as my brother fount out the other day.
At a predermined time (On time? Date? Droplets fired?) the printer shut down with the equivilent of an "Engine Check Light" and refuses to print. The driver brings up a generic error message about "serviceable parts are past their usable lifetime" even though the printer was working perfectly.
The printer is so old now that having it serviced is completely out of the question and given that new printers of much greater quality only cost $50, well...
Welcome to the peak of the throw away society! You no longer have to wait till normal, planned, obsolesence kicks in, electronic devices are now programed to fail!
Exactly.
The free Service Packs for XP are more like the point upgrades for OS X that Apple keeps charging people for.
Bulk of the scientists?
Has it occurred to you that saying that humans are NOT responsible for controlling the climate is at this time an extremely unpopular view?
Has it not occurred to you that many times in the past the majority of scientists all went traipsing down a single path togeather only to find that their mass hysteria at agreeing with each other and shunning dissenting has led them to a completley wrong conclusion?
Science is (and always has been) rife with cronyism, and group-think. Dissention from the group is punished constantly by ridicule and censure. And yet, very often the minority, or even the one that sticks to his guns is the correct one.
Most of the "science" used today WRT climate prediction is all based on flimsey and incomplete data plugged into completely untested statistical models, coupled with scant knowledge of any of the mechanisms involved. Many non-reputable scientists are also using this hot topic to gain funding and recognition. What better way to get more money to keep you employed than to make show miraculous statements like that.
The chance that these guys are absolutely correct in all their modeling of this data set is about one in a million. Any true scientist or statistition would know this, yet it doesn't stop them from claiming that their experiment "Lays to rest any argument".
It is one of the more laughable statements yet made on this subject.
Except that extremes in weather are /nothing/ new!
In fact > 5k years ago, the swings in Earth's climate were insanely huge. Iceages came and went in as little as 50 years, areas of the earth went from 100 feet of ice to desert and back hundreds of times.
The fact that the Earth's climate has been shockingly stable for the last 5k years is proof of one of three things:
1) There is a God and he is controlling the weather.
2) Human population (and it's billions of camp fires) is actually causing the weather to be more stable now than it has ever been in the past.
3) It's just random chaotic behavior and we've been lucky recently.
No single person's lifetime of "experience" in weather is proof of anything at all.
Not that people won't believe it like the (weather) morons they are, hell fantasy movies make people believe that ice age cold fronts can actually chase them down the street.
Please do not continue to add your "common sense" ignorance to the already clouded picture. The only thing that is ever "Obvious" to anyone is exactly what they wanted to believe in the first place or what they have been told by a person that they already decided they want to blieve. We need a hell of a lot less "Captain Obvious" around and lot more "Captain Actually Thinks".
Not a single thing in the article other than "We proved it".
Frankly, climate simulations should always be taken with a huge grain of salt. Such simulations when run into the future are virtually always wrong when checked with the facts later on. Second, any data points collected are from an insanely short periods of time and/or from an insanely small areas. The data is extremely two dimentional.
This is nothing more than people setting out to prove something they wanted to prove based on statistical models that they came up with and, surprise, they go the numbers they wanted, yet again.
The scarey thing is how they claim that their simulation should "lay to rest any argument". What utter rubbish! Such things are said all the time and decades later are virtually always refuted. Making such a claim in itself is all the evidence needed to completely discount the research as they were certainly "absolutely convinced" about their model and it's outcome.
Complete and utter BS.
You mean like printers should not be allowed to print images of money?
Where will it end? Frankly, I'd rather never see it get started.
As soon as the OS becomes your own personal government controlled police force, then we'll really be sorry.
Heh, well actually then, if they always used the generic term "open source" capitalized then fine, they can have "Open SOurce" all to them selves.
/. :)
As long as they lay off anyone using the term "open source" in a sentence or statement. Including the development of "open source" licenses which are not "approved" by OSI.
So maybe I can't call my Whiz Bang License (WBL) an "Open Source" liscence, but I sure better be able to call it a "open source" license as long as I at least conform to the basic tennents of "open source" philosophy even if I violate OSI's "Open Source" license rulebook. Of course, the First Amendment allows me to do so anyway even if technically it was a "closed source" license, as long as I wanted to put up with being harassed incessently by everyone on
I could live with them owning "Open Source" as long as they owned nothing of "open source". Any bets as to whether they would?
Did you bother to update the default setting of "block adult content" before you went searching for dirty content? Merely searching for the mild word "nude" brings up an insane amount of "dirty pics".