I would think that the only thing that makes this any better than current is that it's already fully deployed with almost complete coverage. I'm not sure how well deployed ground surveillance radar currently is in any country, but I'd imagine they don't have nearly the coverage of the cell system in most 1st world countries.
That's kind of my point. They'll think they know someone is there, but it's just a phone. You could carry 10 phones with you and they'd think there's a bunch of people at a particular location. Maybe only if you spread them out a bit, whatever. It's fairly usless for actually "tracking" someone as you and others have said.
No, they would know one person's there, they just wouldn't know who it was. The fact that you have 10 phones registered to 10 different people may lead them to believe you're stealing phones. They would have a good idea of how many people are in a particular location because it acts like radar. They would only have an idea of who those people were if they were carrying phones.
A. Turn off your phone, rendering the "tracking" useless.
B. Not carry a cell phone if you're going to be trespassing on corporate or government property (or otherwise monitored space).
C. Throw your phone or launch it with a slingshot and send the coppers on a wild goosechase for "a man that can accelerate extrordinarily fast, fly, and then disappear [as the phone smashes into a hundred pieces]. Gentleman, we have found Superman!"
But regardless of which one you do, they still know that someone is there, and in the case of the slingshot they'll probably see you and the signal from the cell phone and figure out that you just used your cell phone as an expensive bit of litter. Again, the key is not the ability to track phones, because they've always had that, it's the ability to use the cell masts that allow people to use phones in a particular area (again, not the phones themselves) as a form of radar to track moving objects. They can't identify the objects unless they have a method for identification (such as a person's cell phone, or a video camera monitoring the area), but they at least have a good idea of whether or not a person or vehicle is there, and may be able to pick up more information (such as whether or not you're carrying any weapons) depending on how they set it up.
any way.... the software gap is non-existant for 90% of computer users. games are the only thing that lacks, and ALL big title games are released at the same time for the mac as they are for the PC...only the crappy stuff does not come out at the same time or ever...though, crappy is subjective.
At best 10% of games are released for both systems, ever, and of those maybe 10% are released for both at the same time. Many 'game of the year' titles, such as Half-life, most Westwood games, etc are never released for the Mac, while others are shuttled off to outside developers for porting (BioWare games, for instance). The only thing that keeps first person shooters coming to the Mac, it seems, is that id bothers to develop their engines cross-platform from the start, and Blizzard seems to do this as well (given that most of their titles are released with both platforms on the CD the day it hits the shelves).
That being said, the cost of a gaming PC vs. a gaming Mac is questionable, except that, at least, Macs come with better video cards for gaming than most OEM machines without upgrading that particular component (though you don't often get the choice of upgrading the video card before you get the system with a Mac). PC OEMs that market towards gamers usually market them with prices that are at least (if not much higher) those of comparable Macs, but a well-made 'white box' PC built for gaming can be quite favourable in pricing, especially considering that games no longer require the best processors, just adequate system RAM and a good video card.
Would this be the G5? Is the G5 an entirely different chip?
The obvious answer is... The G5 is a Motorolla chip. As this is an IBM chip, it's not the G5. So, the next question is, will anyone even care about the G5 if Apple puts these into a Mac?
From the Appeals Court's Opinion: But the circumstances of this case are most unusual. By placing an embargo on the interviews, the District Judge ensured that the full extent of his actions would not be revealed until this case was on appeal. Plaintiffs, in defending the judgment, do not dispute the statements attributed to him in the press; they do not request an evidentiary hearing; and they do not argue that Microsoft should have filed a motion in the District Court before raising the matter on appeal. At oral argument, plaintiffs all but conceded that the Judge violated ethical restrictions by discussing the case in public: "On behalf of the governments, I have no brief to defend the District Judge's decision to discuss this case publicly while it was pending on appeal, and I have no brief to defend the judge's decision to discuss the case with reporters while the trial was proceeding, even given the embargo on any reporting concerning those conversations until after the trial." 02/27/01 Ct. Appeals Tr. at 326....
The published accounts indicate that the District Judge discussed numerous topics relating to the case. Among them was his distaste for the defense of technological integration-- one of the central issues in the lawsuit. In September 1999, two months before his Findings of Fact and six months before his Conclusions of Law, and in remarks that were kept secret until after the Final Judgment, the Judge told reporters from the New York Times that he questioned Microsoft's integration of a web browser into Windows. Stating that he was "not a fan of integration," he drew an analogy to a 35-millimeter camera with an integrated light meter that in his view should also be offered separately: "You like the convenience of having a light meter built in, integrated, so all you have to do is press a button to get a reading. But do you think camera makers should also serve photographers who want to use a separate light meter, so they can hold it up, move it around?" Joel Brinkley & Steve Lohr, U.S. v. Microsoft 263 (2001). In other remarks, the Judge commented on the integration at the heart of the case: "[I]t was quite clear to me that the motive of Microsoft in bundling the Internet browser was not one of consumer convenience. The evidence that this was done for the consumer was not credible.... The evidence was so compelling that there was an ulterior motive." Wilke, Wall St. J. As for tying law in general, he criticized this court's ruling in the consent decree case, saying it "was wrongheaded on several counts" and would exempt the software industry from the antitrust laws. Brinkley & Lohr, U.S. v. Microsoft 78, 295; Brinkley & Lohr, N.Y. Times....
According to reporter Auletta, the District Judge told him in private that, "I thought they [Microsoft and its executives] didn't think they were regarded as adult members of the community. I thought they would learn." Auletta, World War 3.0, at 14. The Judge told a college audience that "Bill Gates is an ingenious engineer, but I don't think he is that adept at business ethics. He has not yet come to realise things he did (when Microsoft was smaller) he should not have done when he became a monopoly." Spiegel, Fin. Times. Characterizing Gates' and his company's "crime" as hubris, the Judge stated that "[i]f I were able to propose a remedy of my devising, I'd require Mr. Gates to write a book report" on Napoleon Bonaparte, "[b]ecause I think [Gates] has a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no reverses." Auletta, The New Yorker, at 41; see also Auletta, World War 3.0, at 397. The Judge apparently became, in Auletta's words, "increasingly troubled by what he learned about Bill Gates and couldn't get out of his mind the group picture he had seen of Bill Gates and Paul Allen and their shaggy-haired first employees at Microsoft." The reporter wrote that the Judge said he saw in the picture "a smart-mouthed young kid who has extraordinary ability and needs a little discipline. I've often said to colleagues that Gates would be better off if he had finished Harvard." Auletta, World War 3.0, at 168-69; see also Auletta, The New Yorker, at 46 (reporting the District Judge's statement that "they [Microsoft and its executives] don't act like grown-ups!" "[T]o this day they continue to deny they did anything wrong.").
I like that last part in particular. What? Microsoft is supposed to just give up and admit they were wrong? Most people that bother to plea their innocence would be smart to stick to their guns on that issue. It goes on for quite a bit, and there is one paragraph which I have omitted that discusses Microsoft's witnesses. Most of it is just generalizations about Microsoft themselves, though. As for the court's actual opinion on this matter:
While some of the Code's Canons frequently generate questions about their application, others are straightforward and easily understood. Canon 3A(6) is an example of the latter. In forbidding federal judges to comment publicly "on the merits of a pending or impending action," Canon 3A(6) applies to cases pending before any court, state or federal, trial or appellate. See Jeffrey M. Shaman et al., Judicial Conduct and Ethics s 10.34, at 353 (3d ed. 2000). As "impending" indicates, the prohibition begins even before a case enters the court system, when there is reason to believe a case may be filed. Cf. E. Wayne Thode, Reporter's Notes to Code of Judicial Conduct 54 (1973). An action remains "pending" until "completion of the appellate process." Code of Conduct Canon 3A(6) cmt.; Comm. on Codes of Conduct, Adv. Op. No. 55 (1998).
The Microsoft case was "pending" during every one of the District Judge's meetings with reporters; the case is "pending" now; and even after our decision issues, it will remain pending for some time. The District Judge breached his ethical duty under Canon 3A(6) each time he spoke to a reporter about the merits of the case. Although the reporters interviewed him in private, his comments were public. Court was not in session and his discussion of the case took place outside the presence of the parties. He provided his views not to court personnel assisting him in the case, but to members of the public. And these were not just any members of the public. Because he was talking to reporters, the Judge knew his comments would eventually receive widespread dissemination.
It is clear that the District Judge was not discussing purely procedural matters, which are a permissible subject of public comment under one of the Canon's three narrowly drawn exceptions. He disclosed his views on the factual and legal matters at the heart of the case. His opinions about the credibility of witnesses, the validity of legal theories, the culpability of the defendant, the choice of remedy, and so forth all dealt with the merits of the action. It is no excuse that the Judge may have intended to "educate" the public about the case or to rebut "public misperceptions" purportedly caused by the parties. See Grimaldi, Wash. Post; Microsoft Judge Says He May Step down from Case on Appeal, Wall St. J., Oct. 30, 2000. If those were his intentions, he could have addressed the factual and legal issues as he saw them--and thought the public should see them--in his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Final Judgment, or in a written opinion. Or he could have held his tongue until all appeals were concluded.
Far from mitigating his conduct, the District Judge's insistence on secrecy--his embargo--made matters worse. Concealment of the interviews suggests knowledge of their impropriety. Concealment also prevented the parties from nipping his improprieties in the bud. Without any knowledge of the interviews, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant had a chance to object or to seek the Judge's removal before he issued his Final Judgment.
Other federal judges have been disqualified for making limited public comments about cases pending before them. See In re Boston's Children First, 244 F.3d 164 (1st Cir. 2001); In re IBM Corp., 45 F.3d 641 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 1993). Given the extent of the Judge's transgressions in this case, we have little doubt that if the parties had discovered his secret liaisons with the press, he would have been disqualified, voluntarily or by court order. Cf. In re Barry, 946 F.2d 913 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (per curiam); id. at 915 (Edwards, J., dissenting).
In addition to violating the rule prohibiting public comment, the District Judge's reported conduct raises serious questions under Canon 3A(4). That Canon states that a "judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or the person's lawyer, full right to be heard according to law, and, except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte communications on the merits, or procedures affecting the merits, of a pending or impending proceeding." Code of Conduct Canon 3A(4).
What did the reporters convey to the District Judge during their secret sessions? By one account, the Judge spent a total of ten hours giving taped interviews to one reporter. Auletta, World War 3.0, at 14 n.*. We do not know whether he spent even more time in untaped conversations with the same reporter, nor do we know how much time he spent with others. But we think it safe to assume that these interviews were not monologues. Interviews often become conversations. When reporters pose questions or make assertions, they may be furnishing information, information that may reflect their personal views of the case. The published accounts indicate this happened on at least one occasion. Ken Auletta reported, for example, that he told the Judge "that Microsoft employees professed shock that he thought they had violated the law and behaved unethically," at which time the Judge became "agitated" by "Microsoft's 'obstinacy'." Id. at 369. It is clear that Auletta had views of the case. As he wrote in a Washington Post editorial, "[a]nyone who sat in [the District Judge's] courtroom during the trial had seen ample evidence of Microsoft's sometimes thuggish tactics." Ken Auletta, Maligning the Microsoft Judge, Wash. Post, Mar. 7, 2001, at A23.
The District Judge's repeated violations of Canons 3A(6) and 3A(4) also violated Canon 2, which provides that "a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities." Code of Conduct Canon 2; see also In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct, 47 F.3d 399, 400 (10th Cir. Jud. Council 1995) ("The allegations of extra-judicial comments cause the Council substantial concern under both Canon 3A(6) and Canon 2 of the Judicial Code of Conduct."). Canon 2A requires federal judges to "respect and comply with the law" and to "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." Code of Conduct Canon 2A. The Code of Conduct is the law with respect to the ethical obligations of federal judges, and it is clear the District Judge violated it on multiple occasions in this case. The rampant disregard for the judiciary's ethical obligations that the public witnessed in this case undoubtedly jeopardizes "public confidence in the integrity" of the District Court proceedings.
Another point needs to be stressed. Rulings in this case have potentially huge financial consequences for one of the nation's largest publicly-traded companies and its investors. The District Judge's secret interviews during the trial provided a select few with inside information about the case, information that enabled them and anyone they shared it with to anticipate rulings before the Judge announced them to the world. Although he "embargoed" his comments, the Judge had no way of policing the reporters. For all he knew there may have been trading on the basis of the information he secretly conveyed. The public cannot be expected to maintain confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the federal judiciary in the face of such conduct.
So, perhaps, I should've used impropriety and impartiality instead of bias, though I have always interpreted bias as meaning (im)partiality.
In this case, however, we believe the line has been crossed. The public comments were not only improper, but also would lead a reasonable, informed observer to question the District Judge's impartiality. Public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is seriously jeopardized when judges secretly share their thoughts about the merits of pending cases with the press. Judges who covet publicity, or convey the appearance that they do, lead any objective observer to wonder whether their judgments are being influenced by the prospect of favorable coverage in the media. Discreet and limited public comments may not compromise a judge's apparent impartiality, but we have little doubt that the District Judge's conduct had that effect. Appearance may be all there is, but that is enough to invoke the Canons and s 455(a).
Ah, I see. So while it may not pinpoint a person, it could tell authorities that a particular call was relayed thru a particular mast, thus the odds are that the person they want to catch is in a certain radius??
No, this has nothing to do with relaying calls through the antenna. If you're using a phone they can track you anyway, especially when you're using it. What this is talking about is using the mast that your calls are relayed through as a radar, which allows them to pick up ANYTHING (over a certain size I'm sure, based on the wavelength and other factors) moving in that particular area, regardless of whether or not people are actually using a phone. If you're in an area that has a phone signal, the masts that provide for that signal can also be used to watch the movement of all people and vehicles in the area, though it can't identify them individually (unless they have phones, then they could probably put the two pieces of information together, or incoordination with other surveillance systems, as mentioned in the article, such as training a video camera on a person or vehicle that was spotted moving in the area of that camera). The example used in the article is that of monitoring sensitive areas, such as nuclear plants, so they can see, thanks to the cell masts, that a person or vehicle has approached or crossed the perimeter around that plant, and they can notify the plant's security or use the plant's existing systems to further identify the breach.
Actually, since the system doesn't even use the phones people are carrying, I'd guess that most of the remainder doesn't apply, either. Now, I'm sure they've already addressed where and when triangulation of your location due to your phone calls applies to wire-tapping laws.
The article does state that video surveillance systems might be coordinated with this system for cases such as monitoring sensitive perimeters, ie if the radar from the cell mast picks up something moving along the perimeter of a monitored site, the site could train it's video camera(s) on the area where movement was detected.
You didn't read the other 2 comments did you? You're the third person to say that.
They weren't there when I replied, so I apparently took longer to say pretty much the same thing.
But what's your point? If my mobile is turned off, then there are no radio emissions. There is nothing to bounce off me, and therefore nothing to detect.
They don't require the phones to bounce signals off of you. The radio emissions are from the mast that gives you cell service, not from the cell phones themselves, as some of the replies to this post have already stated. The signals will bounce off of anything, not just phones, just like normal radar. Of course, getting them to map out areas behind walls will be the major breakthrough, if they actually manage it, and shouldn't be too hard given that you can use your cell indoors to begin with.
What is new, however, is what this article is talking about: using the cell masts (the antennas that allow people to have cell service in an area, not the phones themselves) as a radar to track everything in a particular area. You don't have to carry a cell phone to be tracked, thanks to the fact that (almost) everyone wants cell service everywhere all the time.
We all know there are ways around it. How? Why, simply buy a pre-paid phone with cash, and turn the thing off when not in use.
You didn't read the article, did you? They aren't tracking the cell phones (that would be nothing new), they're tracking every moving person and vehicle within range of a cell phone tower by using the things like radar, reading the reflections of the signals being sent out of the tower.
Re:why so many mouse buttons?
on
Blender Is GPL
·
· Score: 1
I kind of glazed over this the first time, so I'd like to add:
It is more accurate that way because the pressing hand is not the moving hand. Thus, you don't veer off accidently while pointing.
This is one of the many reasons I use a trackball instead of a mouse. When clicking a button has a very real chance of moving your pointer, there's a problem. As it stands, when I'm using my trackball, I have 2 buttons and the mousewheel at my thumb, my forefinger on the ball, and the 2 remaining buttons are clicked using my middle and next finger, leaving only my pinkie finger without something to click on (which is just fine since, although I have better control over it than most people, it's not the best finger for precise independant control).
The NSA has nothing to do with checking security at laboratories and they certainly aren't a software development shop.
They have a lot to do with checking security on software, though, and for not being a software development shop, develop a lot of software. Of course, you don't have to take our word for it, you can just visit SELinux
Granted, talking to the media was unecesary, and maybe Penfiled had some "Edo" envy, but I don't see how it is wrong. It's not as though national secrets were at issue, or MS was being slandered (no one trusts them anyway).
I can just see it now, a judge instructing the jury: 'its ok to develop bias, as long as its during the trial rather than before'. No, even though we all know there's no way to stop people from having some bias, they should at least try to be impartial, and those instructions will always be to hear the entire case before making any decision.
I'm not looking for a witch hunt (is Bill heavier than a duck?), but Penfiled was right. His rulling was taken away from him on the basis of politics and bribes
No, the case was taken away from him because he decided to talk to the press during the trial instead of holding his tongue until it was over. His ruling was taken away from him because he didn't follow the correct procedures in the court, such as having a penalty phase in the trial before determining a penalty.
The question is does he have a point (in the recent article). Many of us regret that his comments gave the appeals court an easy target to strike down his decision, but I wonder whether that is the only reason, or would they have done the same under even more tortured logic.
The primary result of the 'appearance of bias' as cited in the appeals court ruling, was the removal of him as judge on the case. It was not part of the ruling to strike down his decision.
Is it possible that he could see and anticipate that they (MS) would use any twisted legal tactic to reduce and delay the impact of any decision, and that the public's right to know outweighed the risks to the correct final legal decision. After all, the court left in place everything but his remedy. The basic decisions and findings were sound.
The court didn't leave everything in place. They threw out or remanded for re-hearing almost 2/3rds of the case. They threw out the penalty that Jackson came up with because he didn't go through the proper (and normal) steps to come to that ruling, and didn't include the proper justification for that ruling. They upheld his 'findings of fact' because they believed that there was nothing wrong with them, and that bias, whether real or simply in appearance, did not have any affect on that portion. However, as the appeals court ruling and many other transcripts from the case can show, the findings of fact are not even the largest part of the case.
The Washington Post article specifically talks about interviews given during the trial. Considering the nature of the statements cited in the article, it should be fairly easy to see how at least an appearance of bias could be found, if not bias itself, and this was enough for him to be removed from the remainder of the case. Adding in the number of legal procedures that the judge bypassed in the trial gave more weight to the appearance of bias created by his interviews.
If I remember correctly, MS tried to have him removed fairly early on because they believed he would be biased by earlier cases related to MS which he oversaw (previous antitrust case?), but that didn't happen. It's only natural that they'd go on to bring up an appearance of bias in the appeal, and Jackson should've been aware of that possibility.
I do however agree with him on the fact that the people have a right to know.
The right to know what? The transcripts for the trial are freely available, but his comments outside of court made him appear biased, whether he actually was or not.
Maybe this will help free some information to the people in this process. It is a shame that a company is getting away with such a miscarriage of justice in this case simply because the judge made a few comments.
The comments he made simply got him removed from the trial. They had little weight in the other portions of the case the appeals court overturned or sent back to the court for review. It seems that this isn't the only rule that Judge Jackson had a problem with, as he ignored quite a few others during the trial, all of which are cited in the appeals court's ruling.
Re:why so many mouse buttons?
on
Blender Is GPL
·
· Score: 1
You put one hand on the keyboard, and the OTHER HAND on the mouse.
And, as I pointed out, this reduces the number of easily accessable keys on the keyboard, especially for those of us that use the mouse with our right hand. I've played FPS games long enough to be extremely good at using the mouse with one hand and the keyboard with the other, but it does require making sure the keys are laid out for optimum efficiency in this, making sure that nothing important is bound to the right half of the keyboard.
Re:why so many mouse buttons?
on
Blender Is GPL
·
· Score: 1
If you have to move your right hand from the mouse to the keyboard, it reduces the efficiency of the interface. Therefore, in an efficient interface that does make use of the mouse for pointing, your number of keys is reduced at least by half (not to mention the number pad and the arrow keys). Having more buttons on the mouse allows you to be more efficient if the software you use makes use of those buttons.
Further, the design assumes a middle mouse button, and middle mouse buttons are falling out of favor (because there are already 101 buttons on the keyboard, so why add yet more to the mouse). The keyboard equivs for the 3rd mouse button are horrendus if you don't have a middle button.
Most mice sold today have at least 3 mouse buttons. Mine has 4 + mouse wheel. Given that most of *nix assumes a 3rd mouse button, I fail to see the problem here. It's not like Blender is designed to run on Macs.
Besides, if the UI scares away newbies, then there will be less users and thus less people willing to support and improve it and make add-ons.
How many 3d and CAD packages have you used? Very few are newbie-friendly, and very few people learn to use them without a book or extensive tutorials. That being said, there's certainly room in most 3d software for improvement in the interface. However, something like the 3rd mouse button should be considered far less of a factor in improvement than making it configurable enough for those without a 3rd button to be able to use it (and while we're on it, using 4th and 5th mouse buttons would be a good thing too). When you're using a mouse-intensive application, the only keys that matter are those on the left side of the keyboard, and every mouse button you can add helps.
While the author does state that he believes intellectual property rights are a problem, he does go into what would be reasonable copyright/patent laws, rather than complete removal. For instance:
A temporary economic advantage for authors and inventors is created because a hopefully more valuable benefit will accrue to the public, and ultimately the lease expires and all rights return to the general public.... Creative works incur over 90 percent of their economic reward within almost a few years of their release, often less. Why are we working so hard to nearly infinitely increase the duration? Intellectual property is supposed to return to the public domain.
In other words, while he probably does not believe there should be any IP laws, he does see the reasons behind it. I think the best point he made was that extension of copyright terms essentially makes the authors and artists (or the holders of the copyright) the thieves by keeping a work out of the public domain, the very place the copyright laws were supposed to guarantee they would end up. When works go out of print because the copyright owner can't or won't maintain publishing, it's theft from the public. If a piece of work has been around long enough to go out of print in the first place, it's outlived the usefulness of it's copyright.
I certainly wouldn't care if my car getting stolen interrupted your movie for 10 seconds. Your trips to the bathroom'd take more than that.
Except for those of us that have a strong enough bladder to sit through a movie (yes, even LotR).
And, btw, you would care if it were your car.
I don't care enough to have my key ring tell me my alarm's going off. I'll find out when I'm done with my movie, and subsequently get pissed at mall security for not doing their job.
Male characters tend to be more gruff and muscular, implying physical capability, intimidation, and power.
with a waist as small as the women in the games and shoulders broader than a lineman in full pads. There's nothing realistic about MOST video game characters, regardless of sex.
That being said, trying to defend the designers of Tomb Raider is a joke. Personally, I've never known anyone that played Tomb Raider for the puzzles, and I'm not attracted to the large-breasted charicature in center-screen, so I simply don't play. The only thing I do thank Tomb Raider's creators for, is making 3rd person puzzlers popular again, so that there are plenty of others around if I do want to play them, many of which have much better puzzles and environments.
Slashdot Mirror
I would think that the only thing that makes this any better than current is that it's already fully deployed with almost complete coverage. I'm not sure how well deployed ground surveillance radar currently is in any country, but I'd imagine they don't have nearly the coverage of the cell system in most 1st world countries.
That's kind of my point. They'll think they know someone is there, but it's just a phone. You could carry 10 phones with you and they'd think there's a bunch of people at a particular location. Maybe only if you spread them out a bit, whatever. It's fairly usless for actually "tracking" someone as you and others have said.
No, they would know one person's there, they just wouldn't know who it was. The fact that you have 10 phones registered to 10 different people may lead them to believe you're stealing phones. They would have a good idea of how many people are in a particular location because it acts like radar. They would only have an idea of who those people were if they were carrying phones.
So you could:
A. Turn off your phone, rendering the "tracking" useless.
B. Not carry a cell phone if you're going to be trespassing on corporate or government property (or otherwise monitored space).
C. Throw your phone or launch it with a slingshot and send the coppers on a wild goosechase for "a man that can accelerate extrordinarily fast, fly, and then disappear [as the phone smashes into a hundred pieces]. Gentleman, we have found Superman!"
But regardless of which one you do, they still know that someone is there, and in the case of the slingshot they'll probably see you and the signal from the cell phone and figure out that you just used your cell phone as an expensive bit of litter. Again, the key is not the ability to track phones, because they've always had that, it's the ability to use the cell masts that allow people to use phones in a particular area (again, not the phones themselves) as a form of radar to track moving objects. They can't identify the objects unless they have a method for identification (such as a person's cell phone, or a video camera monitoring the area), but they at least have a good idea of whether or not a person or vehicle is there, and may be able to pick up more information (such as whether or not you're carrying any weapons) depending on how they set it up.
any way.... the software gap is non-existant for 90% of computer users. games are the only thing that lacks, and ALL big title games are released at the same time for the mac as they are for the PC...only the crappy stuff does not come out at the same time or ever...though, crappy is subjective.
At best 10% of games are released for both systems, ever, and of those maybe 10% are released for both at the same time. Many 'game of the year' titles, such as Half-life, most Westwood games, etc are never released for the Mac, while others are shuttled off to outside developers for porting (BioWare games, for instance). The only thing that keeps first person shooters coming to the Mac, it seems, is that id bothers to develop their engines cross-platform from the start, and Blizzard seems to do this as well (given that most of their titles are released with both platforms on the CD the day it hits the shelves).
That being said, the cost of a gaming PC vs. a gaming Mac is questionable, except that, at least, Macs come with better video cards for gaming than most OEM machines without upgrading that particular component (though you don't often get the choice of upgrading the video card before you get the system with a Mac). PC OEMs that market towards gamers usually market them with prices that are at least (if not much higher) those of comparable Macs, but a well-made 'white box' PC built for gaming can be quite favourable in pricing, especially considering that games no longer require the best processors, just adequate system RAM and a good video card.
Would this be the G5? Is the G5 an entirely different chip?
The obvious answer is... The G5 is a Motorolla chip. As this is an IBM chip, it's not the G5. So, the next question is, will anyone even care about the G5 if Apple puts these into a Mac?
From the Appeals Court's Opinion: ...
...
But the circumstances of this case are most unusual. By placing an embargo on the interviews, the District Judge ensured that the full extent of his actions would not be revealed until this case was on appeal. Plaintiffs, in defending the judgment, do not dispute the statements attributed to him in the press; they do not request an evidentiary hearing; and they do not argue that Microsoft should have filed a motion in the District Court before raising the matter on appeal. At oral argument, plaintiffs all but conceded that the Judge violated ethical restrictions by discussing the case in public: "On behalf of the governments, I have no brief to defend the District Judge's decision to discuss this case publicly while it was pending on appeal, and I have no brief to defend the judge's decision to discuss the case with reporters while the trial was proceeding, even given the embargo on any reporting concerning those conversations until after the trial." 02/27/01 Ct. Appeals Tr. at 326.
The published accounts indicate that the District Judge discussed numerous topics relating to the case. Among them was his distaste for the defense of technological integration-- one of the central issues in the lawsuit. In September 1999, two months before his Findings of Fact and six months before his Conclusions of Law, and in remarks that were kept secret until after the Final Judgment, the Judge told reporters from the New York Times that he questioned Microsoft's integration of a web browser into Windows. Stating that he was "not a fan of integration," he drew an analogy to a 35-millimeter camera with an integrated light meter that in his view should also be offered separately: "You like the convenience of having a light meter built in, integrated, so all you have to do is press a button to get a reading. But do you think camera makers should also serve photographers who want to use a separate light meter, so they can hold it up, move it around?" Joel Brinkley & Steve Lohr, U.S. v. Microsoft 263 (2001). In other remarks, the Judge commented on the integration at the heart of the case: "[I]t was quite clear to me that the motive of Microsoft in bundling the Internet browser was not one of consumer convenience. The evidence that this was done for the consumer was not credible.... The evidence was so compelling that there was an ulterior motive." Wilke, Wall St. J. As for tying law in general, he criticized this court's ruling in the consent decree case, saying it "was wrongheaded on several counts" and would exempt the software industry from the antitrust laws. Brinkley & Lohr, U.S. v. Microsoft 78, 295; Brinkley & Lohr, N.Y. Times.
According to reporter Auletta, the District Judge told him in private that, "I thought they [Microsoft and its executives] didn't think they were regarded as adult members of the community. I thought they would learn." Auletta, World War 3.0, at 14. The Judge told a college audience that "Bill Gates is an ingenious engineer, but I don't think he is that adept at business ethics. He has not yet come to realise things he did (when Microsoft was smaller) he should not have done when he became a monopoly." Spiegel, Fin. Times. Characterizing Gates' and his company's "crime" as hubris, the Judge stated that "[i]f I were able to propose a remedy of my devising, I'd require Mr. Gates to write a book report" on Napoleon Bonaparte, "[b]ecause I think [Gates] has a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no reverses." Auletta, The New Yorker, at 41; see also Auletta, World War 3.0, at 397. The Judge apparently became, in Auletta's words, "increasingly troubled by what he learned about Bill Gates and couldn't get out of his mind the group picture he had seen of Bill Gates and Paul Allen and their shaggy-haired first employees at Microsoft." The reporter wrote that the Judge said he saw in the picture "a smart-mouthed young kid who has extraordinary ability and needs a little discipline. I've often said to colleagues that Gates would be better off if he had finished Harvard." Auletta, World War 3.0, at 168-69; see also Auletta, The New Yorker, at 46 (reporting the District Judge's statement that "they [Microsoft and its executives] don't act like grown-ups!" "[T]o this day they continue to deny they did anything wrong.").
I like that last part in particular. What? Microsoft is supposed to just give up and admit they were wrong? Most people that bother to plea their innocence would be smart to stick to their guns on that issue. It goes on for quite a bit, and there is one paragraph which I have omitted that discusses Microsoft's witnesses. Most of it is just generalizations about Microsoft themselves, though. As for the court's actual opinion on this matter:
While some of the Code's Canons frequently generate questions about their application, others are straightforward and easily understood. Canon 3A(6) is an example of the latter. In forbidding federal judges to comment publicly "on the merits of a pending or impending action," Canon 3A(6) applies to cases pending before any court, state or federal, trial or appellate. See Jeffrey M. Shaman et al., Judicial Conduct and Ethics s 10.34, at 353 (3d ed. 2000). As "impending" indicates, the prohibition begins even before a case enters the court system, when there is reason to believe a case may be filed. Cf. E. Wayne Thode, Reporter's Notes to Code of Judicial Conduct 54 (1973). An action remains "pending" until "completion of the appellate process." Code of Conduct Canon 3A(6) cmt.; Comm. on Codes of Conduct, Adv. Op. No. 55 (1998).
The Microsoft case was "pending" during every one of the District Judge's meetings with reporters; the case is "pending" now; and even after our decision issues, it will remain pending for some time. The District Judge breached his ethical duty under Canon 3A(6) each time he spoke to a reporter about the merits of the case. Although the reporters interviewed him in private, his comments were public. Court was not in session and his discussion of the case took place outside the presence of the parties. He provided his views not to court personnel assisting him in the case, but to members of the public. And these were not just any members of the public. Because he was talking to reporters, the Judge knew his comments would eventually receive widespread dissemination.
It is clear that the District Judge was not discussing purely procedural matters, which are a permissible subject of public comment under one of the Canon's three narrowly drawn exceptions. He disclosed his views on the factual and legal matters at the heart of the case. His opinions about the credibility of witnesses, the validity of legal theories, the culpability of the defendant, the choice of remedy, and so forth all dealt with the merits of the action. It is no excuse that the Judge may have intended to "educate" the public about the case or to rebut "public misperceptions" purportedly caused by the parties. See Grimaldi, Wash. Post; Microsoft Judge Says He May Step down from Case on Appeal, Wall St. J., Oct. 30, 2000. If those were his intentions, he could have addressed the factual and legal issues as he saw them--and thought the public should see them--in his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Final Judgment, or in a written opinion. Or he could have held his tongue until all appeals were concluded.
Far from mitigating his conduct, the District Judge's insistence on secrecy--his embargo--made matters worse. Concealment of the interviews suggests knowledge of their impropriety. Concealment also prevented the parties from nipping his improprieties in the bud. Without any knowledge of the interviews, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant had a chance to object or to seek the Judge's removal before he issued his Final Judgment.
Other federal judges have been disqualified for making limited public comments about cases pending before them. See In re Boston's Children First, 244 F.3d 164 (1st Cir. 2001); In re IBM Corp., 45 F.3d 641 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 1993). Given the extent of the Judge's transgressions in this case, we have little doubt that if the parties had discovered his secret liaisons with the press, he would have been disqualified, voluntarily or by court order. Cf. In re Barry, 946 F.2d 913 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (per curiam); id. at 915 (Edwards, J., dissenting).
In addition to violating the rule prohibiting public comment, the District Judge's reported conduct raises serious questions under Canon 3A(4). That Canon states that a "judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or the person's lawyer, full right to be heard according to law, and, except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte communications on the merits, or procedures affecting the merits, of a pending or impending proceeding." Code of Conduct Canon 3A(4).
What did the reporters convey to the District Judge during their secret sessions? By one account, the Judge spent a total of ten hours giving taped interviews to one reporter. Auletta, World War 3.0, at 14 n.*. We do not know whether he spent even more time in untaped conversations with the same reporter, nor do we know how much time he spent with others. But we think it safe to assume that these interviews were not monologues. Interviews often become conversations. When reporters pose questions or make assertions, they may be furnishing information, information that may reflect their personal views of the case. The published accounts indicate this happened on at least one occasion. Ken Auletta reported, for example, that he told the Judge "that Microsoft employees professed shock that he thought they had violated the law and behaved unethically," at which time the Judge became "agitated" by "Microsoft's 'obstinacy'." Id. at 369. It is clear that Auletta had views of the case. As he wrote in a Washington Post editorial, "[a]nyone who sat in [the District Judge's] courtroom during the trial had seen ample evidence of Microsoft's sometimes thuggish tactics." Ken Auletta, Maligning the Microsoft Judge, Wash. Post, Mar. 7, 2001, at A23.
The District Judge's repeated violations of Canons 3A(6) and 3A(4) also violated Canon 2, which provides that "a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities." Code of Conduct Canon 2; see also In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct, 47 F.3d 399, 400 (10th Cir. Jud. Council 1995) ("The allegations of extra-judicial comments cause the Council substantial concern under both Canon 3A(6) and Canon 2 of the Judicial Code of Conduct."). Canon 2A requires federal judges to "respect and comply with the law" and to "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." Code of Conduct Canon 2A. The Code of Conduct is the law with respect to the ethical obligations of federal judges, and it is clear the District Judge violated it on multiple occasions in this case. The rampant disregard for the judiciary's ethical obligations that the public witnessed in this case undoubtedly jeopardizes "public confidence in the integrity" of the District Court proceedings.
Another point needs to be stressed. Rulings in this case have potentially huge financial consequences for one of the nation's largest publicly-traded companies and its investors. The District Judge's secret interviews during the trial provided a select few with inside information about the case, information that enabled them and anyone they shared it with to anticipate rulings before the Judge announced them to the world. Although he "embargoed" his comments, the Judge had no way of policing the reporters. For all he knew there may have been trading on the basis of the information he secretly conveyed. The public cannot be expected to maintain confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the federal judiciary in the face of such conduct.
So, perhaps, I should've used impropriety and impartiality instead of bias, though I have always interpreted bias as meaning (im)partiality.
In this case, however, we believe the line has been crossed. The public comments were not only improper, but also would lead a reasonable, informed observer to question the District Judge's impartiality. Public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is seriously jeopardized when judges secretly share their thoughts about the merits of pending cases with the press. Judges who covet publicity, or convey the appearance that they do, lead any objective observer to wonder whether their judgments are being influenced by the prospect of favorable coverage in the media. Discreet and limited public comments may not compromise a judge's apparent impartiality, but we have little doubt that the District Judge's conduct had that effect. Appearance may be all there is, but that is enough to invoke the Canons and s 455(a).
Oh, did i mention that turning off your phone isn't going to help? Batteries out is the key....
staying away from cell towers is the only thing that's going to help here, since you don't have to have a phone to be detected.
Ah, I see. So while it may not pinpoint a person, it could tell authorities that a particular call was relayed thru a particular mast, thus the odds are that the person they want to catch is in a certain radius??
No, this has nothing to do with relaying calls through the antenna. If you're using a phone they can track you anyway, especially when you're using it. What this is talking about is using the mast that your calls are relayed through as a radar, which allows them to pick up ANYTHING (over a certain size I'm sure, based on the wavelength and other factors) moving in that particular area, regardless of whether or not people are actually using a phone. If you're in an area that has a phone signal, the masts that provide for that signal can also be used to watch the movement of all people and vehicles in the area, though it can't identify them individually (unless they have phones, then they could probably put the two pieces of information together, or incoordination with other surveillance systems, as mentioned in the article, such as training a video camera on a person or vehicle that was spotted moving in the area of that camera). The example used in the article is that of monitoring sensitive areas, such as nuclear plants, so they can see, thanks to the cell masts, that a person or vehicle has approached or crossed the perimeter around that plant, and they can notify the plant's security or use the plant's existing systems to further identify the breach.
Actually, since the system doesn't even use the phones people are carrying, I'd guess that most of the remainder doesn't apply, either. Now, I'm sure they've already addressed where and when triangulation of your location due to your phone calls applies to wire-tapping laws.
The article does state that video surveillance systems might be coordinated with this system for cases such as monitoring sensitive perimeters, ie if the radar from the cell mast picks up something moving along the perimeter of a monitored site, the site could train it's video camera(s) on the area where movement was detected.
You didn't read the other 2 comments did you? You're the third person to say that.
They weren't there when I replied, so I apparently took longer to say pretty much the same thing.
But what's your point? If my mobile is turned off, then there are no radio emissions. There is nothing to bounce off me, and therefore nothing to detect.
They don't require the phones to bounce signals off of you. The radio emissions are from the mast that gives you cell service, not from the cell phones themselves, as some of the replies to this post have already stated. The signals will bounce off of anything, not just phones, just like normal radar. Of course, getting them to map out areas behind walls will be the major breakthrough, if they actually manage it, and shouldn't be too hard given that you can use your cell indoors to begin with.
What is new, however, is what this article is talking about: using the cell masts (the antennas that allow people to have cell service in an area, not the phones themselves) as a radar to track everything in a particular area. You don't have to carry a cell phone to be tracked, thanks to the fact that (almost) everyone wants cell service everywhere all the time.
We all know there are ways around it. How? Why, simply buy a pre-paid phone with cash, and turn the thing off when not in use.
You didn't read the article, did you? They aren't tracking the cell phones (that would be nothing new), they're tracking every moving person and vehicle within range of a cell phone tower by using the things like radar, reading the reflections of the signals being sent out of the tower.
I kind of glazed over this the first time, so I'd like to add:
It is more accurate that way because the pressing hand is not the moving hand. Thus, you don't veer off accidently while pointing.
This is one of the many reasons I use a trackball instead of a mouse. When clicking a button has a very real chance of moving your pointer, there's a problem. As it stands, when I'm using my trackball, I have 2 buttons and the mousewheel at my thumb, my forefinger on the ball, and the 2 remaining buttons are clicked using my middle and next finger, leaving only my pinkie finger without something to click on (which is just fine since, although I have better control over it than most people, it's not the best finger for precise independant control).
The NSA has nothing to do with checking security at laboratories and they certainly aren't a software development shop.
They have a lot to do with checking security on software, though, and for not being a software development shop, develop a lot of software. Of course, you don't have to take our word for it, you can just visit SELinux
Granted, talking to the media was unecesary, and maybe Penfiled had some "Edo" envy, but I don't see how it is wrong. It's not as though national secrets were at issue, or MS was being slandered (no one trusts them anyway).
I can just see it now, a judge instructing the jury: 'its ok to develop bias, as long as its during the trial rather than before'. No, even though we all know there's no way to stop people from having some bias, they should at least try to be impartial, and those instructions will always be to hear the entire case before making any decision.
I'm not looking for a witch hunt (is Bill heavier than a duck?), but Penfiled was right. His rulling was taken away from him on the basis of politics and bribes
No, the case was taken away from him because he decided to talk to the press during the trial instead of holding his tongue until it was over. His ruling was taken away from him because he didn't follow the correct procedures in the court, such as having a penalty phase in the trial before determining a penalty.
The question is does he have a point (in the recent article). Many of us regret that his comments gave the appeals court an easy target to strike down his decision, but I wonder whether that is the only reason, or would they have done the same under even more tortured logic.
The primary result of the 'appearance of bias' as cited in the appeals court ruling, was the removal of him as judge on the case. It was not part of the ruling to strike down his decision.
Is it possible that he could see and anticipate that they (MS) would use any twisted legal tactic to reduce and delay the impact of any decision, and that the public's right to know outweighed the risks to the correct final legal decision. After all, the court left in place everything but his remedy. The basic decisions and findings were sound.
The court didn't leave everything in place. They threw out or remanded for re-hearing almost 2/3rds of the case. They threw out the penalty that Jackson came up with because he didn't go through the proper (and normal) steps to come to that ruling, and didn't include the proper justification for that ruling. They upheld his 'findings of fact' because they believed that there was nothing wrong with them, and that bias, whether real or simply in appearance, did not have any affect on that portion. However, as the appeals court ruling and many other transcripts from the case can show, the findings of fact are not even the largest part of the case.
The Washington Post article specifically talks about interviews given during the trial. Considering the nature of the statements cited in the article, it should be fairly easy to see how at least an appearance of bias could be found, if not bias itself, and this was enough for him to be removed from the remainder of the case. Adding in the number of legal procedures that the judge bypassed in the trial gave more weight to the appearance of bias created by his interviews.
If I remember correctly, MS tried to have him removed fairly early on because they believed he would be biased by earlier cases related to MS which he oversaw (previous antitrust case?), but that didn't happen. It's only natural that they'd go on to bring up an appearance of bias in the appeal, and Jackson should've been aware of that possibility.
I do however agree with him on the fact that the people have a right to know.
The right to know what? The transcripts for the trial are freely available, but his comments outside of court made him appear biased, whether he actually was or not.
Maybe this will help free some information to the people in this process. It is a shame that a company is getting away with such a miscarriage of justice in this case simply because the judge made a few comments.
The comments he made simply got him removed from the trial. They had little weight in the other portions of the case the appeals court overturned or sent back to the court for review. It seems that this isn't the only rule that Judge Jackson had a problem with, as he ignored quite a few others during the trial, all of which are cited in the appeals court's ruling.
You put one hand on the keyboard, and the OTHER HAND on the mouse.
And, as I pointed out, this reduces the number of easily accessable keys on the keyboard, especially for those of us that use the mouse with our right hand. I've played FPS games long enough to be extremely good at using the mouse with one hand and the keyboard with the other, but it does require making sure the keys are laid out for optimum efficiency in this, making sure that nothing important is bound to the right half of the keyboard.
If you have to move your right hand from the mouse to the keyboard, it reduces the efficiency of the interface. Therefore, in an efficient interface that does make use of the mouse for pointing, your number of keys is reduced at least by half (not to mention the number pad and the arrow keys). Having more buttons on the mouse allows you to be more efficient if the software you use makes use of those buttons.
they want their 3dsmax.
and there is a UI from hell, too.
Further, the design assumes a middle mouse button, and middle mouse buttons are falling out of favor (because there are already 101 buttons on the keyboard, so why add yet more to the mouse). The keyboard equivs for the 3rd mouse button are horrendus if you don't have a middle button.
Most mice sold today have at least 3 mouse buttons. Mine has 4 + mouse wheel. Given that most of *nix assumes a 3rd mouse button, I fail to see the problem here. It's not like Blender is designed to run on Macs.
Besides, if the UI scares away newbies, then there will be less users and thus less people willing to support and improve it and make add-ons.
How many 3d and CAD packages have you used? Very few are newbie-friendly, and very few people learn to use them without a book or extensive tutorials. That being said, there's certainly room in most 3d software for improvement in the interface. However, something like the 3rd mouse button should be considered far less of a factor in improvement than making it configurable enough for those without a 3rd button to be able to use it (and while we're on it, using 4th and 5th mouse buttons would be a good thing too). When you're using a mouse-intensive application, the only keys that matter are those on the left side of the keyboard, and every mouse button you can add helps.
While the author does state that he believes intellectual property rights are a problem, he does go into what would be reasonable copyright/patent laws, rather than complete removal. For instance:
...
A temporary economic advantage for authors and inventors is created because a hopefully more valuable benefit will accrue to the public, and ultimately the lease expires and all rights return to the general public.
Creative works incur over 90 percent of their economic reward within almost a few years of their release, often less. Why are we working so hard to nearly infinitely increase the duration? Intellectual property is supposed to return to the public domain.
In other words, while he probably does not believe there should be any IP laws, he does see the reasons behind it. I think the best point he made was that extension of copyright terms essentially makes the authors and artists (or the holders of the copyright) the thieves by keeping a work out of the public domain, the very place the copyright laws were supposed to guarantee they would end up. When works go out of print because the copyright owner can't or won't maintain publishing, it's theft from the public. If a piece of work has been around long enough to go out of print in the first place, it's outlived the usefulness of it's copyright.
I certainly wouldn't care if my car getting stolen interrupted your movie for 10 seconds. Your trips to the bathroom'd take more than that.
Except for those of us that have a strong enough bladder to sit through a movie (yes, even LotR).
And, btw, you would care if it were your car.
I don't care enough to have my key ring tell me my alarm's going off. I'll find out when I'm done with my movie, and subsequently get pissed at mall security for not doing their job.
Male characters tend to be more gruff and muscular, implying physical capability, intimidation, and power.
with a waist as small as the women in the games and shoulders broader than a lineman in full pads. There's nothing realistic about MOST video game characters, regardless of sex.
That being said, trying to defend the designers of Tomb Raider is a joke. Personally, I've never known anyone that played Tomb Raider for the puzzles, and I'm not attracted to the large-breasted charicature in center-screen, so I simply don't play. The only thing I do thank Tomb Raider's creators for, is making 3rd person puzzlers popular again, so that there are plenty of others around if I do want to play them, many of which have much better puzzles and environments.