I think RIM is being disingenuous. Russia doesn't allow for type certification of any telecommunications gear that doesn't support their stringent legal intercept requirements, and RIM is launching Blackberry service there this year.
I doubt India is asking for more legal intercept authority than Russia insists on.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If it is more reasonable to assume that the absence of something suggests foul play then that is what people will believe, and that is the standard the jury is instructed to apply. They need not believe Reiser guilty beyond ALL doubt. Merely beyond all REASONABLE doubt. On some of the points of contention it may be admitted that individually they might present reasonable doubt (maybe he DOES like sleeping on wet carpet, maybe he really did remove the seat for more room) but taken together the entire scenario is not believable.
There are many ways to dispose of a body. Not all murder victims are found. If merely being unable to locate the body within the timeframe of the investigation and subsequent trial was enough to disallow a conviction, then an uncomfortably large number of murderers would be free.
#3 is only relevant to those who assume, because of the lack of a body, that Nina is still alive somewhere. As she is missing and Reiser is going to jail, it is reasonable to assume the children would go live with Nina's family.
#1 is hardly exonerating. If anything, it would add to Reiser's motive. Again, this is only relevant to those who assume, a priori, that Nina is alive, as it suggests to them an extremely elaborate frameup job.
Specifically regarding #6, while I certainly don't have access to all the evidence, I can tell you that without extraordinary measures Nina would not have been able to enter Russia without showing her passport and making her presence known. This does not mean that it is impossible (after all, Russia has extremely extensive borders).
Some would like to believe that Reiser's personality flaws got him convicted and find that outrageous, presumably because they share some of them. That's more than a little disheartening. However, all of this comes down to a question of which of the two explanations of events is more reasonable:
Nina, having stolen from Hans, plants blood evidence in his home and car, buys groceries, drives her car to a place nearby, leaves behind money, removes the battery from her cellphone, and leaves the United States and enters Russia without being detected by either state. She knows that the evidence she planted will lead to his conviction, which will prevent him from winning the custody battle in her absence, at which time the children would be free to join her in Russia. Coincidentally, nearly every action Reiser takes after her disappearance reveals nothing of Nina's plans or actions, and instead suggests a plausible scenario in which Reiser murdered Nina and attempted to conceal the evidence: hiding the car, washing it out, removing the seat, removing his cellphone battery, evading the police, and lying to the police. Apparently Nina knows him well enough to know that he will do these things or similar things that will guarantee a conviction-- after all, if it is found she is merely missing then she can no longer participate in the custody battle and it is likely he would win by default, unless the state could prove he was unfit and place the children in foster care.
Or:
Reiser murders Nina as the culmination of an acrimonious split and custody fight exacerbated by allegations of financial misdeeds on her part. Either the murder takes place in the car or he transports the body in the car, leaving behind blood evidence. As the passenger seat's cloth covering is thoroughly soaked and blood is elsewhere in the car, he removes the seat and discards it, and washes out the inside of the car to such a degree that it is still wet when the police locate it where he has hidden it. Knowing that he will be suspected given past history, he reads up on police investigation methods in an attempt to outwit them.
I can only assume that "that's what most of us would do" is a joke because I don't think most of us would remove a car seat without adequate cause and then sleep on wet carpet without having remembered it.
Can we blame him?
More mistakes in the review.
on
Drupal 5 Themes
·
· Score: 1
There are more mistakes regarding Drupal in the review than are pointed out in the book. Some menu breadcrumbs use ">" as a delimiter, while others use "|."
Because some Drupal themes use > as the breadcrumb delimiter, and some use |. This is entirely up to the theme author. Very likely those entries were cut and pasted directly from the Drupal output being referred to. The author states that enabling a theme and setting it as the default, applies it to "both front end and back end of the site" (page 31). Actually, it only changes the front-end theme; the back-end theme is set via Administer > Site configuration > Administration theme; oddly, he actually acknowledges this much later.
Because it only needs to be acknowledged later. By default, the setting for Administration theme is "system" which makes the administration (backend) theme the same as the site's (frontend) theme. It can be overridden by the site administrator to be any other theme, but until this default setting is changed (in other words, until the existence of it is mentioned) the statement above that setting a theme to default affects both the frontend and backend is accurate. In the theme configuration screenshots in Chapter 2, the "gagarin" theme is missing, even though it was supposedly installed earlier.
So?
On page 40, the author instructs, "To access all the user permissions and configuration screens in one place, view your administrator console by module." But Administer > Site building > Modules is not where the administrator sets user permissions and blog configurations.
Administer > Site building > Modules is not the administrator console by module. /admin in Drupal 5 by default is the Administration by Task console. It groups administrative options by grouping them into various task-related subgroups. Across the top of the page there is an option to display those options grouped by the module they are associated with, instead of the tasks they perform. The URL for that is admin/by-module, not admin/build/modules. The figure caption on page 50 could give a reader the mistaken idea that Drupal renames the custom logo image to "garland_logo.gif"
It does. If you upload a custom logo while editing site-specific themes, the image is uploaded and given a name that labels it as specific to that theme. If you instead enter in a path to a custom logo the file is neither renamed or moved. In the section describing how to set up the menus, the weights for the "Home" and "Contact Us" links are supposedly set to 10 and -10, respectively, which would place the former to the left of the latter; yet the illustration on page 148 shows the opposite.
You are mistaken. If "Contact Us" is weighted -10 and "Home" is weighted 10 then "Contact Us" will appear first, on the left, and "Home" will appear next, on the right (assuming there are no other menu items). Drupal's weighting system has always worked on the basis of the concept that lower numbered, or "lighter" items float to the top, while higher numbered items, or "heavy" items, sink to the bottom. Hence the use of the term "weight".
At a glance I'd say that this review is evidence that more than a passing familiarity with Drupal is necessary to provide a really useful review of a book covering this topic, unless one merely wishes to assert that one is a better copyeditor than the one at Packt.
MacOS has had a built-in feature called Speakable Items that does exactly this, and as an option you can have it respond only to things said after a specific key word-- in essence, the machine's name. "Minion" would work fine.
It is not true dictation. Essentially you create a script and give it a name. When your speech is recognized as the name of a corresponding script, the script is executed.
You can even make scripts that required multiple inputs. Some of the built-in ones in the Mac OS 9 days were knock knock jokes.
Why don't more Linux-using shops reach out to the Linux-using community?"
Why?
Because there's quite literally no connection whatsoever between these two things other than the word "Linux". That an embedded device uses Linux because a company has determined that this is the most reliable and cost-effective way of designing it has nothing to do with what market research tells them the majority of their end-users will be running on the desktop.
It's also possible, perhaps even likely, that the teams or individuals working on the embedded system in the device are distinct from those developing the desktop software run by end users.
There is also likely little in common, in terms of codebases, between the software run on the device and the software run by the end user. They need to communicate to each other, but they need not run on the same operating system to do so.
In fact, if having both the device and the end user interface run on the same operating system was that much of an advantage, in terms of development resources, it's likely that companies would produce their client software on Linux.
However, I'd say it's not, evidenced by the fact that they don't.
Seems to me the only argument to be made against this is on moral-- and rather shaky-- grounds. That since a company chooses to embed Linux in a device, that in addition to complying with the free software licenses that are applicable, that they should also cater to users of Linux on the desktop, even if their analysis of the market does not lead them to believe this to be cost effective.
Subsidized handsets are a normal thing in the industry.
The Apple deal, since it pays them recurring royalties over the life of the contract, are not.
I have no doubt that the purchase price of the phone is non-subsidized. Notice that you can purchase an iPhone at the same price, direct from Apple, without a contract. Of course, since even that handset is still locked, you end up having to get the contract anyway. That's not the usual model.
Look at Palm. It sells its smartphones through carriers, subsidized, at a lower price than they sell their own, unlocked smartphones, direct on their websites. People can, and do, pay $500-$700 for unlocked GSM smartphones because they need to use them everywhere around the world without paying roaming charges. It's worth it.
Technologically speaking, about the only thing about the iPhone that is different from most other phones is the touchscreen and the software that makes it run. All of its features (and more, in fact) are found in other smartphones at similar or lower prices.
Face it: iPhone buyers are paying full price. Their handsets are not subsidized. The cash that normally gets kicked back from the carrier to the purchaser as a subsidy on their handset is going to Apple in the form of royalties.
Actually, what he suggested is that it could be moved "by stipulation and order" and then withdrawn. I take that to mean that both sides mutually agree that the case is moved, and the court orders it so. The issue of whether to withdraw would be handled afterwards, through the new court.
He was just taking an opportunity to point out a few other things they'd done wrong and offer "friendly" advice on how to fix it. If they actually intended to withdraw (with or without prejudice) there'd be little point in stipulating to the change of jurisdiction first, which I think Ledford knows-- he's just pointing out that not only were they ill-prepared to win, but that they were also procedurally deficient as well.
How are those devices comparable?
The FIC 1973 doesn't include wifi or bluetooth. So no unwired headsets, and no VOIP (the primary reason for the iPhone remaining closed is to prevent someone from using its wifi capabilities for VOIP).
It does include GPS, which is nice, but the iPhone doesn't.
Open is better than closed, but I have a hard time imagining these two devices as appealing to the same users.
I'll be the first to point out that the US cellular market is odd in the way it works, and extremely unfair compared to what goes on in other countries.
This is partially the fault of deregulation, partially the fault of the failure of the government to properly foster competition, and partially the fault of the consumer, who decides that despite how evil it all is, they just have to have one anyway, which gives the companies no incentive whatsoever to change.
HOWEVER... the business model requires the carrier to subsidize the handset. Once they've done that, what makes anybody think they're going to allow that handset to bypass the sponsoring network for voice calls?
Tell the networks you don't want subsidized handsets. Prove to them that you want to pay full price for your own phone, and that you want to choose your provider whenever you like.
Let the device makers divorce themselves from the carriers and you'll get every feature you want.
Apple doesn't sell form over function. They differentiate on form, since for this class of device, nearly all the market entrants deliver the minimum required functionality.
Notice that the iPod sells as well as it does without published audio specifications. It is not an audiophile device. In fact, I think at the moment there is no such thing as an MP3 player that would meet the requirements of a discriminating audiophile, and for the vast majority of available content, this is irrelevant.
Just about any MP3 player with a decent pair of aftermarket headphones is going to deliver a "good enough" experience for most listeners. The differentiating factor is how the device looks and feels, how easy it is to use the player's interface, how easy it is to load content on the device, and how intrusive the required copy-protection restrictions are.
The combination of the iPod line of players and the iTunes software is "good enough" for a large number of people.
As far as phones go-- poorly integrated with carriers? Yes, please. I prefer unlocked GSM phones so I can choose my own provider whenever and wherever I am. As far as the bad, misleading and restrictive things that tech companies can do to you, Apple doesn't hold a candle to just about any cellular operator in the world.
Mediocre player? Depends on how you mean mediocre. The device, if it exists, will likely be as mediocre a player as the iPod itself is. You can take that however you like.
However, if, from the perspective of interface design, the first iteration Apple phone is anywhere near as good, compared to other phones, as the iPod is to other MP3 players, then I see no reason why the device couldn't be at least as good as the best Symbian based phones, and a good deal better than just about anything Motorola has produced in the past ten years-- including all-hype, no-function phones like the RAZR and, the ill-fated ROKR.
You're probably requiring the author to be a little more technically specific than he was trying to be.
He probably intended "random" to mean "not static" as he points out that dungeons in certain other games are the same regardless of when you visit them, whereas in Telengard this is not true.
That Telengard doesn't simply randomize everything, but follows a procedure, is probably important to the programmers but not to the players, who are only going to be interested in whether or not it is worth their time to make a graph paper map.
In the case of random or procedurally generated dungeons, the answer is no.
Leave it to Slashdot to comment on the CMS used to host an article and complain about the fact that TFA is still available *despite* the CMS chosen, rather than actually reading TFA.
Actually the WTO has provisions for doing exactly that. Talk to Antigua, they are contemplating petitioning the WTO for exactly that right in retaliation for the US banning of international online gambling.
Applicants petition for all kinds of things. They don't always get them. In this case, there's really little relation between the two items. It's a negotiation tactic.
The thing you forget is that by default all ideas, inventions, and performances belong to the public domain and will eventually be there. All forms of IP are artificial constructs which are supposed to be contracts between the creator and society - as represented by the government - to encourage the growth of that body of public domain works.
One might as well say that the idea of personal property is also an artificial construct. That doesn't make it any less valid among parties that agree to honor it. What is happening here is that a party which does not treat IP rights the same way is being urged to in exchange for membership in WTO.
There is no natural right to own an idea. It is perfectly acceptable for different countries, and therefor societies, to determine that someone else's contract is not suitable for their society.
This is true but outside the scope of the discussion. If Russia did not wish to join WTO, there would be no issue, although doubtless US companies would eventually raise the issue in some other context, perhaps by opening local offices, taking local companies to court, and petitioning various groups for legislative reform favorable to their position.
It is not necessary for such a natural right to exist for the US or other WTO member states to urge Russia to respect their arbitrarily agreed-to rights as a condition for membership. It is merely a quid pro quo.
Moreover, your argument doesn't reflect the facts. Russian law says that the artists must be compensated - at a rate set by the Russian Govt - and that the way to receive your share of the compensation is to go through ROMS. It's no different than the way the US handles compulsory licensing for public performances - there are 2 or 3 agencies that collect funds & disperse them to their members based on performance records and at a rate determined by the Library of Congress. If you do not belong to one of these agencies, you don't get paid. Because no physical media changes hands, the Russian law determines any digital audio transfer over the internet to be a performance. US law determines only streamed audio to be a performance. Given the proliferation of programs which convert streams to MP3's I think the Russian approach is much more practical and reflective of the reality of the situation.
I'm not sure which of the facts my argument doesn't reflect. I've acknowledged that the Russian law allowed for the site's activity. I never stated that AllofMP3 was illegal under Russian law prior to September. However, there are a number of important points:
Copyright holders outside the US may see no need to join membership organizations in each sovereign state in the world in order to defend their rights. They would not want to set a precedent for doing so, so joining ROMS is probably not an attractive option. It may not even be possible for them to join ROMS. Even so, the value proposition for what they would be paid for performances through ROMS is probably not attractive at all.
The reality of the law which treats MP3s as performances strikes me as incredibly impractical, not to mention disingenuous. There is a distinction between a performance and a recording. That technology now allows that distinction to be blurred by the existence of streaming MP3s makes that distinction harder to see, but not impossible.
That the companies don't MP3s treated in a radio performance model is understandable, even if you do believe they are just dirty money-grubbing companies who don't deserve a lick of sympathy. And they don't. H
Showing my age is fine by me.
ROMS, if I remember correctly, is a holdover from the Soviet era, as are other agencies like the KGB (well, KNB).
Very little has actually changed in the day to day operations of the government in Russia since the Soviet Union has collapsed. Privatization took lots of assets out of the control of the government (many it is seeking to get back now) but the things the government does now and has always done are not very much different.
Actually although I am originally from the States I have lived in the former Soviet Union for the past seven years.
Just like the user above, you've removed my following comment and inserted your own version. Considering national sovereignty to be carte blanche to do whatever you like is fine if you're willing to live completely outside any international community.
That includes membership in organizations like WTO, which includes countries like the U.S. The U.S. handles intellectual property differently than the Soviet Union did and differently than the Russian Federation does now. As a member of the WTO, the US is saying that if Russia wants the benefits of membership in the WTO, then it wants the intellectual property rights of US companies protected the same way in Russia as they are in the US.
If Russia doesn't care enough about WTO membership to do so, then they are free to get up from the table, and there is no shortage of pundits who think they should do exactly that.
Sovereignty is not being undermined here, at least not in any way that is fundamentally different from the influence that any sovereign state or group of sovereign states exercises on any other sovereign state during the normal course of trade relations.
Russia is being induced to change itself in order to get something it wants.
All you did was cut off my following comment and insert your own version of it.
I said a country CAN pass such laws, but if said country wants to join an organization like WTO, they are going to be asked to change them.
They did, and they have. Sovereignty has limits. You can do whatever you want within your own territory, but you can't expect everybody else to be happy about it all the time. And when they aren't happy about it, and you want something from them, then a negotiation begins.
What I objected to was the idea in the parent that such a negotiation somehow undermines the worldwide system of jurisprudence. It does not. It is a fairly well-established part of that system.
AllOfMP3, whether the RIAA like it or not, operated within Russian law (or at least, they did so until this past September). Whether or not the new law closes the "loophole" (if you can call strong fair-use rights and lax copyright enforcement by-design a "loophole") will have to wait for the Russian authorities to make a case against someone.
People can repeat that site's FUD ad infinitum if they like, but it cannot make falsehood into the truth.
AllofMP3's rights derived from a Soviet government asserted right to any and all intellectual property being broadcast within the Soviet Union. That the Soviet government had no such rights to distribute intellectual properties from the holders of those properties was irrelevant to the Soviet government. The only intellectual property rights they were interested in were those of the state's. Anything the state produced or condoned was fine, and rights to those were distributed (if needed) by the state. Intellectual property that was not condoned was forbidden, and rights to those were irrelevant.
Any western films and music that were not officially allowed were prohibited, and any copies of them that might exist were contraband.
With the opening of Russia to the West and the collapse of the Soviet Union, western media were not so tightly controlled. However, the state still had agencies within it granted sweeping rights to control intellectual property anywhere within the Russian Federation, regardless of the fact that the government was no longer the sole source of all those rights.
When you watch a movie, the warning says that the intellectual property is protected by local laws and international agreements. The only way that companies who deal in intellectual property are willing to set up shop overseas and officially distribute their wares is if they know there are not just local laws, but international agreements in place so their rights can be protected.
Allofmp3 can have whatever rights it wants given to them by the Russian government, but the fact of the matter is, the Russian government did not have the authority to give the site those rights because it didn't have them. You can't just pass a law that says that any intellectual property that happens to come within your borders (no matter how it got there) is fair game to be bought, sold, and copied by anyone who likes without any compensation to the owners of the rights to those properties.
Or, rather, you can, but as Russia has finally come to grips with, you cannot have a situation like this and enter into trade organizations like WTO.
Either way, to announce the closing of AllOfMP3 as practically the basis of an international trade agreement strikes me as the most capricious undermining of the concept of modern jurisprudence imagineable. This announcement effectively says "The rule of law does not apply to the king's friends, and its protections do not extend to the king's friends' enemies".
You have grossly misunderstood the situation.
The only concept that is being underscored here is the universal concept that international agreements supersede local laws. If the duly designated representative or representatives of a government of a country have entered into international agreements that state that the producers of intellectual properties from outside that country's borders will be respected within that country's borders, then other elements of that government, such as the legislature, cannot supersede that arrangement.
Rights granted to AllofMP3 were null an void because the government agency granting them did not have the authority to; and now, Russia has signed an international agreement that does nothing more than recognize that fact.
Buildings do not remain standing very long if you undermine their foundations. This should chill us all for a much, MUCH deeper reason than merely the loss of a way to get cheap music. I personally never even used AllOfMP3, and this scares the hell out of me. Imagine the same pr
The problem is not a conflict of interest per se. Plenty of institutions have dedicated information agencies that present messages about themselves. This is what public relations is.
The problem is calling this "reportage" or "fact correction". It's only "correction" if you trust the Pentagon's version of events and distrust the account they are correcting. If you disagree with the Pentagon's version, then the proper word is "propaganda".
I left the U.S. in 1999 and have lived in Kazakhstan ever since.
No, I'm not joking.
Since I'm not a citizen of Kazakhstan, I don't have any access to the political system. So one can argue that I am no more free and have no more influence on national politics than I did when I lived in the United States.
But at least nobody bothers to pretend that I do. It's refreshing, in a way.
What does one have to do with the other?
The HP scandal revolves around a leak at the very top-- a member of the board of directors who supplied inside information directly to journalists.
What the heck do all these amateurish gadgets have to do with anything? And how is being aware of them or being able to protect oneself from them of any value when one of your own board members is giving information to the press?
There's no technological silver bullet for that kind of problem. Trying to connect these two subjects is just silly.
Also, for the record, Halo and Marathon are not connected. They take place in separate universes, but cover similar themes, and there are some references in the new game to the old one (namely, the logo for the Pillar of Autumn is the same as the logo for the Marathon colony ship).
So, you're suggesting that Apple only released the source code because, since TPM was already bypassed, there was no reason not to do so? And that they reached this decision coincidentally at their annual developer conference?
Apple wasn't doing the right thing? I'm not sure I follow. Is there some sort of statute of limitations in effect here-- that the kernel isn't considered open source unless it's released within a certain period of time?
The sites in question speculated that Apple's failure to provide sources for the most recent kernel immediately signaled a change in policy: that there would be no more such releases. Apple did refute that at the time, and has now released the source.
The so-called news stories were nothing more than speculation. If Apple had chosen not to release source code to the Darwin kernel ever again, those publications could rightly claim to have predicted the action. If Apple did release the source, they could claim to have caused it by stirring up a controversy that really never existed in the first place.
Although I'm not a programmer, I'm glad Apple chooses to at least provide SOME source code. However, there appear to be elements in the community that seem unhappy with anything less than total and immediate transparency which is something I do not think Apple will ever do, nor perhaps should they, lest they risk putting themselves out of business.
If I had to hazard guess, I'd say that Apple is releasing source code because they honestly want to participate (to some degree) in the open source community, and not for the public relations value only. That has proven to be of dubious value so far; if it was the only motivation then I think they would have closed the kernel source code already.
Slashdot Mirror
I think RIM is being disingenuous. Russia doesn't allow for type certification of any telecommunications gear that doesn't support their stringent legal intercept requirements, and RIM is launching Blackberry service there this year.
I doubt India is asking for more legal intercept authority than Russia insists on.
With regards to #2, #5, and #6:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If it is more reasonable to assume that the absence of something suggests foul play then that is what people will believe, and that is the standard the jury is instructed to apply. They need not believe Reiser guilty beyond ALL doubt. Merely beyond all REASONABLE doubt. On some of the points of contention it may be admitted that individually they might present reasonable doubt (maybe he DOES like sleeping on wet carpet, maybe he really did remove the seat for more room) but taken together the entire scenario is not believable.
There are many ways to dispose of a body. Not all murder victims are found. If merely being unable to locate the body within the timeframe of the investigation and subsequent trial was enough to disallow a conviction, then an uncomfortably large number of murderers would be free.
#3 is only relevant to those who assume, because of the lack of a body, that Nina is still alive somewhere. As she is missing and Reiser is going to jail, it is reasonable to assume the children would go live with Nina's family.
#1 is hardly exonerating. If anything, it would add to Reiser's motive. Again, this is only relevant to those who assume, a priori, that Nina is alive, as it suggests to them an extremely elaborate frameup job.
Specifically regarding #6, while I certainly don't have access to all the evidence, I can tell you that without extraordinary measures Nina would not have been able to enter Russia without showing her passport and making her presence known. This does not mean that it is impossible (after all, Russia has extremely extensive borders).
Some would like to believe that Reiser's personality flaws got him convicted and find that outrageous, presumably because they share some of them. That's more than a little disheartening. However, all of this comes down to a question of which of the two explanations of events is more reasonable:
Nina, having stolen from Hans, plants blood evidence in his home and car, buys groceries, drives her car to a place nearby, leaves behind money, removes the battery from her cellphone, and leaves the United States and enters Russia without being detected by either state. She knows that the evidence she planted will lead to his conviction, which will prevent him from winning the custody battle in her absence, at which time the children would be free to join her in Russia. Coincidentally, nearly every action Reiser takes after her disappearance reveals nothing of Nina's plans or actions, and instead suggests a plausible scenario in which Reiser murdered Nina and attempted to conceal the evidence: hiding the car, washing it out, removing the seat, removing his cellphone battery, evading the police, and lying to the police. Apparently Nina knows him well enough to know that he will do these things or similar things that will guarantee a conviction-- after all, if it is found she is merely missing then she can no longer participate in the custody battle and it is likely he would win by default, unless the state could prove he was unfit and place the children in foster care.
Or:
Reiser murders Nina as the culmination of an acrimonious split and custody fight exacerbated by allegations of financial misdeeds on her part. Either the murder takes place in the car or he transports the body in the car, leaving behind blood evidence. As the passenger seat's cloth covering is thoroughly soaked and blood is elsewhere in the car, he removes the seat and discards it, and washes out the inside of the car to such a degree that it is still wet when the police locate it where he has hidden it. Knowing that he will be suspected given past history, he reads up on police investigation methods in an attempt to outwit them.
I can only assume that "that's what most of us would do" is a joke because I don't think most of us would remove a car seat without adequate cause and then sleep on wet carpet without having remembered it.
Can we blame him?
There are more mistakes regarding Drupal in the review than are pointed out in the book.
/admin in Drupal 5 by default is the Administration by Task console. It groups administrative options by grouping them into various task-related subgroups. Across the top of the page there is an option to display those options grouped by the module they are associated with, instead of the tasks they perform. The URL for that is admin/by-module, not admin/build/modules.
Some menu breadcrumbs use ">" as a delimiter, while others use "|."
Because some Drupal themes use > as the breadcrumb delimiter, and some use |. This is entirely up to the theme author. Very likely those entries were cut and pasted directly from the Drupal output being referred to.
The author states that enabling a theme and setting it as the default, applies it to "both front end and back end of the site" (page 31). Actually, it only changes the front-end theme; the back-end theme is set via Administer > Site configuration > Administration theme; oddly, he actually acknowledges this much later.
Because it only needs to be acknowledged later. By default, the setting for Administration theme is "system" which makes the administration (backend) theme the same as the site's (frontend) theme. It can be overridden by the site administrator to be any other theme, but until this default setting is changed (in other words, until the existence of it is mentioned) the statement above that setting a theme to default affects both the frontend and backend is accurate.
In the theme configuration screenshots in Chapter 2, the "gagarin" theme is missing, even though it was supposedly installed earlier.
So?
On page 40, the author instructs, "To access all the user permissions and configuration screens in one place, view your administrator console by module." But Administer > Site building > Modules is not where the administrator sets user permissions and blog configurations.
Administer > Site building > Modules is not the administrator console by module.
The figure caption on page 50 could give a reader the mistaken idea that Drupal renames the custom logo image to "garland_logo.gif"
It does. If you upload a custom logo while editing site-specific themes, the image is uploaded and given a name that labels it as specific to that theme. If you instead enter in a path to a custom logo the file is neither renamed or moved.
In the section describing how to set up the menus, the weights for the "Home" and "Contact Us" links are supposedly set to 10 and -10, respectively, which would place the former to the left of the latter; yet the illustration on page 148 shows the opposite.
You are mistaken. If "Contact Us" is weighted -10 and "Home" is weighted 10 then "Contact Us" will appear first, on the left, and "Home" will appear next, on the right (assuming there are no other menu items). Drupal's weighting system has always worked on the basis of the concept that lower numbered, or "lighter" items float to the top, while higher numbered items, or "heavy" items, sink to the bottom. Hence the use of the term "weight".
At a glance I'd say that this review is evidence that more than a passing familiarity with Drupal is necessary to provide a really useful review of a book covering this topic, unless one merely wishes to assert that one is a better copyeditor than the one at Packt.
MacOS has had a built-in feature called Speakable Items that does exactly this, and as an option you can have it respond only to things said after a specific key word-- in essence, the machine's name. "Minion" would work fine.
It is not true dictation. Essentially you create a script and give it a name. When your speech is recognized as the name of a corresponding script, the script is executed.
You can even make scripts that required multiple inputs. Some of the built-in ones in the Mac OS 9 days were knock knock jokes.
Why?
Because there's quite literally no connection whatsoever between these two things other than the word "Linux". That an embedded device uses Linux because a company has determined that this is the most reliable and cost-effective way of designing it has nothing to do with what market research tells them the majority of their end-users will be running on the desktop.
It's also possible, perhaps even likely, that the teams or individuals working on the embedded system in the device are distinct from those developing the desktop software run by end users.
There is also likely little in common, in terms of codebases, between the software run on the device and the software run by the end user. They need to communicate to each other, but they need not run on the same operating system to do so.
In fact, if having both the device and the end user interface run on the same operating system was that much of an advantage, in terms of development resources, it's likely that companies would produce their client software on Linux.
However, I'd say it's not, evidenced by the fact that they don't.
Seems to me the only argument to be made against this is on moral-- and rather shaky-- grounds. That since a company chooses to embed Linux in a device, that in addition to complying with the free software licenses that are applicable, that they should also cater to users of Linux on the desktop, even if their analysis of the market does not lead them to believe this to be cost effective.
Subsidized handsets are a normal thing in the industry.
The Apple deal, since it pays them recurring royalties over the life of the contract, are not.
I have no doubt that the purchase price of the phone is non-subsidized. Notice that you can purchase an iPhone at the same price, direct from Apple, without a contract. Of course, since even that handset is still locked, you end up having to get the contract anyway. That's not the usual model.
Look at Palm. It sells its smartphones through carriers, subsidized, at a lower price than they sell their own, unlocked smartphones, direct on their websites. People can, and do, pay $500-$700 for unlocked GSM smartphones because they need to use them everywhere around the world without paying roaming charges. It's worth it.
Technologically speaking, about the only thing about the iPhone that is different from most other phones is the touchscreen and the software that makes it run. All of its features (and more, in fact) are found in other smartphones at similar or lower prices.
Face it: iPhone buyers are paying full price. Their handsets are not subsidized. The cash that normally gets kicked back from the carrier to the purchaser as a subsidy on their handset is going to Apple in the form of royalties.
You might already own a license that allows for installing OS X on more than one Apple machine.
Actually, what he suggested is that it could be moved "by stipulation and order" and then withdrawn. I take that to mean that both sides mutually agree that the case is moved, and the court orders it so. The issue of whether to withdraw would be handled afterwards, through the new court.
He was just taking an opportunity to point out a few other things they'd done wrong and offer "friendly" advice on how to fix it. If they actually intended to withdraw (with or without prejudice) there'd be little point in stipulating to the change of jurisdiction first, which I think Ledford knows-- he's just pointing out that not only were they ill-prepared to win, but that they were also procedurally deficient as well.
There needs to be a way to mod this whole item -1 troll.
How are those devices comparable? The FIC 1973 doesn't include wifi or bluetooth. So no unwired headsets, and no VOIP (the primary reason for the iPhone remaining closed is to prevent someone from using its wifi capabilities for VOIP). It does include GPS, which is nice, but the iPhone doesn't. Open is better than closed, but I have a hard time imagining these two devices as appealing to the same users.
I'll be the first to point out that the US cellular market is odd in the way it works, and extremely unfair compared to what goes on in other countries.
This is partially the fault of deregulation, partially the fault of the failure of the government to properly foster competition, and partially the fault of the consumer, who decides that despite how evil it all is, they just have to have one anyway, which gives the companies no incentive whatsoever to change.
HOWEVER... the business model requires the carrier to subsidize the handset. Once they've done that, what makes anybody think they're going to allow that handset to bypass the sponsoring network for voice calls?
Tell the networks you don't want subsidized handsets. Prove to them that you want to pay full price for your own phone, and that you want to choose your provider whenever you like.
Let the device makers divorce themselves from the carriers and you'll get every feature you want.
The Apple-Cingular deal is the opposite of that.
Apple doesn't sell form over function. They differentiate on form, since for this class of device, nearly all the market entrants deliver the minimum required functionality.
Notice that the iPod sells as well as it does without published audio specifications. It is not an audiophile device. In fact, I think at the moment there is no such thing as an MP3 player that would meet the requirements of a discriminating audiophile, and for the vast majority of available content, this is irrelevant.
Just about any MP3 player with a decent pair of aftermarket headphones is going to deliver a "good enough" experience for most listeners. The differentiating factor is how the device looks and feels, how easy it is to use the player's interface, how easy it is to load content on the device, and how intrusive the required copy-protection restrictions are.
The combination of the iPod line of players and the iTunes software is "good enough" for a large number of people.
As far as phones go-- poorly integrated with carriers? Yes, please. I prefer unlocked GSM phones so I can choose my own provider whenever and wherever I am. As far as the bad, misleading and restrictive things that tech companies can do to you, Apple doesn't hold a candle to just about any cellular operator in the world.
Mediocre player? Depends on how you mean mediocre. The device, if it exists, will likely be as mediocre a player as the iPod itself is. You can take that however you like.
However, if, from the perspective of interface design, the first iteration Apple phone is anywhere near as good, compared to other phones, as the iPod is to other MP3 players, then I see no reason why the device couldn't be at least as good as the best Symbian based phones, and a good deal better than just about anything Motorola has produced in the past ten years-- including all-hype, no-function phones like the RAZR and, the ill-fated ROKR.
You're probably requiring the author to be a little more technically specific than he was trying to be.
He probably intended "random" to mean "not static" as he points out that dungeons in certain other games are the same regardless of when you visit them, whereas in Telengard this is not true.
That Telengard doesn't simply randomize everything, but follows a procedure, is probably important to the programmers but not to the players, who are only going to be interested in whether or not it is worth their time to make a graph paper map.
In the case of random or procedurally generated dungeons, the answer is no.
Leave it to Slashdot to comment on the CMS used to host an article and complain about the fact that TFA is still available *despite* the CMS chosen, rather than actually reading TFA.
You, sir, astound me.
Applicants petition for all kinds of things. They don't always get them. In this case, there's really little relation between the two items. It's a negotiation tactic.
The thing you forget is that by default all ideas, inventions, and performances belong to the public domain and will eventually be there. All forms of IP are artificial constructs which are supposed to be contracts between the creator and society - as represented by the government - to encourage the growth of that body of public domain works.
One might as well say that the idea of personal property is also an artificial construct. That doesn't make it any less valid among parties that agree to honor it. What is happening here is that a party which does not treat IP rights the same way is being urged to in exchange for membership in WTO.
There is no natural right to own an idea. It is perfectly acceptable for different countries, and therefor societies, to determine that someone else's contract is not suitable for their society.
This is true but outside the scope of the discussion. If Russia did not wish to join WTO, there would be no issue, although doubtless US companies would eventually raise the issue in some other context, perhaps by opening local offices, taking local companies to court, and petitioning various groups for legislative reform favorable to their position.
It is not necessary for such a natural right to exist for the US or other WTO member states to urge Russia to respect their arbitrarily agreed-to rights as a condition for membership. It is merely a quid pro quo.
I'm not sure which of the facts my argument doesn't reflect. I've acknowledged that the Russian law allowed for the site's activity. I never stated that AllofMP3 was illegal under Russian law prior to September. However, there are a number of important points:
Copyright holders outside the US may see no need to join membership organizations in each sovereign state in the world in order to defend their rights. They would not want to set a precedent for doing so, so joining ROMS is probably not an attractive option. It may not even be possible for them to join ROMS. Even so, the value proposition for what they would be paid for performances through ROMS is probably not attractive at all.
The reality of the law which treats MP3s as performances strikes me as incredibly impractical, not to mention disingenuous. There is a distinction between a performance and a recording. That technology now allows that distinction to be blurred by the existence of streaming MP3s makes that distinction harder to see, but not impossible.
That the companies don't MP3s treated in a radio performance model is understandable, even if you do believe they are just dirty money-grubbing companies who don't deserve a lick of sympathy. And they don't. H
Showing my age is fine by me. ROMS, if I remember correctly, is a holdover from the Soviet era, as are other agencies like the KGB (well, KNB). Very little has actually changed in the day to day operations of the government in Russia since the Soviet Union has collapsed. Privatization took lots of assets out of the control of the government (many it is seeking to get back now) but the things the government does now and has always done are not very much different.
Actually although I am originally from the States I have lived in the former Soviet Union for the past seven years.
Just like the user above, you've removed my following comment and inserted your own version. Considering national sovereignty to be carte blanche to do whatever you like is fine if you're willing to live completely outside any international community.
That includes membership in organizations like WTO, which includes countries like the U.S. The U.S. handles intellectual property differently than the Soviet Union did and differently than the Russian Federation does now. As a member of the WTO, the US is saying that if Russia wants the benefits of membership in the WTO, then it wants the intellectual property rights of US companies protected the same way in Russia as they are in the US.
If Russia doesn't care enough about WTO membership to do so, then they are free to get up from the table, and there is no shortage of pundits who think they should do exactly that.
Sovereignty is not being undermined here, at least not in any way that is fundamentally different from the influence that any sovereign state or group of sovereign states exercises on any other sovereign state during the normal course of trade relations.
Russia is being induced to change itself in order to get something it wants.
All you did was cut off my following comment and insert your own version of it.
I said a country CAN pass such laws, but if said country wants to join an organization like WTO, they are going to be asked to change them.
They did, and they have. Sovereignty has limits. You can do whatever you want within your own territory, but you can't expect everybody else to be happy about it all the time. And when they aren't happy about it, and you want something from them, then a negotiation begins.
What I objected to was the idea in the parent that such a negotiation somehow undermines the worldwide system of jurisprudence. It does not. It is a fairly well-established part of that system.
AllOfMP3, whether the RIAA like it or not, operated within Russian law (or at least, they did so until this past September). Whether or not the new law closes the "loophole" (if you can call strong fair-use rights and lax copyright enforcement by-design a "loophole") will have to wait for the Russian authorities to make a case against someone.
People can repeat that site's FUD ad infinitum if they like, but it cannot make falsehood into the truth.
AllofMP3's rights derived from a Soviet government asserted right to any and all intellectual property being broadcast within the Soviet Union. That the Soviet government had no such rights to distribute intellectual properties from the holders of those properties was irrelevant to the Soviet government. The only intellectual property rights they were interested in were those of the state's. Anything the state produced or condoned was fine, and rights to those were distributed (if needed) by the state. Intellectual property that was not condoned was forbidden, and rights to those were irrelevant.
Any western films and music that were not officially allowed were prohibited, and any copies of them that might exist were contraband.
With the opening of Russia to the West and the collapse of the Soviet Union, western media were not so tightly controlled. However, the state still had agencies within it granted sweeping rights to control intellectual property anywhere within the Russian Federation, regardless of the fact that the government was no longer the sole source of all those rights.
When you watch a movie, the warning says that the intellectual property is protected by local laws and international agreements. The only way that companies who deal in intellectual property are willing to set up shop overseas and officially distribute their wares is if they know there are not just local laws, but international agreements in place so their rights can be protected.
Allofmp3 can have whatever rights it wants given to them by the Russian government, but the fact of the matter is, the Russian government did not have the authority to give the site those rights because it didn't have them. You can't just pass a law that says that any intellectual property that happens to come within your borders (no matter how it got there) is fair game to be bought, sold, and copied by anyone who likes without any compensation to the owners of the rights to those properties.
Or, rather, you can, but as Russia has finally come to grips with, you cannot have a situation like this and enter into trade organizations like WTO.
Either way, to announce the closing of AllOfMP3 as practically the basis of an international trade agreement strikes me as the most capricious undermining of the concept of modern jurisprudence imagineable. This announcement effectively says "The rule of law does not apply to the king's friends, and its protections do not extend to the king's friends' enemies".
You have grossly misunderstood the situation.
The only concept that is being underscored here is the universal concept that international agreements supersede local laws. If the duly designated representative or representatives of a government of a country have entered into international agreements that state that the producers of intellectual properties from outside that country's borders will be respected within that country's borders, then other elements of that government, such as the legislature, cannot supersede that arrangement.
Rights granted to AllofMP3 were null an void because the government agency granting them did not have the authority to; and now, Russia has signed an international agreement that does nothing more than recognize that fact.
Buildings do not remain standing very long if you undermine their foundations. This should chill us all for a much, MUCH deeper reason than merely the loss of a way to get cheap music. I personally never even used AllOfMP3, and this scares the hell out of me. Imagine the same pr
The problem is not a conflict of interest per se. Plenty of institutions have dedicated information agencies that present messages about themselves. This is what public relations is.
The problem is calling this "reportage" or "fact correction". It's only "correction" if you trust the Pentagon's version of events and distrust the account they are correcting. If you disagree with the Pentagon's version, then the proper word is "propaganda".
I left the U.S. in 1999 and have lived in Kazakhstan ever since.
No, I'm not joking.
Since I'm not a citizen of Kazakhstan, I don't have any access to the political system. So one can argue that I am no more free and have no more influence on national politics than I did when I lived in the United States.
But at least nobody bothers to pretend that I do. It's refreshing, in a way.
What does one have to do with the other? The HP scandal revolves around a leak at the very top-- a member of the board of directors who supplied inside information directly to journalists. What the heck do all these amateurish gadgets have to do with anything? And how is being aware of them or being able to protect oneself from them of any value when one of your own board members is giving information to the press? There's no technological silver bullet for that kind of problem. Trying to connect these two subjects is just silly.
Given that the noise means it was stolen, rather than smashing it with a brick you could simply disconnect the battery and turn it in to the police.
By doing exactly what they have done. Handing over the franchise to other studios.
Ensemble is making the RTS.
Wingnut will make a new Halo series after Halo 3.
Bungie is finishing Halo 3.
That means that MS gets what it wants-- a continuation to their sole system-selling franchise.
Bungie is freed up to make non-Halo games if it chooses.
http://rampancy.net/blog/narcogen/28092006/the_pas sing_of_the_torch
Also, for the record, Halo and Marathon are not connected. They take place in separate universes, but cover similar themes, and there are some references in the new game to the old one (namely, the logo for the Pillar of Autumn is the same as the logo for the Marathon colony ship).
So, you're suggesting that Apple only released the source code because, since TPM was already bypassed, there was no reason not to do so? And that they reached this decision coincidentally at their annual developer conference?
Apple wasn't doing the right thing? I'm not sure I follow. Is there some sort of statute of limitations in effect here-- that the kernel isn't considered open source unless it's released within a certain period of time?
The sites in question speculated that Apple's failure to provide sources for the most recent kernel immediately signaled a change in policy: that there would be no more such releases. Apple did refute that at the time, and has now released the source.
The so-called news stories were nothing more than speculation. If Apple had chosen not to release source code to the Darwin kernel ever again, those publications could rightly claim to have predicted the action. If Apple did release the source, they could claim to have caused it by stirring up a controversy that really never existed in the first place.
Although I'm not a programmer, I'm glad Apple chooses to at least provide SOME source code. However, there appear to be elements in the community that seem unhappy with anything less than total and immediate transparency which is something I do not think Apple will ever do, nor perhaps should they, lest they risk putting themselves out of business.
If I had to hazard guess, I'd say that Apple is releasing source code because they honestly want to participate (to some degree) in the open source community, and not for the public relations value only. That has proven to be of dubious value so far; if it was the only motivation then I think they would have closed the kernel source code already.