Wait a sec... you didn't mean to imply that the cops / government would care if they knocked someone's pacemaker out, did you? Oh, you funny, funny person, you.:^)
Haven't citizens already passed judgment on a law in the very process of creating it?
Not in the USA. The citizenry have nothing to do with crafting the law here. That's done by legislators, pre-selected by the political party machines, where both said political machines and legislators work for lobbyists, who in turn represent special interest groups such as "Drill, baby, Drill", "Zygotes Are People Too", "OMFG homos!, LLC" and the hon. Rev. Dumbkopf, Holy Leader of "Mythology Should Control Sexuality." In the process, they typically ignore their solemn oaths to obey and defend the constitution that authorizes them to even have jobs making law which is required to conform to the constitution; even above and beyond that, they don't think the process through and almost uniformly create waves of unintended consequences (prohibition is the poster child for that one, not by any means alone but certainly one of the most high-profile foulups our government has ever entered into); and they hardly ever go back and fix anything they've broken. Even when it harms the living heck out of said citizens, obviously, publicly, and with great regularity.
Basically, it's a madhouse. Our legal system sucks rocks, doesn't address fairness or justice worth a darn, and is not uncommonly completely unauthorized to our form of government. Also, it is basically a form of institutionalized corporate fellatio. So those of us who are actually paying attention tend to be very grateful for the opportunity to redress a few of the government's many, many wrongs with low-level tools like jury nullification.
Here's the thing. I *had* great-great grandparents; because I'm here. That's how we get here. So we can establish the validity right up front that such great great folks definitely existed. The storybook Jesus had no offspring, so that line of evidence is closed.
Next, I never claimed that my grandparents were magical creatures, able to convert water into wine, walk on water, etc. So we can assume we're looking for normal people, which we also have evidence existed.
Next, odds are pretty good that we can find others talking about my great greats, people who actually knew them. This is because (a) they absolutely did exist, and (b) they were moderately well known individuals. In fact, as it turns out, I have reams of this stuff (I maintain the genealogy for my family, so it's actually in my hands.) I've even got my great-great's state department paperwork. Awesome stuff. No crushing of citizen's rights at the border for them, no sir. But that's another lament.
Jesus, a miracle working dude of magical incarnation, existence, actions and exeunt... you could hardly be more stand-out in a crowd... well, as it turns out no one -- NO ONE -- from his time even noticed him enough to write down "cured a leper." That all came later. As the evidence to date indicates, anyway. Doesn't that strike you as... at least curious? Magic dude inspires NO reaction? And then there's the story, which indicates the opposite: he made quite a splash, according to the gospels. Something seems definitely wrong here.
Now let's consider: we know that there have been exactly zero instances of miracles or magic demonstrated under reasonable test conditions. So we tend to treat reports of them as imaginary, at least if we're smart. Now, we find a story about Some Magical Dude in a book that is stuffed with stories about miracles and magic. There's no other evidence that didn't essentially come from the same place as the book: The Christian cultists.
Now why, I ask you, should we give any more credence to these cultists than we do, for instance, to those who told us of Zeus and so forth? Using the same standards (that is, if the story is magical, it's nonsense), all supernatural issues are discarded. And as Jesus was very much a supernatural portion of the Christian narrative, he goes first, UNLESS we can find contemporaneous evidence that confirms his existence through other means. Reports by people who were born after him don't count; we want reports from his contemporaries. Even a receipt, for instance "cross, nails, spear, crown of thorns, crime: annoyed the heck out of ol' Pontius, name: Hayzuess of Nazereth" would be of great interest. But there is nothing at all. When we have contemporaneous evidence, we accept that part of the story has some relationship to reality; for instance, we know from many sources that there were Romans; the story contains Romans; there is a relationship there. What it is is something we can talk about, but we agree there is such a relationship of some kind.
Or, as was put most eloquently: Extraordinary events require extraordinary proof. My great-great-grandparents, lovely though they were, were not extraordinary. Jesus, however, is said to be so by the story. Consequently, our standards for proving he existed must be similar. Yet he fails even the most basic tests for existence: he left no mark on his contemporaries. So we don't, in fact, know he existed.
As a licensed amateur myself, I'm curious what you would envision as a "significant use of the RF spectrum by the people".
Low power (community level), local AM and/or FM and/or television broadcast stations. RF networking. All unregulated except for signal quality and channelization. Those are the ones that we would benefit most directly from, at least as far as I've given it thought.
My guess is that any move to "open" the spectrum to the lay public would result in something like 4chan without the good manners and taste.:-)
I don't disagree, but it would *also* open the spectrum to the occasional citizen with valuable content to offer, and therefore give others a chance to hear what they have to say, as opposed to the corporate/government combined viewpoint. As long as basic channelization is maintained, individual signals would be discernable, and so one could browse and choose as one saw fit.
I'm no big fan of the FCC, but the RF spectrum is too valuable to be ruined by a tragedy of the commons. It needs supervision and oversight, or it becomes worthless to everyone.
I see that as disingenuous. As a ham, in fact particularly as a ham -- you should know full well that giving a bit of spectrum to the public, using type-approved gear, won't cause the rest of it to become unusable or decrease its social value or otherwise cause any significant spectrum related trouble at all.
For instance, hand off 10% of the AM, FM, and television bands for local, low power use, and now... what "tragedy" occurs? Corporations have a little less ground to try and sell us Gold Coins, Coast to Coast has a little less spectrum to tell us about Ghosts and UFOs and Hollow Earth, and television has a little less spectrum to pour evangelistic Christianity and "reality" shows down our throats. I don't see it as a potential tragedy; I see it as a glorious victory for the common man, and a step up the ladder of civilization.
There are over 100 usable broadcast channels in the US between 540 and 1700 KHz; Assigning ten of them for local use would result, I think, in a most interesting burst of self-expression from the public. A lot of it would be trash, of course, but -- just for instance -- one might encounter a well spoken atheist, or a libertarian, or a socialist, or a communist -- all people we *never* get to hear from or talk to within the confines of the corporate/government controlled airwaves. And that's not even counting what could happen with similar allocations of FM and television channels.
I think it is important to consider that free expression is valuable, and it is also important that note that we have very little of it, when you get right down to it, as far as the airwaves go.
And as for RF networking... right now, corporations have engineered a government sponsored monopoly. I'd like to see that end, straight up. I think it's disgusting, at best.
Actually, there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed
I stated that there was no contemporaneous evidence. I suggest you look that word up, make sure you know precisely what it means and that you understand why it is a critical criterion, and then let fly.
Wrong on all counts. First of all, jury nullification only requires one juror. Second, that juror can vote their conscience, regardless of what drives it, and can indeed cause a failure to convict, even when the entire world might (perhaps quite rightly) think otherwise. Third, there's no "should" about how the jury nullification power is, or can be, used. It's not specifically about legality, it's not specifically about innocence, it's not specifically about appropriateness or exceptional circumstances. It's simply about one or more juror's unwillingness to convict, period, end of story.
The only counter forces to this are (1) the other jurors and their arguments, and (2) the court's continuing attempts to hide the jury nullification power from jurors, to the extent that if it is even brought up, they'll typically declare a mistrial -- and that's a tool other jurors can use against someone who is attempting jury nullification; simply bring it up when the jury files back into the courtroom. Bang: end of trial, and they'll select a new jury.
Also, just as an aside, for the person who is intending, for whatever reason, to attempt to use jury nullification, a strategy that may avoid the above countermove is not to mention nullification at all, but simply to insist that you cannot in good conscience convict.
Oh, now, just because there is absolutely no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus doesn't prove he didn't exist. He was probably just such a lousy carpenter that he had to turn to astrology/storytelling to get enough food to eat. Unfortunately, that annoyed the Romans.
I suspect it'll be EMP - Tasers are the precursor for it, they're already using these "non-lethal" weapons, even though they do cause the death of the occasional alleged perpetrator.
How well do you think the electronics that make up the borgification will function after a few ma at 50kv wanders through the circuitry? You can test this easily; get a little camera PCB (about $10 most places now), hold it in your hand, scuff your feet on the rug for a few minutes, and then still holding the camera PCB, touch the ground prong of an AC outlet with any part of the camera PCB. Then try to use it.
So it'll go like this: Suspect turns on the borgification; police zap the suspect; borgification stops working permanently. There's no record of anything except that which the police provide, and the status quo is maintained. As for the costs of the damaged implants, well, you were obviously "resisting arrest" (aren't we all?) and consequently you get to bear them.
Next case: The People vs. Presumed Guilty Guy; all stand, be seated, swear on this book of mythology that you'll tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and that you won't mind a bit when we disregard everything you have to say in favor of remarks by this 100.1 IQ guy in a blue suit. And don't say anything to the jury about jury nullification or we'll declare a mistrial.
Powerful corporations can only corrupt the electoral process only so far as the voters allow themselves to be corrupted.
So, you're saying 100%, then? I mean, disregarding for the moment that the voters only have choices from Democrats and Republicans, which someone once quite conservatively characterized as a choice between a shit sandwich and a turdburger... so once we get someone out and replace them, the replacement, being a member of one of the two parties that have put us in our present, seriously screwed up situation, is virtually guaranteed to continue in the same vein.
Also disregarding that a great deal of the process that screws with the citizens isn't electoral, but buried in the appointments process, and therefore out of reach -- we can't do anything about the supreme court judges who in case after case violate their solemn oaths, for instance, nor do we have any effective control over the FCC's preventing any significant use of the RF spectrum by the people, reserving that for corporations exclusively (speaking as an EE with extra class ARO and (now) general commercial licenses, btw.) The list goes on -- a great deal of the governance we receive (right after we're instructed to bend over) comes from non-elected sources.
Learn to replace, then deprecate, then delete. Otherwise you have 30-year old API's that limit your future development.
Seriously, they stopped selling PowerPC Macs years ago. They're not going to target their OS for five year old hardware.
Rosetta isn't an API. It's just a low-level emulation for PPC apps and drivers. Which, by the way, inherently got faster with every hardware upgrade. There was no need to remove it at all, other than download size (and it isn't very large, either.) In any case, it isn't about the OS target, it's about disrespect for your customers and the money they have invested. "Oh, that thing you paid $100 (or $10, or $499) for? Yeah, we're just arbitrarily going to make that no longer work. Also these drivers for your $1000 scanner. Tough." And no, it isn't acceptable to try and push the responsibility off onto 3rd party developers. For one thing, they may not still be around, but that doesn't mean the software doesn't, or shouldn't, work. For another, even if they are still around, I would rather they worked on new stuff than constantly have to go back and rewrite to accommodate Apple's bad habit of breaking the system one way or another.
Lastly, please don't hold Microsoft up as an example for incompatibility. I have software that was compiled under, and written for, Windows 98 that still runs just fine under Vista, XP and 7. They tried pretty hard to keep the OS from becoming a moving target; in this case (PPC emulation), Apple is not even trying. It's there in Snow Leopard, which is certainly a huge step away from the native PPC versions of the OS; As far as I know, Lion contains nothing at all post-Snow Leopard that I would find worth trading for the ability to run the programs and hardware I've already purchased. I've only read the feature list on Apple's site, so I may have missed something, but at this point... nah.
Yep. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that our star holds on to more than nine planets. I also think the idea that Pluto isn't a planet is ridiculous, and that any definition that ends up that way is by definition, busted.
You used the example of a JPEG image because it doesn't fill the sides of the screen. What would be the use?
A zoomed view, for one thing, or a window in which a zoomed view has some room to expand. You seriously can't imagine a use for a window with some extra room in it? Did you always color within the lines as a kid? I *routinely* expand windows (by dragging) to full screen so that when I zoom, I have working area immediately available (and also so that distractions are covered -- the very things that modal operation duplicates to no point.)
In Xcode I really like having documentation full screen in a separate space, with the rest of the application windows not full screen in their own space.
So do I, and it is already available to me in two different forms. On a single monitor, open the doc (or the source code, etc.) in its own window (just double-click on it in the file list on XCode), then use CMD-tick to switch which window has focus within XCode. On multiple monitors, simply make the window you want full screen on one monitor, and the other window on another monitor. Again, change focus using CMD-tick. Everything works fine. No need for explicit modal operation. This probably works or worked with spaces as well, but I never had a need for them -- multiple monitors allow me to have everything on its own live surface at all times -- so can't really say.
So I guess people who actually like it don't count for anything
If you say so -- I certainly didn't say anything of the kind. My feeling, however, is that if you like this, you probably were simply unaware of the tools that were already available that accomplish the same useful aspects (hiding things that are irrelevant for the moment, providing large work areas and clean focus) without screwing up other things, like multiple monitor support. My criticism is directed at Apple, not the end users.
I've been using it for a month or so, have you?
No. I have PPC apps that I am unwilling to abandon my investment in; they still work fine and continue to provide ROI, which Lion would destroy. So presently, I have no plans to upgrade. My concern is as a developer targeting 10.5 and beyond, as a stockholder and someone who would prefer to see OSX continue to increase in power, rather than become in any way "IOS-like." And to see IOS do likewise; it's a baby OS and it badly needs more capabilities.
If you're using the release version of Lion, would you care to report on what happens to the windows on your other monitors when you enter modal operation? I've only gotten that from multiple, consistent reports on the major blogs; be nice to hear a user report on the actual release version behaviors. According to the press thus far, the other monitors dim and become unusable. Is that what happens with the release version? Also, BTW, I don't have two monitors. I have six. Soon to become eight, as soon as I can get the desk re-arranged to accommodate them.
Though you're right that definition doesn't take rings into account.
Sure it does. They're just large groups of moons. Just as an asteroid belt is a large group of asteroids, and the Kuiper belt is a large group of comets.
The green full-screen button that simply expands the window is already there.
The green button is there, but that's not what it does. To make a window full screen, you often have to resort to pulling it there. For instance, open a smaller than full screen jpeg with preview. Click the green button. Doesn't go fullscreen. Now resize the jpeg from the corner. Tap the green button a couple times to see what it does.
I really like having coding documentation open in a full screen space, I jump to that, do some reading, then jump back out into a multi-widnowed space.
CMD-tab plus arranging the windows for each app how you want them. Already there; not added to or enhanced by modal operation. Also, doesn't screw up my other monitors. Also fully capable of editing full screen on monitor one, compiling and seeing results on monitor two, while testing the app on monitor three.
If an object exists or existed in the past as a stand-alone fusion reaction, it's a star.
If a space-going object was assembled using tools, it's a spacecraft. Otherwise,
If an object has its own orbit about its star, and it has enough mass to overcome any other structure it might have had and has pulled itself into a sphere or oblate spheroid, it's a planet.
If an object has its own orbit about its star, and cannot pull itself into a sphere or oblate spheroid...
then if it's primarily rocky, stony or metallic, it's an asteroid
else if it's primarily gassy or icy, it's a comet
If an object orbits a planet, it's a moon, irrespective of shape.
If an object doesn't orbit a star and isn't under power or in a directed trajectory, it's a rogue [planet, asteroid, comet, spacecraft].
So: Pluto is a planet. Eris and Sedna are both probably planets, but we don't actually know if they have rounded themselves as yet -- they're pretty far out there. So it is possible one or both are asteroids.
What do you mean by ["borked the modal interface"]?
By "borked", I primarily meant to imply they did a bad job of implementing it. Specifically, if you've got multiple monitors, the way it "works" is to blank all the monitors except one; it "replaces" the already present ability to pull a window full-screen with the ability to... have a window full screen while screwing up your ability to use the rest of your monitor hardware.
This is not even to consider that we had single tasking modal interfaces up until the Amiga in 1985, at which point anyone with even a lick of sense looked at the Amiga's ability to run many apps concurrently in a heterogeneous, multi-resolution/space environment and croaked out "oh, hey, that's how it should be done." No one had looked back since until certain devices (specifically IOS driven devices, Palms, that sort of thing) transitioned to systems that wouldn't multitask worth a darn. Then some cluetard at Apple got a wild hair that because IOS can't multitask, it'd be "great" to move that (cough) "capability" to the desktop. It's stupid-think, and a really good example of it, too. And not just because the ability to run a window full-screen (or over more than one screen) was basically already present in the OS, either. It's a "solution" in search of a non-existent problem that ends up creating new problems because it is implemented poorly.
Modal interfaces for desktops are a step (a very big one) backwards. Desktops need to continue advancing; they are not small systems and they can multitask very well. iPads and family need to continue advancing, and I hope that someday Apple will get the memo and increase the hardware in the hardware that runs IOS until IOS can also truly multitask, with windows, etc. The way it works now is clumsy and worse (trying to manage concurrent IMs, SMSs, a couple of applications and a shell session, for example.) The fact that IOS is modal -- one app at a a time -- is not an "advantage", it's a limitation. The only reason it's acceptable to me is because the hardware is so minimal. The idea of gluing this limitation onto OSX is brain-dead right out of the gate. Aside from the reported issue that they broke multiple monitor support in the process.
That seems rather arbitrary. Why would they do this?
They've made some truly bizarre decisions with Lion; pulled the Rosetta (PPC) support for no reason at all; failed to supply upgrade disks; borked the modal interface (not that the modal interface was a good idea anyway... it's a huge step backwards for a desktop... and only temporarily acceptable on the iPad because it's unable to realistically multitask applications) so that it doesn't work worth a darn with multiple monitors; provided no reasonable upgrade path for anyone on Leopard or previous; made the installer delete itself after running; and that's just what we know *before* the thing hits the end users.
Looks like upgrading to Lion is a solid no-go for me. Speaking as a guy with a Mac Pro, 3 Minis, an Air and a Macbook Pro in the house. I see no reason at all to just toss out my investment in PPC software, which currently works just fine.
Including nice... cool... Radon. Mmmm, good! (NE USA) And it's *awesome* when the water in the ground freezes and causes the ground surrounding (and perhaps above) the home to heave and thrust with a huge amount of force. And groundwater in general is always fun, especially when it runs into your living room from the mid-height of the wall. And dealing with water drainage issues when you're below ground, that's good too -- pump up (and deal with the runoff from your system when it comes back down) or really deep sewer systems, hmmm, which contractor will hurt you the most? Escape from fire... better have a good plan. Garages too.
OTOH, lay some pipe deep before you build, pump some fluid through it, and sink some of the houses's heat into the ground. Much more practical, and not very expensive as these things go -- if you have the cubic yardage to lay enough pipe (that's what she said. Er.)
Unless, of course, you're in tornado alley, in which case underground looks better and better.
In cold weather... white is the wrong color. Black is the right color.
So if you experience cold weather... either you devise a means to switch at least seasonally, or you pick one based on your heating and cooling costs. If you spend more on heat, paint the roof black. If you spend more on cooling, paint it white. If, after you make your choice, your expenses switch around, maybe you should rethink your choice. Maybe not.
And remember, paint or no, snow is effectively white, and there's a good reason that attics have vents: keeping the roof cold helps prevent ice buildup.
Yes it is absolutely possible to appeal to a higher court. First to the full panel of the circuit court that made this ruling and then on up to the Supreme Court.
The problem is that the US supreme court has repeatedly violated, as a unified group, in their arguments, and simply in the majority opinion, their solemn oaths to uphold the constitution. Examples abound; the inversion of the commerce clause, support for ex post facto law, allowing eminent domain for commercial gain, repeated incorrect rulings (even when the decision was on the right side) on the 2nd amendment, an amazingly diverse catalog of 4th amendment violations... etc., etc., etc.
Consequently we know we cannot trust them to do the right thing. But... since they are the pivot upon which the constitution rests -- there is no higher authority, and they literally get to define how the law relates to the constitution -- there is no longer anywhere to turn that will ensure that the laws, and in turn the people who comprise the system, conform in any meaningful way to the authorized form of government laid out in the constitution.
I'm not saying I have a solution -- I don't -- but I am telling you that appealing to the supreme court isn't a solution either, and hasn't been for some time.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, exactly; thanks.
Yes, it is. Research "taser deaths"
Wait a sec... you didn't mean to imply that the cops / government would care if they knocked someone's pacemaker out, did you? Oh, you funny, funny person, you. :^)
Not in the USA. The citizenry have nothing to do with crafting the law here. That's done by legislators, pre-selected by the political party machines, where both said political machines and legislators work for lobbyists, who in turn represent special interest groups such as "Drill, baby, Drill", "Zygotes Are People Too", "OMFG homos!, LLC" and the hon. Rev. Dumbkopf, Holy Leader of "Mythology Should Control Sexuality." In the process, they typically ignore their solemn oaths to obey and defend the constitution that authorizes them to even have jobs making law which is required to conform to the constitution; even above and beyond that, they don't think the process through and almost uniformly create waves of unintended consequences (prohibition is the poster child for that one, not by any means alone but certainly one of the most high-profile foulups our government has ever entered into); and they hardly ever go back and fix anything they've broken. Even when it harms the living heck out of said citizens, obviously, publicly, and with great regularity.
Basically, it's a madhouse. Our legal system sucks rocks, doesn't address fairness or justice worth a darn, and is not uncommonly completely unauthorized to our form of government. Also, it is basically a form of institutionalized corporate fellatio. So those of us who are actually paying attention tend to be very grateful for the opportunity to redress a few of the government's many, many wrongs with low-level tools like jury nullification.
Well, you were probably right on the former (assuming the girls weren't serial killers, for instance), and definitely wrong on the latter.
Here's the thing. I *had* great-great grandparents; because I'm here. That's how we get here. So we can establish the validity right up front that such great great folks definitely existed. The storybook Jesus had no offspring, so that line of evidence is closed.
Next, I never claimed that my grandparents were magical creatures, able to convert water into wine, walk on water, etc. So we can assume we're looking for normal people, which we also have evidence existed.
Next, odds are pretty good that we can find others talking about my great greats, people who actually knew them. This is because (a) they absolutely did exist, and (b) they were moderately well known individuals. In fact, as it turns out, I have reams of this stuff (I maintain the genealogy for my family, so it's actually in my hands.) I've even got my great-great's state department paperwork. Awesome stuff. No crushing of citizen's rights at the border for them, no sir. But that's another lament.
Jesus, a miracle working dude of magical incarnation, existence, actions and exeunt... you could hardly be more stand-out in a crowd... well, as it turns out no one -- NO ONE -- from his time even noticed him enough to write down "cured a leper." That all came later. As the evidence to date indicates, anyway. Doesn't that strike you as... at least curious? Magic dude inspires NO reaction? And then there's the story, which indicates the opposite: he made quite a splash, according to the gospels. Something seems definitely wrong here.
Now let's consider: we know that there have been exactly zero instances of miracles or magic demonstrated under reasonable test conditions. So we tend to treat reports of them as imaginary, at least if we're smart. Now, we find a story about Some Magical Dude in a book that is stuffed with stories about miracles and magic. There's no other evidence that didn't essentially come from the same place as the book: The Christian cultists.
Now why, I ask you, should we give any more credence to these cultists than we do, for instance, to those who told us of Zeus and so forth? Using the same standards (that is, if the story is magical, it's nonsense), all supernatural issues are discarded. And as Jesus was very much a supernatural portion of the Christian narrative, he goes first, UNLESS we can find contemporaneous evidence that confirms his existence through other means. Reports by people who were born after him don't count; we want reports from his contemporaries. Even a receipt, for instance "cross, nails, spear, crown of thorns, crime: annoyed the heck out of ol' Pontius, name: Hayzuess of Nazereth" would be of great interest. But there is nothing at all. When we have contemporaneous evidence, we accept that part of the story has some relationship to reality; for instance, we know from many sources that there were Romans; the story contains Romans; there is a relationship there. What it is is something we can talk about, but we agree there is such a relationship of some kind.
Or, as was put most eloquently: Extraordinary events require extraordinary proof. My great-great-grandparents, lovely though they were, were not extraordinary. Jesus, however, is said to be so by the story. Consequently, our standards for proving he existed must be similar. Yet he fails even the most basic tests for existence: he left no mark on his contemporaries. So we don't, in fact, know he existed.
I don't think you understand EMP. :^)
Low power (community level), local AM and/or FM and/or television broadcast stations. RF networking. All unregulated except for signal quality and channelization. Those are the ones that we would benefit most directly from, at least as far as I've given it thought.
I don't disagree, but it would *also* open the spectrum to the occasional citizen with valuable content to offer, and therefore give others a chance to hear what they have to say, as opposed to the corporate/government combined viewpoint. As long as basic channelization is maintained, individual signals would be discernable, and so one could browse and choose as one saw fit.
I see that as disingenuous. As a ham, in fact particularly as a ham -- you should know full well that giving a bit of spectrum to the public, using type-approved gear, won't cause the rest of it to become unusable or decrease its social value or otherwise cause any significant spectrum related trouble at all.
For instance, hand off 10% of the AM, FM, and television bands for local, low power use, and now... what "tragedy" occurs? Corporations have a little less ground to try and sell us Gold Coins, Coast to Coast has a little less spectrum to tell us about Ghosts and UFOs and Hollow Earth, and television has a little less spectrum to pour evangelistic Christianity and "reality" shows down our throats. I don't see it as a potential tragedy; I see it as a glorious victory for the common man, and a step up the ladder of civilization.
There are over 100 usable broadcast channels in the US between 540 and 1700 KHz; Assigning ten of them for local use would result, I think, in a most interesting burst of self-expression from the public. A lot of it would be trash, of course, but -- just for instance -- one might encounter a well spoken atheist, or a libertarian, or a socialist, or a communist -- all people we *never* get to hear from or talk to within the confines of the corporate/government controlled airwaves. And that's not even counting what could happen with similar allocations of FM and television channels.
I think it is important to consider that free expression is valuable, and it is also important that note that we have very little of it, when you get right down to it, as far as the airwaves go.
And as for RF networking... right now, corporations have engineered a government sponsored monopoly. I'd like to see that end, straight up. I think it's disgusting, at best.
I stated that there was no contemporaneous evidence. I suggest you look that word up, make sure you know precisely what it means and that you understand why it is a critical criterion, and then let fly.
I'm looking forward to this. :^)
Wrong on all counts. First of all, jury nullification only requires one juror. Second, that juror can vote their conscience, regardless of what drives it, and can indeed cause a failure to convict, even when the entire world might (perhaps quite rightly) think otherwise. Third, there's no "should" about how the jury nullification power is, or can be, used. It's not specifically about legality, it's not specifically about innocence, it's not specifically about appropriateness or exceptional circumstances. It's simply about one or more juror's unwillingness to convict, period, end of story.
The only counter forces to this are (1) the other jurors and their arguments, and (2) the court's continuing attempts to hide the jury nullification power from jurors, to the extent that if it is even brought up, they'll typically declare a mistrial -- and that's a tool other jurors can use against someone who is attempting jury nullification; simply bring it up when the jury files back into the courtroom. Bang: end of trial, and they'll select a new jury.
Also, just as an aside, for the person who is intending, for whatever reason, to attempt to use jury nullification, a strategy that may avoid the above countermove is not to mention nullification at all, but simply to insist that you cannot in good conscience convict.
Oh, now, just because there is absolutely no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus doesn't prove he didn't exist. He was probably just such a lousy carpenter that he had to turn to astrology/storytelling to get enough food to eat. Unfortunately, that annoyed the Romans.
Or, perhaps this. :^)
I suspect it'll be EMP - Tasers are the precursor for it, they're already using these "non-lethal" weapons, even though they do cause the death of the occasional alleged perpetrator.
How well do you think the electronics that make up the borgification will function after a few ma at 50kv wanders through the circuitry? You can test this easily; get a little camera PCB (about $10 most places now), hold it in your hand, scuff your feet on the rug for a few minutes, and then still holding the camera PCB, touch the ground prong of an AC outlet with any part of the camera PCB. Then try to use it.
So it'll go like this: Suspect turns on the borgification; police zap the suspect; borgification stops working permanently. There's no record of anything except that which the police provide, and the status quo is maintained. As for the costs of the damaged implants, well, you were obviously "resisting arrest" (aren't we all?) and consequently you get to bear them.
Next case: The People vs. Presumed Guilty Guy; all stand, be seated, swear on this book of mythology that you'll tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and that you won't mind a bit when we disregard everything you have to say in favor of remarks by this 100.1 IQ guy in a blue suit. And don't say anything to the jury about jury nullification or we'll declare a mistrial.
Way, way too late. :^(
So, you're saying 100%, then? I mean, disregarding for the moment that the voters only have choices from Democrats and Republicans, which someone once quite conservatively characterized as a choice between a shit sandwich and a turdburger... so once we get someone out and replace them, the replacement, being a member of one of the two parties that have put us in our present, seriously screwed up situation, is virtually guaranteed to continue in the same vein.
Also disregarding that a great deal of the process that screws with the citizens isn't electoral, but buried in the appointments process, and therefore out of reach -- we can't do anything about the supreme court judges who in case after case violate their solemn oaths, for instance, nor do we have any effective control over the FCC's preventing any significant use of the RF spectrum by the people, reserving that for corporations exclusively (speaking as an EE with extra class ARO and (now) general commercial licenses, btw.) The list goes on -- a great deal of the governance we receive (right after we're instructed to bend over) comes from non-elected sources.
Rosetta isn't an API. It's just a low-level emulation for PPC apps and drivers. Which, by the way, inherently got faster with every hardware upgrade. There was no need to remove it at all, other than download size (and it isn't very large, either.) In any case, it isn't about the OS target, it's about disrespect for your customers and the money they have invested. "Oh, that thing you paid $100 (or $10, or $499) for? Yeah, we're just arbitrarily going to make that no longer work. Also these drivers for your $1000 scanner. Tough." And no, it isn't acceptable to try and push the responsibility off onto 3rd party developers. For one thing, they may not still be around, but that doesn't mean the software doesn't, or shouldn't, work. For another, even if they are still around, I would rather they worked on new stuff than constantly have to go back and rewrite to accommodate Apple's bad habit of breaking the system one way or another.
Lastly, please don't hold Microsoft up as an example for incompatibility. I have software that was compiled under, and written for, Windows 98 that still runs just fine under Vista, XP and 7. They tried pretty hard to keep the OS from becoming a moving target; in this case (PPC emulation), Apple is not even trying. It's there in Snow Leopard, which is certainly a huge step away from the native PPC versions of the OS; As far as I know, Lion contains nothing at all post-Snow Leopard that I would find worth trading for the ability to run the programs and hardware I've already purchased. I've only read the feature list on Apple's site, so I may have missed something, but at this point... nah.
Yep. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that our star holds on to more than nine planets. I also think the idea that Pluto isn't a planet is ridiculous, and that any definition that ends up that way is by definition, busted.
A zoomed view, for one thing, or a window in which a zoomed view has some room to expand. You seriously can't imagine a use for a window with some extra room in it? Did you always color within the lines as a kid? I *routinely* expand windows (by dragging) to full screen so that when I zoom, I have working area immediately available (and also so that distractions are covered -- the very things that modal operation duplicates to no point.)
So do I, and it is already available to me in two different forms. On a single monitor, open the doc (or the source code, etc.) in its own window (just double-click on it in the file list on XCode), then use CMD-tick to switch which window has focus within XCode. On multiple monitors, simply make the window you want full screen on one monitor, and the other window on another monitor. Again, change focus using CMD-tick. Everything works fine. No need for explicit modal operation. This probably works or worked with spaces as well, but I never had a need for them -- multiple monitors allow me to have everything on its own live surface at all times -- so can't really say.
If you say so -- I certainly didn't say anything of the kind. My feeling, however, is that if you like this, you probably were simply unaware of the tools that were already available that accomplish the same useful aspects (hiding things that are irrelevant for the moment, providing large work areas and clean focus) without screwing up other things, like multiple monitor support. My criticism is directed at Apple, not the end users.
No. I have PPC apps that I am unwilling to abandon my investment in; they still work fine and continue to provide ROI, which Lion would destroy. So presently, I have no plans to upgrade. My concern is as a developer targeting 10.5 and beyond, as a stockholder and someone who would prefer to see OSX continue to increase in power, rather than become in any way "IOS-like." And to see IOS do likewise; it's a baby OS and it badly needs more capabilities.
If you're using the release version of Lion, would you care to report on what happens to the windows on your other monitors when you enter modal operation? I've only gotten that from multiple, consistent reports on the major blogs; be nice to hear a user report on the actual release version behaviors. According to the press thus far, the other monitors dim and become unusable. Is that what happens with the release version? Also, BTW, I don't have two monitors. I have six. Soon to become eight, as soon as I can get the desk re-arranged to accommodate them.
Sure it does. They're just large groups of moons. Just as an asteroid belt is a large group of asteroids, and the Kuiper belt is a large group of comets.
The green button is there, but that's not what it does. To make a window full screen, you often have to resort to pulling it there. For instance, open a smaller than full screen jpeg with preview. Click the green button. Doesn't go fullscreen. Now resize the jpeg from the corner. Tap the green button a couple times to see what it does.
CMD-tab plus arranging the windows for each app how you want them. Already there; not added to or enhanced by modal operation. Also, doesn't screw up my other monitors. Also fully capable of editing full screen on monitor one, compiling and seeing results on monitor two, while testing the app on monitor three.
Sorry, Lion's modal UI is hopeless borkage.
So: Pluto is a planet. Eris and Sedna are both probably planets, but we don't actually know if they have rounded themselves as yet -- they're pretty far out there. So it is possible one or both are asteroids.
By "borked", I primarily meant to imply they did a bad job of implementing it. Specifically, if you've got multiple monitors, the way it "works" is to blank all the monitors except one; it "replaces" the already present ability to pull a window full-screen with the ability to... have a window full screen while screwing up your ability to use the rest of your monitor hardware.
This is not even to consider that we had single tasking modal interfaces up until the Amiga in 1985, at which point anyone with even a lick of sense looked at the Amiga's ability to run many apps concurrently in a heterogeneous, multi-resolution/space environment and croaked out "oh, hey, that's how it should be done." No one had looked back since until certain devices (specifically IOS driven devices, Palms, that sort of thing) transitioned to systems that wouldn't multitask worth a darn. Then some cluetard at Apple got a wild hair that because IOS can't multitask, it'd be "great" to move that (cough) "capability" to the desktop. It's stupid-think, and a really good example of it, too. And not just because the ability to run a window full-screen (or over more than one screen) was basically already present in the OS, either. It's a "solution" in search of a non-existent problem that ends up creating new problems because it is implemented poorly.
Modal interfaces for desktops are a step (a very big one) backwards. Desktops need to continue advancing; they are not small systems and they can multitask very well. iPads and family need to continue advancing, and I hope that someday Apple will get the memo and increase the hardware in the hardware that runs IOS until IOS can also truly multitask, with windows, etc. The way it works now is clumsy and worse (trying to manage concurrent IMs, SMSs, a couple of applications and a shell session, for example.) The fact that IOS is modal -- one app at a a time -- is not an "advantage", it's a limitation. The only reason it's acceptable to me is because the hardware is so minimal. The idea of gluing this limitation onto OSX is brain-dead right out of the gate. Aside from the reported issue that they broke multiple monitor support in the process.
They've made some truly bizarre decisions with Lion; pulled the Rosetta (PPC) support for no reason at all; failed to supply upgrade disks; borked the modal interface (not that the modal interface was a good idea anyway... it's a huge step backwards for a desktop... and only temporarily acceptable on the iPad because it's unable to realistically multitask applications) so that it doesn't work worth a darn with multiple monitors; provided no reasonable upgrade path for anyone on Leopard or previous; made the installer delete itself after running; and that's just what we know *before* the thing hits the end users.
Looks like upgrading to Lion is a solid no-go for me. Speaking as a guy with a Mac Pro, 3 Minis, an Air and a Macbook Pro in the house. I see no reason at all to just toss out my investment in PPC software, which currently works just fine.
Including nice... cool... Radon. Mmmm, good! (NE USA) And it's *awesome* when the water in the ground freezes and causes the ground surrounding (and perhaps above) the home to heave and thrust with a huge amount of force. And groundwater in general is always fun, especially when it runs into your living room from the mid-height of the wall. And dealing with water drainage issues when you're below ground, that's good too -- pump up (and deal with the runoff from your system when it comes back down) or really deep sewer systems, hmmm, which contractor will hurt you the most? Escape from fire... better have a good plan. Garages too.
OTOH, lay some pipe deep before you build, pump some fluid through it, and sink some of the houses's heat into the ground. Much more practical, and not very expensive as these things go -- if you have the cubic yardage to lay enough pipe (that's what she said. Er.)
Unless, of course, you're in tornado alley, in which case underground looks better and better.
[runs away, drooling]
In cold weather... white is the wrong color. Black is the right color.
So if you experience cold weather... either you devise a means to switch at least seasonally, or you pick one based on your heating and cooling costs. If you spend more on heat, paint the roof black. If you spend more on cooling, paint it white. If, after you make your choice, your expenses switch around, maybe you should rethink your choice. Maybe not.
And remember, paint or no, snow is effectively white, and there's a good reason that attics have vents: keeping the roof cold helps prevent ice buildup.
The problem is that the US supreme court has repeatedly violated, as a unified group, in their arguments, and simply in the majority opinion, their solemn oaths to uphold the constitution. Examples abound; the inversion of the commerce clause, support for ex post facto law, allowing eminent domain for commercial gain, repeated incorrect rulings (even when the decision was on the right side) on the 2nd amendment, an amazingly diverse catalog of 4th amendment violations... etc., etc., etc.
Consequently we know we cannot trust them to do the right thing. But... since they are the pivot upon which the constitution rests -- there is no higher authority, and they literally get to define how the law relates to the constitution -- there is no longer anywhere to turn that will ensure that the laws, and in turn the people who comprise the system, conform in any meaningful way to the authorized form of government laid out in the constitution.
I'm not saying I have a solution -- I don't -- but I am telling you that appealing to the supreme court isn't a solution either, and hasn't been for some time.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
and I'll send them back, you stupid boor.