Uh, we're talking about the expocity feature here, which has decidedly NOT been available for years. Besides, Expose was a feature in Panther since the developer beta, at least five months ago.
I see the personal website as the virtual equivalent of the front of one's home, except that most virtual homes have large signs in the front yard that give a running play-by-play of the inhabitants.
I see the personal website as kind of like a mountain of mashed potatoes, except with a set of Three Stooges action figures on the top, and except the potatoes are those weird blue kind so the whole thing looks freaky. And there's, like, some kind of cheerleading squad doing a dance all around, except that the virtual cheerleaders are really monkeys. Evil monkeys, that is, except that they really have hearts of gold once you get to know them! But it's far easier to just put up a website than build a mountain of mashed potatoes!
I had the same problem. Turns a circuit in the battery was malfunctioning. If your iBook is still under warranty you can call Apple and they'll replace your battery. If not, and you feel like spending the money, buying a new battery should solve your problem. Make sure you get it from a place with a good return policy, though, just in case it's not the battery.
A good way to check is to push the button on the battery when the computer says it's full (all four lights should come on) and right after the computer falls asleep (only one light should flash).
That impression is incorrect. There are (basically) three levels to the federal court system. The lowest level is district court, with each state being divided into one or more districts. Appeals from district court are heard in circuit court, with each circuit being comprised of the districts of several states. Appeals from circuit court go to the US Supreme Court, which may or may not choose to review the case. Should they refuse to hear it, the circuit court decision is usually binding within that circuit (that is, district courts within the circuit must abide by that decision, and that circuit court generally must do so as well, but other courts throughout the country are free to ignore it if they choose). There are some exceptions to this, but generally this is the case.
This is a very basic explanation, and although there are other courts, such as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which hears cases coming out of special courts such as the U.S. Claims Court), generally a case will be heard by district court, then circuit court, then (very occasionally) by the Supreme Court.
I have to admit this sounds like a good idea, but I can't see something like that working in an age where hardware has gotten so cheap. I mean, for just a few hundred dollars you could build a fairly decent computer just to crunch numbers, and for under a grand you could build a cluster of such boxes. All this would really do is raise the overhead cost of sending spam by a few hundred dollars. Probably not enough to put most spammers out of business.
OK, first of all, nobody ever really believed smoking wouldn't hurt you. My parents lived through that era, and they said that nobody, but nobody, really took the tobacco companies at their word. Think about it... how can inhaling smoke NOT hurt you? Give people a little more credit for intelligence (I know that liberals don't like doing that, but try anyway). Also, give people a little less credit for "doing the right thing". People do what makes them money, and pushes their political agenda. Liberals hate big corporations, especially corporations selling products they don't like, such as tobacco and guns (and in the case of the far left, such as the Green Party, even cars), so they don't want anyone buying their products. Consequently they will do anything they can to drive those manufacturers out of business, including using the coercive powers of the government through ridiculous lawsuits (which, of course, works very well if they get a judge sympathetic to the liberal cause).
Everyone does this of course, even the so-called conservatives. It just sucks.
How long will it be before the first lawsuit based on the inability of a gun owner to use his gun to defend himself resulting in death or injury?
Probably not too long, and I don't doubt that that suits the legislators who passed this law just fine. In fact, several laws (in addition to case law) already exist that make it easier to sue gun manufacturers. The people who make these laws WANT to see gun manufacturers go out of business, and will do anything they can to expedite that. Sorta like the tobacco companies. The states suing them don't really care about whether they lied or concealed health risks, they just want to push their liberal anti-tobacco agenda.
Unfortunately, this tactic works practically every time. These days, thanks to lawsuits resulting from these laws (How does it make sense to hold the manufacturer liable for doing something stupid with its product? If we did that for cars, Ford and GM would go out of business in a month, given what I've seen driving in L.A.), as well as heavy taxes, you pay about $400 in California for a gun that used to cost in the $150-$250 range. It happened with Cessna, too. Believe it or not, when they first started making planes, almost anyone could afford to buy one. Then came the lawsuits, which mostly resulted from idiots hurting themselves by doing stupid things, and suddenly making private aircraft became a potentially expensive proposition. They therefore had to raise the price of private airplanes to exorbitant amounts, currently well over $100,000, just to cover their potential and existing liability.
*Sigh*. Only a matter of time before California adopts this too. Buy your guns now, people. It only gets more restrictive from here.
Yeah, whatever. Let's get out from under the enormous mountain of debt (not bloody likely, thanks to Gray 'Highest Bidder' Davis and his pinko cronies in Sacramento) before we even think about spending $10 billion on a high tech toy.
I love how Californians complain about high taxes and then go out and vote for bond measure after bond measure, because "We need to save the environment!" or "We need to protect the children!"
Good for you for doing the right thing and not supporting a company you don't like, rather than trying to force others to agree with your views. But... http://www.bostonmarket.com/company/
Boston Market Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of McDonald's Corporation, operates more than 650 company-owned restaurants in 28 United States. Boston Market also operates restaurants in Australia and Canada.
McDonald's acquired Boston Market in 2000, and publicly had plans to do so for at least six months in advance (no doubt much longer, privately), so it seems sort of unlikely that they forced them out of the market out of some sort of malice. At any rate, I don't doubt that the prior owners of Boston Chicken, Inc. have any hard feelings about not getting the two restaurants in the D.C. area at this point, so you can stop holding that against McDonalds, if you like.
Besides, the food at Boston Market sucks royally. In my opinion, they did D.C. a favor.
You may have to simply face the facts. Microsoft has done exceptionally well as a business. People like their products, and so they buy them. I don't like it either, and it makes my life a tremendous pain at times to have to deal with Microsoft's products, but that doesn't mean we should resort to any method possible to attack them.
Have you ever heard the saying, "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig enjoys it." Basically, one or two jabs at Microsoft won't hurt them much at all. It doesn't matter if you have all the legal evidence in the world that they shouldn't exist. You can't destroy a huge company just by proving they can't exist. To do so through legal channels would take decades, and by the time you resolved it Microsoft will have figured out a way to dodge it anyway. Not only that, but even if you came up with the best legal theory in the world, you would have only given Microsoft (and others) new legal ammo to hurt other companies.
So what can you do? Well, for starters, don't rely on the law and the government. Vote with your wallet. Encourage people not to buy their products. Start a competing company that produces software that anyone can use as easily to do more. It may not feel like much, but you would have taken the moral high road, and it does more than you think.
Well, "we" already exhausted all possible legal and moral options and got a hearty "go fuck yourself" from the justice system.
Hmm.... So, why don't you just go kill O.J. Simpson? After all, he shouldn't have gotten off, right? Well, since the people got a hearty "go fuck yourself" from the justice system on that one, maybe we should just take the law into our own hands and fight evil with evil. He killed someone, so let's ice him ourselves.
In fact, let's just always do that, any time anyone gets acquitted. After all, since we accused them of it, they MUST have done it. We know so. It doesn't matter that a court of law has determined their innocence, just that we, the people (as in "The People vs."), think they committed a crime. Fight evil with evil.
Incidentally, I find it telling that, if this had happened the other way around, or in fact to any company besides Microsoft, the editors would have used the sarcastic "Patent Pending" icon instead of the "Bill Gates Borg" one.
This just seems like another example of the legislative reflex present in so many of our elected officials today. This law affects absolutely no existing coaster, so even if they had instituted this law prior to the deaths that triggered it, it couldn't have possibly prevented them. Besides, when it comes to safety on a roller coaster, I'd rather trust a team of engineers who design and build roller coasters for a living than some idiot career politician.
I can't see any purpose or necessity for this law except to reinforce the fact that "Big Brother Knows Best". This attitude seems practically pervasive with the American left (note the Democratic congressman championing these laws) and has unfortunately become more and more the standard attitude in the right.
Vote Libertarian, preserve your right to ride any damn coaster you see fit!;-)
Well, why not? Not like driving on the 405 requires much attention anyway. Every few minutes you look up and if the car ahead of you has advanced 10 feet you take your foot off the break pedal for a second (unless someone has merged into the space). It once took me 2.5 hours to get from the South Bay to the Valley, a trip of about 30 miles...
Sony "has successfully prosecuted several US operations selling PS2 mod chips".
Actually, Sony can't prosecute anything, in the sense of the word we normally refer to (and referred to in the article)--to initiate criminal legal action. Only the government can prosecute people. Sony can perhaps refer people for prosecution, but ultimately the decision to prosecute falls on the office of the U.S. Attorney, in federal cases, or on the District Attorney (or other local prosecutorial office) for local cases. An important distinction, and I consider a mistake like that by a news source at best irresponsible, and at worst intentionally misleading in order imply that Sony runs the government.
I know that they make coins to save money, but since I don't expect them to actually give me that money back (god forbid), they might as well spend it on something I get a tangible benefit from. I don't want to carry around dollar coins if I don't have to. I suspect the reason Canadians stopped bitching about the $1 coins has more to do with the fact that the Canadian government didn't really care. I can't imagine any possible convenience advantage to having coin money worth more than a quarter (note that nobody in the US uses 50 cent pieces, either).
I can't imagine anybody likes using coin money. If something costs $1.79, I'd rather just pay $2 than fish through my pockets for exact change. If the government abolished bills smaller than $5, I'd either have to pay with a five and get a whole bunch of coins back or pull out a handful of change and pay with exact change. Either way sucks.
Likewise, the dollar bill should be abolished in favor of the dollar coin.
Yeah, right... I hate carrying around change when I can carry the much lighter and easier to handle bills (try putting coins in your wallet). Nobody carries silver dollars (or those new Sacajawea dollars) in lieu of paper money because they simply suck to carry. I hope we don't follow the lead of Canada (and all those other third world countries in Europe;-P) and remove low denomination paper money from circulation.
Also, they stopped really circulating two dollar bills because nobdody liked them. You can just as easily carry two ones or a five, and that proves much more versatile. Besides, having to regularly deal with currency in multiples of two breaks up the scheme of things. Five ones equals one five, two fives equals one ten, two tens equals one twenty, and five twenties equals one hundred. Two dollars just don't fit in (Change for a ten? Ummm... one five, two twos and a silver dollar OK?) Fifties don't really fit well into the scheme I described, but I hardly ever see those anyway. I much more often see twenties and hundreds.
Having said that, I thought Woz had a really cool idea. He would take uncut sheets of twos and bind them into a perforated book. Then he would tear them out and give them as tips. I understand he once got into trouble with a casino doing that...
The U.S. only has $28,740? Geez... What happened to all that tax money we pay out?
Let's see... I have $24 in my pocket... I'll happily throw it into the pot. I encourage all of my countrymen to do the same. Just $15,557 more and we can put the good ol' U.S. of A back on top!
So the government is regulating what can be said (and showed) on TV? And that is somehow not the same as the government regulating speech? Come again?
Like I said, I don't like their policy, but it does make sense. Don't think of it as government control of the airwaves, but rather as a private corporation that controls a certain amount of land. If you rent land from the corporation, they state in the terms of the lease that you can only put certain signs on that land. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere. They can't arrest you for violating the contract, and they can't stop you from doing something; at worst, they can revoke the lease. Now replace "a certain amount of land" with "the airwaves" and realize that the government just so happens to own this corporation, and can behave in exactly the same way as a private corporation. They can't arrest you or censor you in other media, but they can revoke your license to use their property.
They can and they have (or maybe it was Oracle). Somewhere in the licence agreement to some SQL server it said that benchmarks can only be published with the approval of the man. It was on Slashdot before, but I can't find the story.
Oh, I see. Well, since you put it so compellingly, I have no choice but to take your unverifiable argument as fact.
By the way, in court they call that hearsay and inadmissable testimony. Just so you know.
Slashdot Mirror
I need but speak the truth. Your attack is as hollow as your cranium. Begone!
Uh, we're talking about the expocity feature here, which has decidedly NOT been available for years. Besides, Expose was a feature in Panther since the developer beta, at least five months ago.
Haha, don't you feel like a nudnik now.
Are you a troll, or were you just shortchanged on brains? Metacity copied it from Apple, not the other way around.
I see the personal website as the virtual equivalent of the front of one's home, except that most virtual homes have large signs in the front yard that give a running play-by-play of the inhabitants.
I see the personal website as kind of like a mountain of mashed potatoes, except with a set of Three Stooges action figures on the top, and except the potatoes are those weird blue kind so the whole thing looks freaky. And there's, like, some kind of cheerleading squad doing a dance all around, except that the virtual cheerleaders are really monkeys. Evil monkeys, that is, except that they really have hearts of gold once you get to know them! But it's far easier to just put up a website than build a mountain of mashed potatoes!
I had the same problem. Turns a circuit in the battery was malfunctioning. If your iBook is still under warranty you can call Apple and they'll replace your battery. If not, and you feel like spending the money, buying a new battery should solve your problem. Make sure you get it from a place with a good return policy, though, just in case it's not the battery.
A good way to check is to push the button on the battery when the computer says it's full (all four lights should come on) and right after the computer falls asleep (only one light should flash).
Electronic Voting Machine Cracker Challenge
...an Atlanta area programmer has confronted Georgia election officials on the potential for fraud in its statewide electronic voting system.
Give them votin' machine crackahs somethin' to chew on!
That impression is incorrect. There are (basically) three levels to the federal court system. The lowest level is district court, with each state being divided into one or more districts. Appeals from district court are heard in circuit court, with each circuit being comprised of the districts of several states. Appeals from circuit court go to the US Supreme Court, which may or may not choose to review the case. Should they refuse to hear it, the circuit court decision is usually binding within that circuit (that is, district courts within the circuit must abide by that decision, and that circuit court generally must do so as well, but other courts throughout the country are free to ignore it if they choose). There are some exceptions to this, but generally this is the case.
This is a very basic explanation, and although there are other courts, such as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which hears cases coming out of special courts such as the U.S. Claims Court), generally a case will be heard by district court, then circuit court, then (very occasionally) by the Supreme Court.
Yes, and next year I hear he's giving a presentation called "How to Use WiFi and IP Telephony to Get Around the One Phone Call Limit".
I have to admit this sounds like a good idea, but I can't see something like that working in an age where hardware has gotten so cheap. I mean, for just a few hundred dollars you could build a fairly decent computer just to crunch numbers, and for under a grand you could build a cluster of such boxes. All this would really do is raise the overhead cost of sending spam by a few hundred dollars. Probably not enough to put most spammers out of business.
Yeah, kinda amusing though that the background image on that page gives you a headache as you try to read the directions.
OK, first of all, nobody ever really believed smoking wouldn't hurt you. My parents lived through that era, and they said that nobody, but nobody, really took the tobacco companies at their word. Think about it... how can inhaling smoke NOT hurt you? Give people a little more credit for intelligence (I know that liberals don't like doing that, but try anyway). Also, give people a little less credit for "doing the right thing". People do what makes them money, and pushes their political agenda. Liberals hate big corporations, especially corporations selling products they don't like, such as tobacco and guns (and in the case of the far left, such as the Green Party, even cars), so they don't want anyone buying their products. Consequently they will do anything they can to drive those manufacturers out of business, including using the coercive powers of the government through ridiculous lawsuits (which, of course, works very well if they get a judge sympathetic to the liberal cause).
Everyone does this of course, even the so-called conservatives. It just sucks.
How long will it be before the first lawsuit based on the inability of a gun owner to use his gun to defend himself resulting in death or injury?
Probably not too long, and I don't doubt that that suits the legislators who passed this law just fine. In fact, several laws (in addition to case law) already exist that make it easier to sue gun manufacturers. The people who make these laws WANT to see gun manufacturers go out of business, and will do anything they can to expedite that. Sorta like the tobacco companies. The states suing them don't really care about whether they lied or concealed health risks, they just want to push their liberal anti-tobacco agenda.
Unfortunately, this tactic works practically every time. These days, thanks to lawsuits resulting from these laws (How does it make sense to hold the manufacturer liable for doing something stupid with its product? If we did that for cars, Ford and GM would go out of business in a month, given what I've seen driving in L.A.), as well as heavy taxes, you pay about $400 in California for a gun that used to cost in the $150-$250 range. It happened with Cessna, too. Believe it or not, when they first started making planes, almost anyone could afford to buy one. Then came the lawsuits, which mostly resulted from idiots hurting themselves by doing stupid things, and suddenly making private aircraft became a potentially expensive proposition. They therefore had to raise the price of private airplanes to exorbitant amounts, currently well over $100,000, just to cover their potential and existing liability.
*Sigh*. Only a matter of time before California adopts this too. Buy your guns now, people. It only gets more restrictive from here.
Yeah, whatever. Let's get out from under the enormous mountain of debt (not bloody likely, thanks to Gray 'Highest Bidder' Davis and his pinko cronies in Sacramento) before we even think about spending $10 billion on a high tech toy.
I love how Californians complain about high taxes and then go out and vote for bond measure after bond measure, because "We need to save the environment!" or "We need to protect the children!"
Good for you for doing the right thing and not supporting a company you don't like, rather than trying to force others to agree with your views. But... http://www.bostonmarket.com/company/
Boston Market Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of McDonald's Corporation, operates more than 650 company-owned restaurants in 28 United States. Boston Market also operates restaurants in Australia and Canada.
McDonald's acquired Boston Market in 2000, and publicly had plans to do so for at least six months in advance (no doubt much longer, privately), so it seems sort of unlikely that they forced them out of the market out of some sort of malice. At any rate, I don't doubt that the prior owners of Boston Chicken, Inc. have any hard feelings about not getting the two restaurants in the D.C. area at this point, so you can stop holding that against McDonalds, if you like.
Besides, the food at Boston Market sucks royally. In my opinion, they did D.C. a favor.
You may have to simply face the facts. Microsoft has done exceptionally well as a business. People like their products, and so they buy them. I don't like it either, and it makes my life a tremendous pain at times to have to deal with Microsoft's products, but that doesn't mean we should resort to any method possible to attack them.
Have you ever heard the saying, "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig enjoys it." Basically, one or two jabs at Microsoft won't hurt them much at all. It doesn't matter if you have all the legal evidence in the world that they shouldn't exist. You can't destroy a huge company just by proving they can't exist. To do so through legal channels would take decades, and by the time you resolved it Microsoft will have figured out a way to dodge it anyway. Not only that, but even if you came up with the best legal theory in the world, you would have only given Microsoft (and others) new legal ammo to hurt other companies.
So what can you do? Well, for starters, don't rely on the law and the government. Vote with your wallet. Encourage people not to buy their products. Start a competing company that produces software that anyone can use as easily to do more. It may not feel like much, but you would have taken the moral high road, and it does more than you think.
Well, "we" already exhausted all possible legal and moral options and got a hearty "go fuck yourself" from the justice system.
Hmm.... So, why don't you just go kill O.J. Simpson? After all, he shouldn't have gotten off, right? Well, since the people got a hearty "go fuck yourself" from the justice system on that one, maybe we should just take the law into our own hands and fight evil with evil. He killed someone, so let's ice him ourselves.
In fact, let's just always do that, any time anyone gets acquitted. After all, since we accused them of it, they MUST have done it. We know so. It doesn't matter that a court of law has determined their innocence, just that we, the people (as in "The People vs."), think they committed a crime. Fight evil with evil.
Incidentally, I find it telling that, if this had happened the other way around, or in fact to any company besides Microsoft, the editors would have used the sarcastic "Patent Pending" icon instead of the "Bill Gates Borg" one.
I predict that in a few years (if they keep good work like this up), Europe will be paradise compared to the US.
So, do you think they should institute, say, a Five Year Plan to transform Europe into a glorious workers' paradise?
If American culture encourages taking advantage of the working man through evil capitalism, how about a cultural revolution?
And just what makes the European Union "right"?
Look up the difference between "wrong" and "illegal". The two don't always imply each other.
This just seems like another example of the legislative reflex present in so many of our elected officials today. This law affects absolutely no existing coaster, so even if they had instituted this law prior to the deaths that triggered it, it couldn't have possibly prevented them. Besides, when it comes to safety on a roller coaster, I'd rather trust a team of engineers who design and build roller coasters for a living than some idiot career politician.
;-)
I can't see any purpose or necessity for this law except to reinforce the fact that "Big Brother Knows Best". This attitude seems practically pervasive with the American left (note the Democratic congressman championing these laws) and has unfortunately become more and more the standard attitude in the right.
Vote Libertarian, preserve your right to ride any damn coaster you see fit!
Well, why not? Not like driving on the 405 requires much attention anyway. Every few minutes you look up and if the car ahead of you has advanced 10 feet you take your foot off the break pedal for a second (unless someone has merged into the space). It once took me 2.5 hours to get from the South Bay to the Valley, a trip of about 30 miles...
Sony "has successfully prosecuted several US operations selling PS2 mod chips".
Actually, Sony can't prosecute anything, in the sense of the word we normally refer to (and referred to in the article)--to initiate criminal legal action. Only the government can prosecute people. Sony can perhaps refer people for prosecution, but ultimately the decision to prosecute falls on the office of the U.S. Attorney, in federal cases, or on the District Attorney (or other local prosecutorial office) for local cases. An important distinction, and I consider a mistake like that by a news source at best irresponsible, and at worst intentionally misleading in order imply that Sony runs the government.
I know that they make coins to save money, but since I don't expect them to actually give me that money back (god forbid), they might as well spend it on something I get a tangible benefit from. I don't want to carry around dollar coins if I don't have to. I suspect the reason Canadians stopped bitching about the $1 coins has more to do with the fact that the Canadian government didn't really care. I can't imagine any possible convenience advantage to having coin money worth more than a quarter (note that nobody in the US uses 50 cent pieces, either).
I can't imagine anybody likes using coin money. If something costs $1.79, I'd rather just pay $2 than fish through my pockets for exact change. If the government abolished bills smaller than $5, I'd either have to pay with a five and get a whole bunch of coins back or pull out a handful of change and pay with exact change. Either way sucks.
Likewise, the dollar bill should be abolished in favor of the dollar coin.
;-P) and remove low denomination paper money from circulation.
Yeah, right... I hate carrying around change when I can carry the much lighter and easier to handle bills (try putting coins in your wallet). Nobody carries silver dollars (or those new Sacajawea dollars) in lieu of paper money because they simply suck to carry. I hope we don't follow the lead of Canada (and all those other third world countries in Europe
Also, they stopped really circulating two dollar bills because nobdody liked them. You can just as easily carry two ones or a five, and that proves much more versatile. Besides, having to regularly deal with currency in multiples of two breaks up the scheme of things. Five ones equals one five, two fives equals one ten, two tens equals one twenty, and five twenties equals one hundred. Two dollars just don't fit in (Change for a ten? Ummm... one five, two twos and a silver dollar OK?) Fifties don't really fit well into the scheme I described, but I hardly ever see those anyway. I much more often see twenties and hundreds.
Having said that, I thought Woz had a really cool idea. He would take uncut sheets of twos and bind them into a perforated book. Then he would tear them out and give them as tips. I understand he once got into trouble with a casino doing that...
The U.S. only has $28,740? Geez... What happened to all that tax money we pay out?
Let's see... I have $24 in my pocket... I'll happily throw it into the pot. I encourage all of my countrymen to do the same. Just $15,557 more and we can put the good ol' U.S. of A back on top!
So the government is regulating what can be said (and showed) on TV? And that is somehow not the same as the government regulating speech? Come again?
Like I said, I don't like their policy, but it does make sense. Don't think of it as government control of the airwaves, but rather as a private corporation that controls a certain amount of land. If you rent land from the corporation, they state in the terms of the lease that you can only put certain signs on that land. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere. They can't arrest you for violating the contract, and they can't stop you from doing something; at worst, they can revoke the lease. Now replace "a certain amount of land" with "the airwaves" and realize that the government just so happens to own this corporation, and can behave in exactly the same way as a private corporation. They can't arrest you or censor you in other media, but they can revoke your license to use their property.
They can and they have (or maybe it was Oracle). Somewhere in the licence agreement to some SQL server it said that benchmarks can only be published with the approval of the man. It was on Slashdot before, but I can't find the story.
Oh, I see. Well, since you put it so compellingly, I have no choice but to take your unverifiable argument as fact.
By the way, in court they call that hearsay and inadmissable testimony. Just so you know.