... if the wrong person clicks that paypal "support this site" link I suddenly mutate from being a free citizen exercising my right to operate a free private press into... well, something else.
Well, I guess if SF mayor hopeful John Smith donates you money via PayPal with his Hotmail account iluv_49ers@hotmail.com without specifying any more personal information, you can't be expected to know who that money comes from.
That, I hope, also applies when Colombian drug cartel member [random first name] Escobar gives you $100 coming from his latest submarine run to Florida, using his snowhite789@yahoo.com account... Just because he likes your blog, that is...
Even better, a notice along the lines of "If you're directly participating as a candidate in the election, or if you are actively employed in a candidate's campaign, you are prohibited from donating" should do.
I hope SF authorities still have to show evidence when they charge you with violating the law...
While I agree with other posts mentioning less freedom of speech in Europe, there's one thing we should remember.
Curbing political speech at election time (i.e., a week or more before the actual vote) may not always be bad, at least in principle.
Consider the case of a party having substantially more economical resources than their opponents. The sheer power of money may lead to their victory thanks to advertising barrage and intensive canvassing. The U.S. may not feel the problem, at least at the moment, as both parties usually enjoy substantial campaign funding. A more typical example of this is Italy, where a media mogul has been allowed to participate directly in politics without being forced to give up control of his empire.
There's always a certain percentage of the voting population who can't perceive the different stances of parties, and are undecided. Those people are an easy prey for spin doctors.
Curbing campaigning in the eve of the election may somewhat alleviate the problem, at least by giving people a little time to think it over.
Italy does have restrictions on political speech starting a few weeks before elections. Does this solve the problem? No. Would it be worse without such regulations? Possibly.
DISCLAIMER: This is all pretty utopistic, I know. Just thinking that a person would be in charge of actually deciding what is political speech, and what is not, would lead to significant bias when enforcing such laws.
It's only a vague memory, but I seem to remember Apple did something to Spotlight in one of the latest Tiger seeds, which involved the ability of POSIX ("terminal") apps to use Spotlight data. Again, though, I have no more info than this.
Oh, now I get it. The tail of the robot isn't entirely made of rigid plastic, right? Or anyway, the bladder is partly exposed to the outside.
From the drawing I linked, I thought the bladder was enclosed in the tail, in which case it would have needed to load water from the outside, pretty much like a submarine tank, I guess.
The picture on the website from your sig are much clearer, although I can't quite make out the bladder on Spray's tail, yet... Is it the darker grey area on the tail, here?
The specs for the batteries are: 13 MJ from 52 DD Li CSC cells (12 kg). If you look at the design pic, it says "56 D cell pack." Is this the lithium D cell you mentioned?
I don't understand how it can pitch downward and still descend, or viceversa, though...
According to the scheme, it's got movable ballast (the battery packs) which shift its balance and adjust pitch and roll. But how can it pitch down and still descend if the bladder is only on its tail?
As the bladder fills with water, it should start to sink tail-first -- the "PITCH" battery pack doesn't look like it can go fore enough of the robot's center to pitch it down, and the "ROLL" one can't be heavy enough to make it pitch, as that would prevent it from ascending head-first... I'm puzzled...
I can see there is anti-aliasing going on, and the new fonts you linked are good indeed... Yet, doesn't the whole screenshot from TFA look strangely blurred?
Well, I don't know if you've seen OS X 10.3 at work. It's quite a beauty, with serious 3D performance, and runs fine on pretty lousy cards such as those on the latest iMacs...
Whoops... Anyway, I think they can be a definite selling point in that OS-level search capabilities integrate better into the user experience.
For one, OS integration gives you the ability to create "smart" (dynamic) folders which are basically the results of a query against metadata in all files but still have a system-level validity.
In other words, you can create your "Yosemite" folder which will contain anything related to that keyword, and you can do that with other programs, such as DevonTHINK. What you can't have with third-party apps (AFAIK) is automatic scanning of files across the entire system without prior settings, and most of all, the ability to treat "catalogs" as real directories which you can burn to CD, backup, compress & archive, etc...
More to the point, do these third-party apps offer APIs to other applications, so that you can use their functionality, say, when saving a file or including a picture from your library? That's what OS-level search capabilities are about, at least the way I understand them.
Compare grandparent's "nothing special" to my first run of OS X 10.3:
- Take Powerbook out of the box
- Plug into power and Ethernet
- Turn on, insert OS X DVD, wait
- Click twice, fill account and network settings, wait
- Fun, with printing capabilities, too!
Now, that is what I call "nothing special." Pretty much the same applied when I tried Knoppix a while ago, except text-only browsing wasn't that fun...
About a year ago, the police here (Italy) busted a shop owner who was simply saving (and reselling over the 'Net) data from the card scanner in his shop.
If what the journalists wrote was real -- which is rarely the case -- it's really that easy.
I find it very subjective... I tested my own ears (or brain?) and found out that I can't quite tell a 192 kbit MP3 from anything above that...
However, 64k WMA is quite lousy, even to me. It may be good enough to listen to in rush-hour traffic or on the subway, but I wouldn't boldly call it "CD quality."
I don't think daily police work was the point here. The minister's comment looked to me as a broader one. More like "generic guidelines on Swedish top law enforcement priorities" - only that was an interview, not an official paper, and the guy was pointing out that anti-piracy is not a priority.
However, if you're telling me the Swedish government may not set priorities in police work, then I'll check my facts and bow down, promise!
Ok, but let me insist on one point: if it's not him, then it may be someone else in the executive. Since ministers participating in a government usually are part of the same political alliance, I think it's conceivable that what Bodström says, may be enacted by the appropriate Minister.
In other words, Bodström point of view might be very well be the whole executive branch's point of view, and I do believe law enforcement ultimately falls under some minister's jurisdiction.
I do acknowledge again that, if the Swedish constitution provides for compulsory action against all crimes of which there is notice, the police will have the right and duty to prosecute them all. However, resource allocation and "guidelines" may carry their official and unofficial weight (read: "Put the heat on tax evasion or I'll kick you out of office, Chief.")
You're sorely confused. Police is under the control of the executive branch of most, if not all, democratic countries.
Although there may be a constitutional obligation to investigate and prosecute all crimes of which a prosecutor, or a police officer, is informed, the latter still falls under control of the executive branch when it comes to setting priorities and initiatives. In many countries, it is the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Internal Affairs (or their equivalents) who appoint top police figures.
Of course both the executive and judiciary ultimately fall under the legislative branch control, in that it is the lawmaker (and usually a Constitution) who decides what is legal. This doesn't mean a country can't decide to set a priority of enforcing against tax evasion, while reducing resources for anti-piracy activities. This doesn't make any of those any more (or less) illegal.
I have the same problem, except I have to wake up at 6:30. No matter how many hours of sleep I get, it's always a problem.
I resorted to using a very loud alarm clock and an additional (almost) fail-safe system.
I use iCal to fire up an Applescript which starts up iTunes at max volume, with the equalizer set all the way up, so that the Powerbook speakers will sound all distorted and unbearably out of range.
The script is purposedly running on an infinite loop, so that it can't be easily quit. You need to walk up to the Powerbook and be so awake as to be able to press Cmd-Alt-Esc and force-quit it, then set iTunes to its proper EQ and volume settings.
Not as nerdy as Perl, but it does its job most of the times... I wish I had louder speakers, though.
Is this so hard to understand...Repeat after me. THE ISSUE IS NOT GOOGLE SENDING PEOPLE TO AFP'S SITE BUT TO AFP NEWS STORIES ON OTHER WEBSITES.
All in all, it's a matter of copyright, ok. AFP will likely win the lawsuit unless "fair use" and similar provisions apply, as Google only quotes portions of articles and thumbnail images.
Anyways, you can't easily say Google hurts AFP business. Google increases traffic to websites paying for AFP content.
The owners of those websites easily realize that increased traffic comes from a combination of Google "advertising" and their ability to display AFP content. Said owners will no doubt take steps to both improve their Google News "ranking," and will pay all the happier for AFP content.
How is this directly hurting AFP market? There isn't a real danger that everyone will do what Google does: who might step in and compete with Google News, at this time? MSN, maybe, not many more. And in any case, someone has to actually display the full text article for it to be indexed, either to get traffic and display ads, or to be indexed at all!
Have you considered that, in theory, as Google takes down AFP articles from all news outlets, those websites might decide to sign up with other news agencies and turn away from AFP, just to get good Google News placement and the associated traffic?
I wouldn't make it so easy. If Word doesn't play movies even after another player has been installed, then the "unlawful leveraging of monopoly" case might apply to the Office product line as well.
Those speaking in TFA said "Windows is crippled," which it might very well be if the same problems applied across a wide array of applications.
If this only happens in Office, then there would be a case of "Microsoft crippling the dominant productivity application suite in order to ensure dominance in the media player market."
1. AFP is hurt in its sales because Google lets end-users get their news for free, so that they don't flock any longer to sites which buy news from AFP. I can see how going up against Google may be useful there, yet wouldn't it be faster and more effective to "secure" your own site? i.e.requiring registration etc...
2. AFP is hurt by other commercial sites getting and reproducing AFP news for free, and displaying them. Alright, teach'em a lesson by suing Google. Then again, I've never heard a news agency having these kinds of problems, as there are usually many value-added services clients get when they subscribe to services - such as actual "real time" news feeds.
3. At least according to Wikipedia, AFP is a government-subsidized news agency whose most important market is an artificial one -- i.e. France, where it's the "official" agency. Why go after Google like you were a real company, aggressively protecting your fictitious market?
It seems to me as though they're looking for additional funding for fiscal 2005, more than protecting a supposed market... After all we all have national budget problems in the EU (and not only there...)
They can very well. They're called "informants," "snitches" or "a guy I know." It may not carry a legal weight, but there are (usually petty) criminals cops let be just because they give them the skinny on what's going on on the scene. A prosecutor would not be bound to protect/ignore such persons, but the actual enforcers will close an eye on them.
2) Swedish procecutor's do not. It's an american practice.
This doesn't mean 'underground' deals don't happen. Most are, especially in smaller crimes.
3) The guy wasn't working for law enforcement.
It makes it all the easier to make a deal: You snitch, I won't sue you (or give your name to the appropriate law enforcement agency.) That doesn't make him or her any less of a snitch. After all, it's a private organization which has been given power analogous to that of public prosecutors: I mean, they have the right to search and seize private property - how does this make them very different from official police?
Did you find any indication that iPhoto '05 is any faster? My iPhoto is really slow, too, but after a quick round of reviews I couldn't find any comment about improved performance. What's worse, at least one of them pointed out increased sluggishness...
I mean, not even David Pogue celebrated speed in iPhoto '05... Although he does go as far as to say it only bogs down at 20,000 photos in the library... Pfeh!
Then you need to write and tell Apple market monkeys about your concern. When not purchased with a computer, OS X 10.3 has shipped without any iLife apps. You may check on the Apple Store. Now, it might change with Tiger but I don't really see any indication of this.
Also note that it would be a significant discount -- i.e., too good to be true: OS X is $129.00 (single license), whereas iLife '05 is $79.00.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I guess if SF mayor hopeful John Smith donates you money via PayPal with his Hotmail account iluv_49ers@hotmail.com without specifying any more personal information, you can't be expected to know who that money comes from.
That, I hope, also applies when Colombian drug cartel member [random first name] Escobar gives you $100 coming from his latest submarine run to Florida, using his snowhite789@yahoo.com account... Just because he likes your blog, that is...
Even better, a notice along the lines of "If you're directly participating as a candidate in the election, or if you are actively employed in a candidate's campaign, you are prohibited from donating" should do.
I hope SF authorities still have to show evidence when they charge you with violating the law...
While I agree with other posts mentioning less freedom of speech in Europe, there's one thing we should remember.
Curbing political speech at election time (i.e., a week or more before the actual vote) may not always be bad, at least in principle.
Consider the case of a party having substantially more economical resources than their opponents. The sheer power of money may lead to their victory thanks to advertising barrage and intensive canvassing. The U.S. may not feel the problem, at least at the moment, as both parties usually enjoy substantial campaign funding. A more typical example of this is Italy, where a media mogul has been allowed to participate directly in politics without being forced to give up control of his empire.
There's always a certain percentage of the voting population who can't perceive the different stances of parties, and are undecided. Those people are an easy prey for spin doctors.
Curbing campaigning in the eve of the election may somewhat alleviate the problem, at least by giving people a little time to think it over.
Italy does have restrictions on political speech starting a few weeks before elections. Does this solve the problem? No. Would it be worse without such regulations? Possibly.
DISCLAIMER: This is all pretty utopistic, I know. Just thinking that a person would be in charge of actually deciding what is political speech, and what is not, would lead to significant bias when enforcing such laws.
It's only a vague memory, but I seem to remember Apple did something to Spotlight in one of the latest Tiger seeds, which involved the ability of POSIX ("terminal") apps to use Spotlight data. Again, though, I have no more info than this.
Oh, now I get it. The tail of the robot isn't entirely made of rigid plastic, right? Or anyway, the bladder is partly exposed to the outside.
From the drawing I linked, I thought the bladder was enclosed in the tail, in which case it would have needed to load water from the outside, pretty much like a submarine tank, I guess.
The picture on the website from your sig are much clearer, although I can't quite make out the bladder on Spray's tail, yet... Is it the darker grey area on the tail, here?
The specs for the batteries are: 13 MJ from 52 DD Li CSC cells (12 kg). If you look at the design pic, it says "56 D cell pack." Is this the lithium D cell you mentioned?
I don't understand how it can pitch downward and still descend, or viceversa, though...
According to the scheme, it's got movable ballast (the battery packs) which shift its balance and adjust pitch and roll. But how can it pitch down and still descend if the bladder is only on its tail?
As the bladder fills with water, it should start to sink tail-first -- the "PITCH" battery pack doesn't look like it can go fore enough of the robot's center to pitch it down, and the "ROLL" one can't be heavy enough to make it pitch, as that would prevent it from ascending head-first... I'm puzzled...
I heard many SCO execs are suing the University of Berkley , too.
They just found out their $2,000 honoris causa PhD's or MBA's are not recognized by the United States Department of Education, but only by the New Millennium Accrediting Partnership For Educators Worldwide...
Mmmmh...
Longhorn...
MS search presents the results in such a similar way I can't help but call it "inspiration." And look at the date in Apple's filename.
I can see there is anti-aliasing going on, and the new fonts you linked are good indeed... Yet, doesn't the whole screenshot from TFA look strangely blurred?
Well, I don't know if you've seen OS X 10.3 at work. It's quite a beauty, with serious 3D performance, and runs fine on pretty lousy cards such as those on the latest iMacs...
We'll see how well MS will code this thing...
Whoops... Anyway, I think they can be a definite selling point in that OS-level search capabilities integrate better into the user experience.
For one, OS integration gives you the ability to create "smart" (dynamic) folders which are basically the results of a query against metadata in all files but still have a system-level validity.
In other words, you can create your "Yosemite" folder which will contain anything related to that keyword, and you can do that with other programs, such as DevonTHINK. What you can't have with third-party apps (AFAIK) is automatic scanning of files across the entire system without prior settings, and most of all, the ability to treat "catalogs" as real directories which you can burn to CD, backup, compress & archive, etc...
More to the point, do these third-party apps offer APIs to other applications, so that you can use their functionality, say, when saving a file or including a picture from your library? That's what OS-level search capabilities are about, at least the way I understand them.
Damn I wish I had mod points to give you.
Compare grandparent's "nothing special" to my first run of OS X 10.3:
- Take Powerbook out of the box
- Plug into power and Ethernet
- Turn on, insert OS X DVD, wait
- Click twice, fill account and network settings, wait
- Fun, with printing capabilities, too!
Now, that is what I call "nothing special." Pretty much the same applied when I tried Knoppix a while ago, except text-only browsing wasn't that fun...
About a year ago, the police here (Italy) busted a shop owner who was simply saving (and reselling over the 'Net) data from the card scanner in his shop.
If what the journalists wrote was real -- which is rarely the case -- it's really that easy.
I find it very subjective... I tested my own ears (or brain?) and found out that I can't quite tell a 192 kbit MP3 from anything above that...
However, 64k WMA is quite lousy, even to me. It may be good enough to listen to in rush-hour traffic or on the subway, but I wouldn't boldly call it "CD quality."
I don't think daily police work was the point here. The minister's comment looked to me as a broader one. More like "generic guidelines on Swedish top law enforcement priorities" - only that was an interview, not an official paper, and the guy was pointing out that anti-piracy is not a priority.
However, if you're telling me the Swedish government may not set priorities in police work, then I'll check my facts and bow down, promise!
Ok, but let me insist on one point: if it's not him, then it may be someone else in the executive. Since ministers participating in a government usually are part of the same political alliance, I think it's conceivable that what Bodström says, may be enacted by the appropriate Minister.
In other words, Bodström point of view might be very well be the whole executive branch's point of view, and I do believe law enforcement ultimately falls under some minister's jurisdiction.
I do acknowledge again that, if the Swedish constitution provides for compulsory action against all crimes of which there is notice, the police will have the right and duty to prosecute them all. However, resource allocation and "guidelines" may carry their official and unofficial weight (read: "Put the heat on tax evasion or I'll kick you out of office, Chief.")
Well, it just says it's not Bodström's authority. It doesn't say no one controls the police (but itself).
You're sorely confused. Police is under the control of the executive branch of most, if not all, democratic countries.
Although there may be a constitutional obligation to investigate and prosecute all crimes of which a prosecutor, or a police officer, is informed, the latter still falls under control of the executive branch when it comes to setting priorities and initiatives. In many countries, it is the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Internal Affairs (or their equivalents) who appoint top police figures.
Of course both the executive and judiciary ultimately fall under the legislative branch control, in that it is the lawmaker (and usually a Constitution) who decides what is legal. This doesn't mean a country can't decide to set a priority of enforcing against tax evasion, while reducing resources for anti-piracy activities. This doesn't make any of those any more (or less) illegal.
I have the same problem, except I have to wake up at 6:30. No matter how many hours of sleep I get, it's always a problem.
I resorted to using a very loud alarm clock and an additional (almost) fail-safe system.
I use iCal to fire up an Applescript which starts up iTunes at max volume, with the equalizer set all the way up, so that the Powerbook speakers will sound all distorted and unbearably out of range.
The script is purposedly running on an infinite loop, so that it can't be easily quit. You need to walk up to the Powerbook and be so awake as to be able to press Cmd-Alt-Esc and force-quit it, then set iTunes to its proper EQ and volume settings.
Not as nerdy as Perl, but it does its job most of the times... I wish I had louder speakers, though.
Is this so hard to understand...Repeat after me. THE ISSUE IS NOT GOOGLE SENDING PEOPLE TO AFP'S SITE BUT TO AFP NEWS STORIES ON OTHER WEBSITES.
All in all, it's a matter of copyright, ok. AFP will likely win the lawsuit unless "fair use" and similar provisions apply, as Google only quotes portions of articles and thumbnail images.
Anyways, you can't easily say Google hurts AFP business. Google increases traffic to websites paying for AFP content.
The owners of those websites easily realize that increased traffic comes from a combination of Google "advertising" and their ability to display AFP content. Said owners will no doubt take steps to both improve their Google News "ranking," and will pay all the happier for AFP content.
How is this directly hurting AFP market? There isn't a real danger that everyone will do what Google does: who might step in and compete with Google News, at this time? MSN, maybe, not many more. And in any case, someone has to actually display the full text article for it to be indexed, either to get traffic and display ads, or to be indexed at all!
Have you considered that, in theory, as Google takes down AFP articles from all news outlets, those websites might decide to sign up with other news agencies and turn away from AFP, just to get good Google News placement and the associated traffic?
I wouldn't make it so easy. If Word doesn't play movies even after another player has been installed, then the "unlawful leveraging of monopoly" case might apply to the Office product line as well.
Those speaking in TFA said "Windows is crippled," which it might very well be if the same problems applied across a wide array of applications.
If this only happens in Office, then there would be a case of "Microsoft crippling the dominant productivity application suite in order to ensure dominance in the media player market."
It'd be, or should be antitrust all over again.
Yes, yes... Yet, I can't see their point.
1. AFP is hurt in its sales because Google lets end-users get their news for free, so that they don't flock any longer to sites which buy news from AFP. I can see how going up against Google may be useful there, yet wouldn't it be faster and more effective to "secure" your own site? i.e.requiring registration etc...
2. AFP is hurt by other commercial sites getting and reproducing AFP news for free, and displaying them. Alright, teach'em a lesson by suing Google. Then again, I've never heard a news agency having these kinds of problems, as there are usually many value-added services clients get when they subscribe to services - such as actual "real time" news feeds.
3. At least according to Wikipedia, AFP is a government-subsidized news agency whose most important market is an artificial one -- i.e. France, where it's the "official" agency. Why go after Google like you were a real company, aggressively protecting your fictitious market?
It seems to me as though they're looking for additional funding for fiscal 2005, more than protecting a supposed market... After all we all have national budget problems in the EU (and not only there...)
They can very well. They're called "informants," "snitches" or "a guy I know." It may not carry a legal weight, but there are (usually petty) criminals cops let be just because they give them the skinny on what's going on on the scene. A prosecutor would not be bound to protect/ignore such persons, but the actual enforcers will close an eye on them.
2) Swedish procecutor's do not. It's an american practice.
This doesn't mean 'underground' deals don't happen. Most are, especially in smaller crimes.
3) The guy wasn't working for law enforcement.
It makes it all the easier to make a deal: You snitch, I won't sue you (or give your name to the appropriate law enforcement agency.) That doesn't make him or her any less of a snitch. After all, it's a private organization which has been given power analogous to that of public prosecutors: I mean, they have the right to search and seize private property - how does this make them very different from official police?
In case you were still reading this:
Did you find any indication that iPhoto '05 is any faster? My iPhoto is really slow, too, but after a quick round of reviews I couldn't find any comment about improved performance. What's worse, at least one of them pointed out increased sluggishness...
I mean, not even David Pogue celebrated speed in iPhoto '05... Although he does go as far as to say it only bogs down at 20,000 photos in the library... Pfeh!
Then you need to write and tell Apple market monkeys about your concern. When not purchased with a computer, OS X 10.3 has shipped without any iLife apps. You may check on the Apple Store. Now, it might change with Tiger but I don't really see any indication of this.
Also note that it would be a significant discount -- i.e., too good to be true: OS X is $129.00 (single license), whereas iLife '05 is $79.00.