Or they're just trying to use every single card they can get. They're not incompetent, the only way anyone found out about the foreman's history is that one of Samsung's legal team happened to be married to someone who was involved in the foreman's legal battle with Seagate and after all the media focus they recognised him. Had that not happened, it's highly unlikely that anyone would have found out about this. Apple is trying to argue that Samsung's lawyers had plenty of time to do their research on the jury and issue any objections - yet this shows that Apple didn't know, either. So Apple is basically trying to say that Samsung's lawyers are incompetent for not doing something that Apple's own lawyers didn't do. I wouldn't call that lying, I'd call that sleazy.
It's one thing saying that you own something containing a Samsung part (Technically owning an iPhone qualifies), it's quite another being BANKRUPT by a company that Samsung is significantly invested in. You don't easily forget about such things.
I don't suppose you (or anyone else) knows if these options (loading keys, disabling secure boot, etc.) will be available from all OEMs or is it something they can choose to not implement if they want?
I know with Windows RT, it's all locked down with no way to change it but that's not a "real" PC in any term.
I'd like to hear more about what supposedly "really" happened? I mean, I can possibly understand why people would think the moon landing was a hoax (it's almost too fantastical to believe), but you're saying there's people out there that believed it happened but just not the way we were told? What was different, what were we not told about (or lied to about) and how does that change things?
I was hoping that someone would say that and that's good to know. I think anyone paying attention to this case can see it's clearly juror misconduct, but knowing that it's hard to prove is worrying.
IANAL, but I believe that a lot of what Hogan has said during post-trial interviews cannot actually be submitted to court as evidence? Or at least, the Judge can't use his statements to influence her decision on what to do with him. Can anyone clarify on this?
The stuff about him being sued by Seagate is definitely grounds for a mistrial, though.
Yes, the former will work for 16-bit applications. For those reading this thread, I should point out that "XP Mode" is not installed by default in Windows 7 or anything but it is a worthwhile addon if you run legacy apps.
So originally it was for 32bit DLLS, then Windows 95 went and ruined it anyway by putting 16 and 32bit stuff together (gj, microsoft). However these days the reason they do it is for.bat scripts that were hard coded to use System32 to do things like update the registry - the.bat would be running as a 64bit process but the hardcoded path to System32 would mean it would attempt to run a 32bit regedit.exe (for example), causing it to fail in doing what it was meant to do. So basically, the whole SysWOW64 thing is for backwards compatibility.
I remember reading somewhere that System32 is called that for another reason (it isn't anything to do with the shift to 32bit windows back in the mid-90's). I can't for the life of me remember what that reason was, though. Nor can I remember where I read it.
It's entirely possible I just made that up, but if anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'd love to be reminded.
Do you have a link or source to back that up? The last time I tried running a 16bit application, it was years ago and didn't work at all. I was under the belief that all 16bit stuff wouldn't work.
It's entirely possible that different people/teams were in charge of updating the website and publishing the newspapers. Plus, newspapers generally charge more if the ad is bigger so keeping it to a minimum probably suited them better (not that Apple isn't rolling in cash or anything).
You didn't read the whole article, did you? Apple's response was "lackadaisical" because they were ordered to put the notice in each newspaper as early as possible, but they dragged their heels for weeks before doing it.
Oh absolutely, I don't doubt that - what I meant was, is there a source to say that FILMING there was too dangerous, specifically relating to the Robocop reboot?
There is not, on planet Earth, a single self-driving car that works in all conditions and is capable of navigating any road (Even without a map). However, just because it doesn't exist does not make it impossible. The same goes for the licensing/testing/insurance aspects - it may not exist today, but the same could be said about cars themselves when they first existed. Self-driving cars have the capacity to be safer, more efficient and faster than current cars are. Most accidents are caused by humans in some way - human error, humans being drunk, humans just plain being stupid. While I anticipate that some problems will arise with self-driving cars, that's no reason to write them off entirely. It may take some time, but eventually (and sooner than you think) they will become part of the mainstream. I genuinely expect them to make insurance premiums drop rather than increase.
There's no reason why they have to be so expensive, either. Seriously, why do you expect them to cost (what I presume you're hinting at) tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, more than an existing car? Especially given that most of the technology that will go into it already exists.
As someone with a bad enough sight problem that I'll never ever be allowed to drive, I yearn for the Self-driving car. For the love of almighty fuck, I just want to be able to get to work without having to deal with buses and trains. And yeah, fuck you, other commuters, fuck you all.
Slashdot Mirror
Or they're just trying to use every single card they can get.
They're not incompetent, the only way anyone found out about the foreman's history is that one of Samsung's legal team happened to be married to someone who was involved in the foreman's legal battle with Seagate and after all the media focus they recognised him. Had that not happened, it's highly unlikely that anyone would have found out about this.
Apple is trying to argue that Samsung's lawyers had plenty of time to do their research on the jury and issue any objections - yet this shows that Apple didn't know, either. So Apple is basically trying to say that Samsung's lawyers are incompetent for not doing something that Apple's own lawyers didn't do.
I wouldn't call that lying, I'd call that sleazy.
It's one thing saying that you own something containing a Samsung part (Technically owning an iPhone qualifies), it's quite another being BANKRUPT by a company that Samsung is significantly invested in. You don't easily forget about such things.
I don't suppose you (or anyone else) knows if these options (loading keys, disabling secure boot, etc.) will be available from all OEMs or is it something they can choose to not implement if they want?
I know with Windows RT, it's all locked down with no way to change it but that's not a "real" PC in any term.
....I need more mod points.
I don't think any of the previous indie bundles came with any of the DLC so don't hold that against THQ either.
So how is that any different to someone buying iliketofucklittleboysuptheass.com?
I'd like to hear more about what supposedly "really" happened? I mean, I can possibly understand why people would think the moon landing was a hoax (it's almost too fantastical to believe), but you're saying there's people out there that believed it happened but just not the way we were told? What was different, what were we not told about (or lied to about) and how does that change things?
I was hoping that someone would say that and that's good to know. I think anyone paying attention to this case can see it's clearly juror misconduct, but knowing that it's hard to prove is worrying.
Something about how what goes on in the Jury room is sacred and nobody's supposed to know about it to remain impartial or something?
IANAL, but I believe that a lot of what Hogan has said during post-trial interviews cannot actually be submitted to court as evidence? Or at least, the Judge can't use his statements to influence her decision on what to do with him. Can anyone clarify on this?
The stuff about him being sued by Seagate is definitely grounds for a mistrial, though.
I'm going to go with this and assume that when the guy said "proprietary" he actually meant "I don't know and nobody I can talk to knows".
Hi, thanks for your patronising tone, but we already figured it out: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3248941&cid=41968741
Ahhh, I think I understand what you mean now. By "XP mode", you're in fact referring to this: http://windows.microsoft.com/is-IS/windows7/products/features/windows-xp-mode
When silly me was thinking of this: http://filext.com/images/vista_compatibility_mode.gif
Yes, the former will work for 16-bit applications. For those reading this thread, I should point out that "XP Mode" is not installed by default in Windows 7 or anything but it is a worthwhile addon if you run legacy apps.
Yes.
See here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896458?wa=wsignin1.0
You are the first person I've seen to ever claim otherwise which is why I'm keen to hear more.
Actually I think I've found a reasonable source that explains it:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/ff955767.aspx
So originally it was for 32bit DLLS, then Windows 95 went and ruined it anyway by putting 16 and 32bit stuff together (gj, microsoft). However these days the reason they do it is for .bat scripts that were hard coded to use System32 to do things like update the registry - the .bat would be running as a 64bit process but the hardcoded path to System32 would mean it would attempt to run a 32bit regedit.exe (for example), causing it to fail in doing what it was meant to do. So basically, the whole SysWOW64 thing is for backwards compatibility.
I remember reading somewhere that System32 is called that for another reason (it isn't anything to do with the shift to 32bit windows back in the mid-90's). I can't for the life of me remember what that reason was, though. Nor can I remember where I read it.
It's entirely possible I just made that up, but if anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'd love to be reminded.
Do you have a link or source to back that up? The last time I tried running a 16bit application, it was years ago and didn't work at all. I was under the belief that all 16bit stuff wouldn't work.
It's entirely possible that different people/teams were in charge of updating the website and publishing the newspapers. Plus, newspapers generally charge more if the ad is bigger so keeping it to a minimum probably suited them better (not that Apple isn't rolling in cash or anything).
You didn't read the whole article, did you? Apple's response was "lackadaisical" because they were ordered to put the notice in each newspaper as early as possible, but they dragged their heels for weeks before doing it.
Oh absolutely, I don't doubt that - what I meant was, is there a source to say that FILMING there was too dangerous, specifically relating to the Robocop reboot?
There is not, on planet Earth, a single self-driving car that works in all conditions and is capable of navigating any road (Even without a map). However, just because it doesn't exist does not make it impossible. The same goes for the licensing/testing/insurance aspects - it may not exist today, but the same could be said about cars themselves when they first existed. Self-driving cars have the capacity to be safer, more efficient and faster than current cars are. Most accidents are caused by humans in some way - human error, humans being drunk, humans just plain being stupid. While I anticipate that some problems will arise with self-driving cars, that's no reason to write them off entirely. It may take some time, but eventually (and sooner than you think) they will become part of the mainstream. I genuinely expect them to make insurance premiums drop rather than increase.
There's no reason why they have to be so expensive, either. Seriously, why do you expect them to cost (what I presume you're hinting at) tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, more than an existing car? Especially given that most of the technology that will go into it already exists.
Can you provide a source to this? Because I'd absolutely love for it to be true.
As someone with a bad enough sight problem that I'll never ever be allowed to drive, I yearn for the Self-driving car. For the love of almighty fuck, I just want to be able to get to work without having to deal with buses and trains. And yeah, fuck you, other commuters, fuck you all.
Or Robocop.
Shocker of the day: Some software is good for some things but not others.