Want to get a crack at that iOS4 goodness that Steve Jobs graced us with just yesterday, but don’t have the developer account that you need? We have good news, you can get your hands dirty now thanks to the powers of the internet.
The only problem is this, you need a Mac to pull off what we are about to describe. If you do have a OS X machine, read on. Why the Mac component? iTunes 9.2 is required, and as it stands that iTunes build is Mac only. Sorry Windows users, step aside.
You do not need your UDID to execute the installation, which means that Apple should not (no promises) be able to nail you against the wall for doing what we are about to walk you through.
1. To commence, download and install iTunes 9.2 (Mac only, download links here, here, or here).
2. Now you need to download the right gold master for your device and save it on your desktop:
3. Now let’s actually install iOS4:
All Done. How cool is that?
A few warnings, this is a hack, so if something goes wrong do not come crying to us about it. If Apple gets mad at you, we warned you. Finally, have fun. The real version of iOS4 is scheduled to drop for the public on June 21st, but who wants to wait that long?
A special thanks to GumballTech for doing all the legwork.
Original title and link for this post: How to install iOS4 NOW. [Mac Only]
A full sized yellow school bus carrying kids to an after-school program hit and pinned a woman in Gravesend yesterday afternoon. The victim was stuck fully conscious under the bus for about 15 minutes before being taken to Lutheran Hospital. The Safe Coach Bus driver said he didn't see her crossing the street at Stillwell Avenue and Kings Highway, and told the Post, "I hope she's not hurt. I don't want to get in trouble."
The victim is expected to survive, but the accident was so bloody that the driver begged the kids not to look. But 14-year-old Dillon Alibocas snuck a peek, and said, "She was laying under the bus, her leg was crushed, it had a big gash in it and her dress was completely ripped. It was crazy." Safe Coach Bus staff also arrived at the scene, and walked all 28 kids to their destination at the Edith and Carl Marks Jewish Community House of Bensonhurst.
A romantic hike and planned marriage proposal took a sad turn Friday for 30-year-old Richard Butler and his girlfriend, 25-year-old Bethany Lott.
Butler said he’d taken Lott to Max Patch Bald, a mountain near Asheville, to propose to her. The couple, who live in Knoxville, Tennessee, were hiking up the mountain when thunderstorms began rolling in. Butler had planned to ask Lott to marry him, but he didn’t get the chance:
“I think it was the third one that hit us,” he said. “She was probably five feet in front of me, so given the incline, she was a good bit higher than me, but it jumped to me.”
Butler said he didn’t initially realize he had been hit.
“I was spun 180 degrees and thrown several feet back,” he said. “My legs turned to Jello, my shoes were smoking and the bottom of my feet felt like they were on fire.”
Butler recalled that just prior to the fatal lightning strike, Lott turned to him and remarked on “how beautiful it is.” He said that when he realized his girlfriend had been struck, he tried CPR for 15 minutes before summoning help. Butler also said that he managed to put the ring on her while emergency medical workers attempted resuscitation:
“I put the ring on her finger while the EMTs (Emergency Medical Technicians) were working on her,” he said.
“They are listing me as her fiancé in the obituaries.”
Find a suitable scrubbing powdered cleanser. Suitable cleansers include Comet, Ajax, or Bon Ami.[2]
Citrus based cleaners are commercial products usually available from hardware stores, and some pharmacies. On the whole, these are environmentally friendly products but check the label for details.
Powdered cleanser method:
WD-40 method:
Citrus cleanser method:
It's a well-known fact that the more steps a shopper must take in order to make a purchase, the less likely that purchase is. The same is true for shoppers on Facebook, of course, which is why San Francisco-based Payvment has developed a tool that lets them buy from vendors without ever leaving the site.
Now in beta, Payvment turns companies' Facebook fan pages from marketing platforms into sales platforms. Specifically, its Facebook app gives vendors everything they need to create a storefront on the social networking site, including a built-in, full-featured admin area. Installation takes 15 minutes, the company says; once it's done, Facebook users can shop and make purchases from that store without needing to leave Facebook. Each TRUSTe-certified storefront can be added to an unlimited number of Facebook pages. Integrated product search enables discovery of the store's items from across Facebook, and a universal shopping cart lets customers complete their purchases from any Payvment-powered storefront on the site. Payvment currently supports sales in more than 20 currencies with automatic conversion; PayPal, Visa, MasterCard, Amex and Discover are all accepted. Other features include automated inventory control, email receipts, storefront comment capabilities and instant discounts for Facebook fans. Payvment is free for participants in its public beta program.
Christian Taylor, CEO of Payvment, explains: "Facebook users want a buying experience that captures what's truly unique about the Facebook experience. They want to be able to easily find products and brands, use a shopping cart that travels with them across storefronts, and take advantage of discounts sellers can offer to attract their loyalty. Payvment delivers on the promise of the social network, and helps sellers transform a relationship into a sale."
Since Payvment launched in November, more than 20,000 businesses and individuals have started to sell goods on Facebook and over 500,000 Facebook users have shopped for products in stores using the Payvment app. Businesses large and small: time to venture into the social shopping waters yourself...? (Related: Avon takes to Facebook with social sales boutique — An online store in 60 seconds.)
Website: www.payvment.com
Contact: support@payvment.com
Spotted by: Michael Corrales
10 mins! RT @JustinGutwein: Starts in 15 minutes! Live coverage of Apple keynotes and events http://bit.ly/cOs0aW (via @macrumors) #wwdc
[Direct Link]Over 400 fans at Citi Field set the Guinness World Record for most people crocheting in one place yesterday, hooking together blue and orange yarn in honor of the Mets. National NeedleArts Association co-chair Lily Chin told the Daily News, "I thought this was a great team effort, because baseball is a team sport. I thought it was brilliant."
At the 4th annual "Stitch 'n' Pitch" event, 427 people crocheted for 15 minutes straight, setting a new world record. Unfortunately, the Guinness World Records website couldn't tell us what the previous record had been, or if any previous gathering had even warranted a record.
The SpaceX Falcon 9 launched on its maiden flight on Friday at 11:45pm Pacific Daylight Time, 15 minutes short of the end of its four-hour launch window.…
3ric Johansen emailed me about this terrific video he made with Nathan Pegram using Intellectual Ventures' Phantom camera at Maker Faire 2010.
We conducted some pure hackery in order to make these videos. The first key part was having a "Nanoflash SDI recorder". This standalone recorder can do real-time compression of 1080p content onto compact flash. In order to film and export video at a fast rate, we needed some other method than our typical "wait 15 minutes for gigabit ethernet" process. So we wired up this recorder to the Phantom, along with a linksys WRT54G access point running rogue firmware. The rogue firmware (which runs linux) enables us to make custom web applications which run on the access point. We built a [very simple] cgi which controlled one of the LEDs on the front of the AP. We then did more of our 'hotel soldering' to wire up this LED to the nanoflash recorder. Tada! We now have software control of this standalone recorder. Besides being useful for doing live demos, this mod/hack will enable us to take highspeed video and export it at a very fast speed. We still need to build an application which will sync the playback from the Phantom with the recording on the Nanoflash.Music: "Raise Riddim" by I.D. & Baobinga
Continue reading Fuel cell-powered Chem-E-Car tears its way through the halls of Cooper Union
Fuel cell-powered Chem-E-Car tears its way through the halls of Cooper Union originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:08:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | | Email this | CommentsNetflix CEO Reed Hastings continues his pioneering management style and posts Netflix's current business plan online.
It's a great presentation, with implications far beyond Netflix--including the future of cable companies and TV . Enjoy:
Join the conversation about this story »
See Also:
Van Chester Thompkins was in custody in Michigan, suspected of a murder outside a mall. He's given a form listing his Miranda rights, which he declines to sign, and it's disputed on the record whether he orally confirmed his understanding of his rights. The interrogation begins, and as recounted by the Supreme Court today:
At no point during the interrogation did Thompkins say that he wanted to remain silent, that he did not want to talk with the police, or that he wanted an attorney. Thompkins was “[l]argely” silent during the interrogation, which lasted about three hours. He did give a few limited verbal responses, however, such as “yeah,” “no,” or “I don’t know.” And on occasion he communicated by nodding his head. Thompkins also said that he “didn’t want a peppermint” that was offered to him by the police and that the chair he was “sitting in was hard.”
About 2 hours and 45 minutes into the interrogation, Helgert asked Thompkins, “Do you believe in God?” Thompkins made eye contact with Helgert and said “Yes,” as his eyes “well[ed] up with tears.” Helgert asked, “Do you pray to God?” Thompkins said “Yes.” Helgert asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Thompkins answered “Yes” and looked away. Thompkins refused to make a written confession, and the interrogation ended about 15 minutes later.
[On policemen invoking God during interrogations, do read Brewer v. Williams (1977), the "Christian burial speech" case. It's a classic.]
Thompkins was charged with first-degree murder. He moved to have his interrogation statements suppressed under Miranda. In a 5-4 opinion today, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that Thompkins did not properly invoke his right to remain silent and that the police didn't need him to explicitly waive his right to remain silent; therefore, the statements were properly admitted.
Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court, for himself and the four you'd expect. In order of arguments made:
Thompkins makes various arguments that his answers to questions from the detectives were inadmissible. He first contends that he “invoke[d] his privilege” to remain silent by not saying anything for a sufficient period of time, so the interrogation should have “cease[d]” before he made his inculpatory statements... This argument is unpersuasive. In the context of invoking the Miranda right to counsel, the Court [has] held that a suspect must do so “unambiguously.” If an accused makes a statement concerning the right to counsel “that is ambiguous or equivocal” or makes no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation, or ask questions to clarify whether the accused wants to invoke his or her Miranda rights.
There is good reason to require an accused who wants to invoke his or her right to remain silent to do so unambiguously. A requirement of an unambiguous invocation of Miranda rights results in an objective inquiry that “avoid[s] difficulties of proof and . . . provide[s] guidance to officers” on how to proceed in the face of ambiguity. If an ambiguous act, omission, or statement could require police to end the interrogation, police would be required to make difficult decisions about an accused’s unclear intent and face the consequence of suppression “if they guess wrong.” Suppression of a voluntary confession in these circumstances would place a significant burden on society’s interest in prosecuting criminal activity. ...
Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police. Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his “right to cut off questioning." Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.
Did Thompkins waive his right to remain silent, then?
The prosecution therefore does not need to show that a waiver of Miranda rights was express. An “implicit waiver” of the “right to remain silent” is sufficient to admit a suspect’s statement into evidence. ... If the State establishes that a Miranda warning was given and the accused made an uncoerced statement, this showing, standing alone, is insufficient to demonstrate “a valid waiver” of Miranda rights. The prosecution must make the additional showing that the accused understood these rights.... Where the prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by the accused, an accused’s uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent.
Although Miranda imposes on the police a rule that is both formalistic and practical when it prevents them from interrogating suspects without first providing them with a Miranda warning, it does not impose a formalistic waiver procedure that a suspect must follow to relinquish those rights. As a general proposition, the law can presume that an individual who, with a full understanding of his or her rights, acts in a manner inconsistent with their exercise has made a deliberate choice to relinquish the protection those rights afford.
The record in this case shows that Thompkins waived his right to remain silent. There is no basis in this case to conclude that he did not understand his rights; and on these facts it follows that he chose not to invoke or rely on those rights when he did speak. First, there is no contention that Thompkins did not understand his rights; and from this it follows that he knew what he gave up when he spoke....
Thompkins’s answer to Detective Helgert’s question about whether Thompkins prayed to God for forgiveness for shooting the victim is a “course of conduct indicating waiver” of the right to remain silent. If Thompkins wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to Helgert’s questions,or he could have unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights and ended the interrogation. The fact that Thompkins made a statement about three hours after receiving a Miranda warning does not overcome the fact that he engaged in a course of conduct indicating waiver. Police are not required to rewarn suspects from time to time. Thompkins’s answer to Helgert’s question about praying to God for forgiveness for shooting the victim was sufficient to show a course of conduct indicating waiver. This is confirmed by the fact that before then Thompkins had given sporadic answers to questions throughout the interrogation.
Third, there is no evidence that Thompkins’s statement was coerced.... The fact that Helgert’s question referred to Thompkins’s religious beliefs also did not render Thompkins’s statement involuntary. “[T]he Fifth Amendment privilege is not concerned ‘with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion.’” In these circumstances, Thompkins knowingly and voluntarily made a statement to police, so he waived his right to remain silent.
Nor must police obtain an explicit waiver in advance of questioning:
Interrogation provides the suspect with additional information that can put his or her decision to waive, or not to invoke, into perspective. As questioning commences and then continues, the suspect has the opportunity to consider the choices he or she faces and to make a more informed decision, either to insist on silence or to cooper-ate. When the suspect knows that Miranda rights can be invoked at any time, he or she has the opportunity to reassess his or her immediate and long-term interests. Cooperation with the police may result in more favorable treatment for the suspect; the apprehension of accomplices; the prevention of continuing injury and fear; beginning steps towards relief or solace for the victims; and the beginning of the suspect’s own return to the law and the social order it seeks to protect.... Thus, after giving a Miranda warning, police may interrogate a suspect who has neither invoked nor waived his or her Miranda rights.
[I am skipping the AEDPA and effective assistance of counsel issues.]
Justice Sotomayor, writing for the four dissenters, focused upon the burden which prosecutors should have to meet in order to demonstrate a valid waiver of Miranda rights:
It is undisputed here that Thompkins never expressly waived his right to remain silent. His refusal to sign even an acknowledgment that he understood his Miranda rights evinces, if anything, an intent not to waive those rights. That Thompkins did not make the inculpatory statements at issue until after approximately 2 hours and 45 minutes of interrogation serves as “strong evidence” against waiver....
In these circumstances, Thompkins’ “actions and words” preceding the inculpatory statements simply do not evidence a “course of conduct indicating waiver” sufficient to carry the prosecution’s burden. Although the Michigan court stated that Thompkins “sporadically” participated in the interview,that court’s opinion and the record before us are silent as to the subject matter or context of even a single question to which Thompkins purportedly responded, other than the exchange about God and the statements respecting the peppermint and the chair. Thompkins made no initial declaration akin to “I will talk to you.” Indeed, Michigan and the United States concede that no waiver occurred in this case until Thompkins responded “yes” to the questions about God. I believe it is objectively unreasonable under our clearly established precedents to conclude the prosecution met its “heavy burden” of proof on a record consisting of three one-word answers, following 2 hours and 45 minutes of silence punctuated by a few largely nonverbal responses to unidentified questions.
And as for the majority's holding:
These [new] principles flatly contradict our longstanding views that “a valid waiver will not be presumed ... simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained,” and that “[t]he courts must presume that a defendant did not waive his rights.” Indeed, we have in the past summarily reversed a state-court decision that inverted Miranda’s antiwaiver presumption, characterizing the error as “readily apparent.” At best, the Court today creates an unworkable and conflicting set of presumptions that will undermine Miranda’s goal of providing “concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow." At worst, it overrules sub silentio an essential aspect of the protections Miranda has long provided for the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. ...
Today’s dilution of the prosecution’s burden of proof to the bare fact that a suspect made inculpatory statements after Miranda warnings were given and understood takes an unprecedented step away from the “high standards of proof for the waiver of constitutional rights” this Court has long demanded. When waiver is to be inferred during a custodial interrogation, there are sound reasons to require evidence beyond inculpatory statements themselves. Miranda and our subsequent cases are premised on the idea that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive. Requiring proof of a course of conduct beyond the inculpatory statements themselves is critical to ensuring that those statements are voluntary admissions and not the dubious product of an overborne will.
Today’s decision thus ignores the important interests Miranda safeguards. The underlying constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination reflects “many of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations,” our society’s “preference for an accusatorial rather than an inquisitorial system of criminal justice”; a “fear that self-incriminating statements will be elicited by inhumane treatment and abuses” and a resulting “distrust of self-deprecatory statements”; and a realization that while the privilege is “sometimes a shelter to the guilty, [it] is often a protection to the innocent.” For these reasons, we have observed, a criminal law system “which comes to depend on the ‘confession’ will, in the long run, be less reliable and more subject to abuses than a system relying on independent investigation.” "By bracing against ‘the possibility of unreliable statements in every instance of in-custody interrogation,” Miranda’s prophylactic rules serve to “protect the fairness of the trial itself.” Today’s decision bodes poorly for the fundamental principles that Miranda protects.
Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down. Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent—which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded. Today’s broad new rules are all the more unfortunate because they are unnecessary to the disposition of the case before us. I respectfully dissent.
SCOTUSblog has the rest of today's opinions -- nothing else meriting front-page treatment, IMHO, but do take a look.
Here's my follow-up question: should the Miranda warnings now include a warning regarding the impact of this decision? "If you want to invoke your right to remain silent, you need to say that -- either now or later on while we're together. Otherwise, we will presume you have waived these rights and are voluntarily willing to answer some questions."
RT @WSJ: Obama will hold a press conference in 15 minutes. He'll announce a suspension of Arctic oil drilling http://on.wsj.com/dhOuj8
[Direct Link]
You might remember the last time that we talked about 6rounds. Regardless, here’s the recap: it’s a video chat service that offers more features and better integration than anything you’ve ever used. We promise.
It’s no coincidence that 6rounds chose today at Google I/O to announce its latest features; 6rounds is still the only approved extension for video chat within Google Wave. But with what was announced today, even that seems light in comparison.
The short explanation is that 6rounds has just introduced its developer’s API. However, in keeping with “better than you’ve ever used”, this is an API like you’ve not seen before. 6rounds is promising that developers developers “can quickly and easily transform their existing social activities and games into 6rounds video chat experience, or create new inspiring applications, within a mere 15 minutes”.
15 minutes. Yes, you read that correctly. Want to see it in action? We knew you would. Here’s the video:
The API and extensions are purposely made to be simple, but highly effective. According to the developers, “our focus was to create something that will speed up the development process and concentrate on game functionality instead of platform boundaries”.
This is, apparently, just the beginning of what 6rounds plans to offer in the coming months. Look for Facebook video chat, as well as the ability to combine multi-user chat sessions very soon.
Location may be king of the hill right now, but video chat and conferencing will never die. With services like what 6rounds are offering, we can be sure that we’ll see highly-entertaining, user-friendly integration across the Internet.
So whether you’re browsing in Facebook, doing a Google Wave project with a friend or even just having a chat, 6rounds is likely to be changing the way that you do it. Let’s face it, social network sites are popular because they’re social. So why should you do them all by yourself?
photo tips for PR: Spend $5 & 15 Minutes to Improve Your Photo Skills http://bit.ly/aNjiwb
[Direct Link]
About half of the attendees at The Next Web Conference aren’t from The Netherlands. They fly (or drive) into Amsterdam early in the week and stay for the weekend after the conference.
We love it, and are very proud, that our conference has grown into an event with international appeal.
For our international visitors we have a few tips when it comes to surviving Amsterdam. Here they are, in no particular order:
Bikes
Beware of people on bikes. There are more bikes in Amsterdam than people and the people riding these bikes don’t stop for anything. Stick to the sidewalks and keep your ears open. If you hear someone ringing their bells seek cover or they will run you down. It is great to experience Amsterdam on a bike. Go rent one at one of the many bike rent shops.
Drugs
Amsterdam is sometimes referred to as ‘Drug capital of the world’. This is a lot more credit than we deserve but it is true that certain drugs are legal and readily available. If you absolutely have to get a taste then we won’t stop you. But be very cautious. Our soft drugs are very potent and can easily make you sick. Locals usually aren’t too interested in drugs either so be discrete about your experiences. Apart from that, enjoy!
Flights
Flying into Amsterdam via Schiphol? Get a taxi (you might call it a cab but in The Netherlands we call them Taxis) or the train. Train is cheap and comfortable unless you arrive after dark in which case I would advise to take a taxi. Trains leave every 15 minutes from schiphol – costs 3,80 euros), then take a tram (line 4 or 25 – costs 1,60 euros) and get out at Frederiksplein (right in front of Hotel V). Total travel time 40 minutes
Read this excellent article at The New York Times on how to arrive healthily and safe. In short: drink a lot of water, keep moving around and take lots of vitamins.
Taxis
A taxi into town shouldn’t cost you more than 45 euros depending on where you need to go and should take no more than 35 minutes. Amsterdam taxi drivers can often be rude, unfriendly and unprofessional. Sorry about that.
Red Light District
Yes, the red Light District is a major sightseeing opportunity. Lots of sights to see there. Go ahead, check it out but pay attention to a few things. Beware of pickpockets: most people are so distracted by the sight of, ehm, certain things that they don’t watch their personal belongings. Also, don’t make photos of the ladies, or men, behind the windows. They DON’T like that and won’t ask you politely to stop if you do take a photo. Don’t risk finding out what they WILL do.
Where to go and for what
The Next Web Conference will be held at the Westergasfabriek in Amsterdam. We’ve created a map with some interesting places in Amsterdam. We’ll add stuff to the map almost every day:
View The Next Web Conference in a larger map
How to get to the venue:
The venue is called the Westergasfabriek and most people in Amsterdam know where it is so you can ask anyone in the street. The exact address is:
Westergasfabriek
Zuiveringshal West
Pazzanistraat 10
1014 BE Amsterdam
Netherlands
Tram 10 goes directly to the conference venue. Take the one that goes in the direction of “Van Hallstraat” and get out at “Van Limburg Stirumstraat”. 2 minute walk from there.
Original title and link for this post: The beginners guide to having a good (and safe) time in Amsterdam
