~Shard~
Sep 13, 09:14 PM
Dear god, enough with the phone rumors already!:mad:
Would you prefer us to go back to the PowerBook G5 rumors instead? :p ;) :D
Would you prefer us to go back to the PowerBook G5 rumors instead? :p ;) :D
macsmurf
Apr 19, 07:34 AM
The Nexus S looks different to the Galaxy S in software and physical looks but is included in the suit. As that is a Google experience device I do wonder why Apple don't target Google directly.
Google probably have a kickass patent portfolio so they'll just countersue.
Google probably have a kickass patent portfolio so they'll just countersue.
munkery
Apr 11, 02:54 PM
Yeah, let's all waste time worrying about a "possible" threat that hasn't proved to be any significant danger in the wild. It's even better that we can worry about it in an obsolete version of the OS!
:rolleyes:
If this is in response to my post, I was just clarifying some details related to an article discussed earlier in the thread.
For those interested, this threat vector in Leopard would allow a similar means of exploitation as ELF viruses in Linux, which were not very serious and did not manifest as any significant threat in the wild.
:rolleyes:
If this is in response to my post, I was just clarifying some details related to an article discussed earlier in the thread.
For those interested, this threat vector in Leopard would allow a similar means of exploitation as ELF viruses in Linux, which were not very serious and did not manifest as any significant threat in the wild.
Chris Bangle
Aug 31, 02:01 PM
Apple did this same thing before.Streaming it to London..If I recall it was the Front Row type invitation broadcast from a theatre..
Anybody remember that ?
Yeh it was the 5generation launch, they streamed it to the BBC centre i think, Sky News and BBC had the ipod as news article that night.
Anybody remember that ?
Yeh it was the 5generation launch, they streamed it to the BBC centre i think, Sky News and BBC had the ipod as news article that night.
Stewie
Sep 26, 08:27 AM
Yeah, this is pretty exciting news. I had already planned to call Verizon this morning to see when my contract is up.
EDIT: $175 termination fee per phone and a good while to go on the contract. Yeouch! I may just have to keep my fingers crossed that Verizon Wireless gets the iPhone late next year.
Yeah I don't think that is going to happen. I can't see Apple making a CDMA phone just for Verizon/Sprint. Making a GSM phone, especially if it is quad-band, would allow them to only make 1 phone for the world market.
EDIT: $175 termination fee per phone and a good while to go on the contract. Yeouch! I may just have to keep my fingers crossed that Verizon Wireless gets the iPhone late next year.
Yeah I don't think that is going to happen. I can't see Apple making a CDMA phone just for Verizon/Sprint. Making a GSM phone, especially if it is quad-band, would allow them to only make 1 phone for the world market.
Fast Shadow
Apr 25, 04:00 PM
I really can't say enough good things about my new MBP 17. If next year brings a redesign then it will need to be one hell of an improvement to get me to switch, because this thing has impressed me so much more than I expected.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 11:10 AM
I thought the Yonah was Socket 775. It's not? :confused:No, Yonah is a variant of Socket 479. The Pentium-M used it too. Yonah has the same number of pins but there placement is slightly different.
If I bought one of these, could I put it in my Intel iMac and have it work?No, the Sockets aren't compatible.
If I bought one of these, could I put it in my Intel iMac and have it work?No, the Sockets aren't compatible.
supremedesigner
Jul 14, 09:31 AM
Awesome!
Why 2 negatives over 1 positive? Wow.
Is there a way you can upgrade this new chip on previous intel mac? Just wondering. This is new to me.
Why 2 negatives over 1 positive? Wow.
Is there a way you can upgrade this new chip on previous intel mac? Just wondering. This is new to me.
abrooks
Sep 26, 08:54 AM
Include all the functionality of the Apple remote to allow the iPhone to drive your iTV and Front Row.
"Mom, hold on a second, I need to change the channel..." :D
*runs to local patent office*
"Mom, hold on a second, I need to change the channel..." :D
*runs to local patent office*
sfwalter
Sep 10, 03:39 PM
...I would like to be able to purchase a machine without an integrated display (aka iMac). This machine would have a graphics card in a standard slot so that it can upgraded. It would be great also to be able to remove and upgrade the hard disk, space for a second hard disk is would be a nice to have.
Currently I'm stuck in the middle between an iMac (I want a separate display, and some upgrade paths) and Mac Pro (too upgradeable for my needs, and way too expensive).
Apple really needs a pro-sumer box.
Currently I'm stuck in the middle between an iMac (I want a separate display, and some upgrade paths) and Mac Pro (too upgradeable for my needs, and way too expensive).
Apple really needs a pro-sumer box.
AidenShaw
Sep 11, 05:43 PM
Aiden, it's just not like you to make a statement like this without adding the links...
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cfp2000.html ;)
Note the Dell Precision Workstation 390 (Conroe) and the Precision Workstation 690 (Xeon 5100).
3 GHz Xeon - 2775
2.93 GHz Conroe Extreme - 2872
That "horrible buffered memory" is about a 3.5% handicap....at most. (The memory, chipsets, motherboards are all different.)
And one shouldn't say "but the FB-DIMMs are clocked faster" - the buffering is what enables the faster clock, as well as what adds the latency. The two tend to balance out, and the net result is that you can put 64 GiB of RAM on the Xeon - which you couldn't do without buffering!
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cfp2000.html ;)
Note the Dell Precision Workstation 390 (Conroe) and the Precision Workstation 690 (Xeon 5100).
3 GHz Xeon - 2775
2.93 GHz Conroe Extreme - 2872
That "horrible buffered memory" is about a 3.5% handicap....at most. (The memory, chipsets, motherboards are all different.)
And one shouldn't say "but the FB-DIMMs are clocked faster" - the buffering is what enables the faster clock, as well as what adds the latency. The two tend to balance out, and the net result is that you can put 64 GiB of RAM on the Xeon - which you couldn't do without buffering!
pingin
Sep 12, 05:47 PM
Kind of a huge gap, don'cha think? For an extra $100 I can nearly TRIPLE the capacity? Why would I even consider a 30 GB model?
Actually $100 is a lot of money. Especially if you don't need the capacity.
The main thing for me though is size. The difference in width is only a few tenths of an inch but the 30G is definitely slim and it feels pretty light in the hand. I'm not sure that's really the case with the 60G/80G. The iPod is primarily a portable device afterall.
Actually $100 is a lot of money. Especially if you don't need the capacity.
The main thing for me though is size. The difference in width is only a few tenths of an inch but the 30G is definitely slim and it feels pretty light in the hand. I'm not sure that's really the case with the 60G/80G. The iPod is primarily a portable device afterall.
EagerDragon
Sep 4, 07:18 PM
No next gen DVD in the 23" yet, I guess.
Next gen DVD is still in the air and still too expensive, would raise the price by at least 700 (likely more). Not sure most people are ready to shell that much yet.
Next gen DVD is still in the air and still too expensive, would raise the price by at least 700 (likely more). Not sure most people are ready to shell that much yet.
seaweeds
Mar 29, 11:18 AM
I call (early) April Fool's joke. The figures don't make any sense, and they're being given by Llamas.
Lorenzo Llamas?
Lorenzo Llamas?
holycat
Sep 12, 05:44 PM
Apple is in a slow fall...
I love Mac's, and will always own one. However, the Intel Mac's are buggy as hell. (Still Not Compareable to Windows) The iPod's are not as good as the PSP, except for the large hard drive (and the ease of iTunes).
PSP better than iPod??in what sense??:confused:
I love Mac's, and will always own one. However, the Intel Mac's are buggy as hell. (Still Not Compareable to Windows) The iPod's are not as good as the PSP, except for the large hard drive (and the ease of iTunes).
PSP better than iPod??in what sense??:confused:
Uragon
Mar 30, 01:08 PM
The real question is why MS is so bothered about Apple using 'App Store'. Historically MS (almost) never used the word App, instead using the word Programs. Surely MS can come up with many alternatives that describe their own store equally well, if not better. Why fight with Apple over this? I can only conclude that it is to spite Apple, or to ride Apple's coat tails yet again.
Even if MS is right, logically, linguistically, I find their attitude over this rather puerile. PR-wise it says to me "Apple, if we can't imitate you, we'll sue you"
MS sinks lower in my opinion by the day.
Completely agree with you. Not sure why Microsoft making this a BIG deal.
Even if MS is right, logically, linguistically, I find their attitude over this rather puerile. PR-wise it says to me "Apple, if we can't imitate you, we'll sue you"
MS sinks lower in my opinion by the day.
Completely agree with you. Not sure why Microsoft making this a BIG deal.
Lershac
Apr 22, 11:12 PM
I've heard this request from a lot of people on this forum. Is this really a deal breaker for you? the screen isn't bright enough at night to illuminate the keys that you need a separate source of light?
Yes it is a deal breaker. I actually spend quite a bit of time in bed after lights out surfing and reading, keeping up with stuff (I am doing it at this moment) with the brightness at the lowest level +1 to not disturb my wife, and its definitely not enough to see the keyboard.
I also like it for taking notes in a dark presentation room. I got the newer air and returned it after a week (and gladly paid the restocking fee) because of this alone. I really liked the reduced weight and bulk, didnt miss the optical drive, but I gotta have that keyboard backlit.
right now I tend to use the ipad when I am just reading, but when I have to type it gets awkward, so I break out a laptop.
Yes it is a deal breaker. I actually spend quite a bit of time in bed after lights out surfing and reading, keeping up with stuff (I am doing it at this moment) with the brightness at the lowest level +1 to not disturb my wife, and its definitely not enough to see the keyboard.
I also like it for taking notes in a dark presentation room. I got the newer air and returned it after a week (and gladly paid the restocking fee) because of this alone. I really liked the reduced weight and bulk, didnt miss the optical drive, but I gotta have that keyboard backlit.
right now I tend to use the ipad when I am just reading, but when I have to type it gets awkward, so I break out a laptop.
Platform
Sep 14, 08:23 AM
This can be good...does look like a photo only event....but we can still hope (iPhone with great camrea ?)
str1f3
Nov 13, 10:54 PM
Amen! You are on the dot! Everyone (including developers) complain about their app not getting approved for one reason or another, and yet it's always because they breached the Developers Guide for the App Store. Just ******** get a printer and print the damn pdf out. Then, step two, READ it. Then, before you go and submit the app, use it yourself and see if it follows the guidelines.
It's like high school, when the teacher gives you a RUBRIC to FOLLOW, when you FAIL, it's because you didn't follow it. So shut up, or nut up. And build a better app. Hopefully one that doesn't say "that's what she says". :mad:
You're telling developers, who are the ones to deal with the policies daily, to read the SDK agreement. Rogue Amoeba, one the most respected Mac devs, did not violate the terms of the SDK agreement. They do not need to license these icons from Apple as they are being transmitted from the Mac and not by the iPhone app.
It's like high school, when the teacher gives you a RUBRIC to FOLLOW, when you FAIL, it's because you didn't follow it. So shut up, or nut up. And build a better app. Hopefully one that doesn't say "that's what she says". :mad:
You're telling developers, who are the ones to deal with the policies daily, to read the SDK agreement. Rogue Amoeba, one the most respected Mac devs, did not violate the terms of the SDK agreement. They do not need to license these icons from Apple as they are being transmitted from the Mac and not by the iPhone app.
Hellhammer
Mar 22, 03:45 PM
What about the Mac Pro? It's way past due, would that come first, before the iMac?
CPUs for Mac Pro (codename Romley) won't be out until Q4 2011 so we are looking at late 2011 or early 2012 update.
One thing that will stink about the iMac update is that the GPU will most likely only get 8 PCIe lanes, as 4 of them will go to Thunderbolt. Sandy Bridge offers a max of 16 PCIe lanes. So Apple, maybe you feel like adding USB3 to the mix to use the last 4 lanes.
* yes I know the performance of a GPU doesn't drop THAT much going from x16 to x8, but still.
And toddy, a 6950 would be decent, but I don't see Apple offering it. I see the 6750 akin to the MacBook Pros going in (sadly.)
Even the 5750 in the 27" is around the same speed as the 4850. Apple just gimped the 4850 by using the GDDR3 version and only giving it 512MB /shakefist.
The ATI 5750 is actually 5850M but it is marketed as 5750 as 5850M has performance similar to desktop 5750. Since AMD changed their naming system and 69xxM is the successor of 58xxM, it is likely the the next high-end iMac will have AMD 6950M.
CPUs for Mac Pro (codename Romley) won't be out until Q4 2011 so we are looking at late 2011 or early 2012 update.
One thing that will stink about the iMac update is that the GPU will most likely only get 8 PCIe lanes, as 4 of them will go to Thunderbolt. Sandy Bridge offers a max of 16 PCIe lanes. So Apple, maybe you feel like adding USB3 to the mix to use the last 4 lanes.
* yes I know the performance of a GPU doesn't drop THAT much going from x16 to x8, but still.
And toddy, a 6950 would be decent, but I don't see Apple offering it. I see the 6750 akin to the MacBook Pros going in (sadly.)
Even the 5750 in the 27" is around the same speed as the 4850. Apple just gimped the 4850 by using the GDDR3 version and only giving it 512MB /shakefist.
The ATI 5750 is actually 5850M but it is marketed as 5750 as 5850M has performance similar to desktop 5750. Since AMD changed their naming system and 69xxM is the successor of 58xxM, it is likely the the next high-end iMac will have AMD 6950M.
cube
Apr 22, 12:34 PM
The MacBook Pro design hasn't changed since 2008. I'd bet money that the next time they do a redesign an optical drive won't be present.
If you make the MBP thinner, it will just be a big MBA.
The right way is to make bigger MBAs, not to make thinner MBPs.
A more powerful competitor to 15" Zacate netbooks.
If you make the MBP thinner, it will just be a big MBA.
The right way is to make bigger MBAs, not to make thinner MBPs.
A more powerful competitor to 15" Zacate netbooks.
SBacklin
Apr 22, 10:00 AM
hence why i have unlimited data....when i am on the go i am not limited. do you know how much data it takes to stream something like pandora? not a lot. you are all acting like ur going to be hitting 50gb data usage by streaming something. I don't have abnormally high data usage at all. It's actually less most months than 2gb's but it's not worth it to me to give up unlimited data to save $5/month.
You still don't get it. Look at where the future is going. Look at the storage on iPads, MBA's etc. There is not a need for massive local storage like there was in the past. Heck i have a 64gb MBA and have over 40gb's free bc nothing is locally stored. I can access everything at anytime from any device. Local storage is not necessary and just makes things more difficult when wanting to get music on multiple devices. Physical media is slowly going away bc it's old technology and there are better ways to do things. Local storage is the same thing man.
No no, I do get it. If anything its a very fine line or grey area. Not everyone has unlimited data and not everyone can get unlimited data. You also ignored my statement about AT&T actively going after the heavy data users even on unlimited plans. Also, your issue is that your wanting people to "change" well before its really time do do so. I'm always up for the latest and greatest. Please, don't be wrong on that. I spend a lot of money on tech. However, the key crutch here is cellular data and bandwidth charges. Cellular data is not where it needs to be in terms of stability and coverage. Also, not all WiFi hotspots are all that great. I've seen instances and lot of them where cellular data was faster then the hotspot. Then again, there is bandwidth usage. Until the carriers can come up with a non-gouging pricing model...especially on a not so reliable connectivity, its not time to quickly do away with local storage. or physical media.
You still don't get it. Look at where the future is going. Look at the storage on iPads, MBA's etc. There is not a need for massive local storage like there was in the past. Heck i have a 64gb MBA and have over 40gb's free bc nothing is locally stored. I can access everything at anytime from any device. Local storage is not necessary and just makes things more difficult when wanting to get music on multiple devices. Physical media is slowly going away bc it's old technology and there are better ways to do things. Local storage is the same thing man.
No no, I do get it. If anything its a very fine line or grey area. Not everyone has unlimited data and not everyone can get unlimited data. You also ignored my statement about AT&T actively going after the heavy data users even on unlimited plans. Also, your issue is that your wanting people to "change" well before its really time do do so. I'm always up for the latest and greatest. Please, don't be wrong on that. I spend a lot of money on tech. However, the key crutch here is cellular data and bandwidth charges. Cellular data is not where it needs to be in terms of stability and coverage. Also, not all WiFi hotspots are all that great. I've seen instances and lot of them where cellular data was faster then the hotspot. Then again, there is bandwidth usage. Until the carriers can come up with a non-gouging pricing model...especially on a not so reliable connectivity, its not time to quickly do away with local storage. or physical media.
cmaier
Nov 13, 05:26 PM
Well that might a the case in your situation but it this case Rogue Amoeba is using Apple's own copyright images in a client server application where the API on OS X does not confer the right to use those images on other devices by third party developers.
You're missing the point. Yes, Apple, as the copyright holder, can define the extent of its license (assuming they haven't already waived the right to do so, which they may have, and assuming it isn't fair use, which it almost certainly is), and, yes, they can decide what goes into the app store, making the extent of the copyright license moot.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
You're missing the point. Yes, Apple, as the copyright holder, can define the extent of its license (assuming they haven't already waived the right to do so, which they may have, and assuming it isn't fair use, which it almost certainly is), and, yes, they can decide what goes into the app store, making the extent of the copyright license moot.
But it doesn't make sense for them to do so! Integration between iphone and mac would only sell more of each. They don't lose money on this sort of use of the icons - it's not like they offer a paid license for those images.
There is no duty to police copyrights to avoid losing them.
And, there is no rational alternative to using those icons (despite your repeated "all they had to do is create their own icons" argument) because Apple is likely to turn around and assert trademark/trade dress.
So all you can do is use words, or images unrelated to the appearance of the machines being represented. If the words say "Macbook Pro," e.g., APple can turn around and say you can't do THAT, either, because that's a trademark. If your handmade image looks too much like a mac, that's trademark infringement too (according to Apple). So you have to make it NOT look like the thing it represents. That totally defeats the POINT of the images in this use.
It's like having to write an article in a newspaper reviewing a concert without mentioning the name of the band or the names of any of the band members.
And Apple is doing it for absolutely no good reason.
aristotle
Nov 14, 12:00 AM
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
LOL. Please tell us which law firm you work for. That was quite funny. Are you a historian now too? Would the real cmaier please stand up?
So the arbitration system comes from the roman law as well? Do tell.
I'm not interested in what revisionist historians have come up with the justify this perversion of justice that you call "law". The roman empire fell a long time ago and while Roman law may have influenced much of our legal proceedings, including the structure of civil cases, I was talking about how civil disputes are generally dealt with. Lawyers arguing a case are supposed to be the last resort, not the first.
This process is based on Judeo-christian principles on how you settle disputes over land or labour. It has nothing to do with criminal law.
Here is how disputes were supposed to be dealt with.
1. You go to the person in question and try to talk it out.
2. If that does not work, you meet in front a mediator such as as priest, local official, magistrate or arbitrator.
3. If that does not work, you hire an advocate and make your case in front of the community.
4. If that does not work, you take your case before the court which would usually have been a king back in the day.
The bible frames it slightly different but that is the gist of how it appears in the bible.
To put in a modern context:
1. Go for coffee.
2. Arbitration.
3. Public Hearing.
4. Court case.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
LOL. Please tell us which law firm you work for. That was quite funny. Are you a historian now too? Would the real cmaier please stand up?
So the arbitration system comes from the roman law as well? Do tell.
I'm not interested in what revisionist historians have come up with the justify this perversion of justice that you call "law". The roman empire fell a long time ago and while Roman law may have influenced much of our legal proceedings, including the structure of civil cases, I was talking about how civil disputes are generally dealt with. Lawyers arguing a case are supposed to be the last resort, not the first.
This process is based on Judeo-christian principles on how you settle disputes over land or labour. It has nothing to do with criminal law.
Here is how disputes were supposed to be dealt with.
1. You go to the person in question and try to talk it out.
2. If that does not work, you meet in front a mediator such as as priest, local official, magistrate or arbitrator.
3. If that does not work, you hire an advocate and make your case in front of the community.
4. If that does not work, you take your case before the court which would usually have been a king back in the day.
The bible frames it slightly different but that is the gist of how it appears in the bible.
To put in a modern context:
1. Go for coffee.
2. Arbitration.
3. Public Hearing.
4. Court case.
0 comments:
Post a Comment