Slashdot Mirror

I can't seem to get the original panda research page to open, so here's the google cache
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:http://research.pandasecurity.com/vodafone-distributes-mariposa/

It's funny how TFA treats "a researcher" and "one phone" as "some HTC phones".

In case it gets slashdotted, heres the cached version of the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003

I guess it could work, although you can't index the files directly. You have to run a local copy and one on the server as an EPT Server. www.voidtools.com, although it seems to be down at the moment, so here's a link to the FAQ on Google's Cache: http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:fcYHcEJKH3UJ:www.voidtools.com/faq.php

Cached copy here: http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:y8CuWLUgkMkJ:beginningruby.org/what-ive-earned-and-learned/+http://beginningruby.org/what-ive-earned-and-learned/

The full story is this:

voltsandamps.com was acquired by Compana LLC, a so called cybersquatter.

Compana has had numerous UDRP complaints filed against it and has this to say on a page within its domain:
"... Compana litigates each instance of abusive UDRP filing. Compana has never lost a case in court."

Contrast that statement with this one:
"The Complainant provided evidence that the Respondent [Compana] was involved in ten UDRP proceedings in 2006, all resulting in the transfer of the respective domain name to the complainant concerned." HTML version of WIPO Domain Name Dispute Case No. D2007-495, dated July 18, 2007.

Companies like this are the reason we're running out of domain names.

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:mi8ChwGUUkUJ:philosecurity.org/2009/09/07/what-does-dhs-know-about-you+http://philosecurity.org/2009/09/07/what-does-dhs-know-about-you&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Google cached link

For more factual information about algal blooms, the Geological Survey has produced: http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:PYtvMJ0lJ3QJ:pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3147/pdf/FS2006_3147.pdf+usgs+algal+bloom&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Absolute absence of flying around cables, top of the line electronic components, maximum care down to the very little details.

Points 1 and 3 I'll give you, but as a tinkering geek I prefer my system sitting under my desk with the side off and cables and disks hanging around everywhere. But that is a personal thing and I'm completely ok with people wanting the clean stuff.

But I take serious issue with point 2. How, exactly do you know that your mac is full of top of the line electronic components? Are you an electrical engineer? And if you are, do you have x-ray micro vision that can peer down into the layers of plastic and fibreglass and absolutely confirm superior quality over apples competitors? You see the thing is, I claim, yes thats right, I make the conjecture that Apple use the same damn components that everybody else uses, and they pick them based on cost over quality just like everybody else. Yes they might use DDR3, yes they might use fast processors (from my observations however they do not), but I swear to you that it is the same stuff that comes with the beige boxes from Dell, IBM, HP et al.

THIS is what bugs me about Apple fans, the instant assumption that a fantastic quality exterior implies a top quality interior. And its precisely what Apple wants you to think. So in summary, while you may not be paying extra for only that logo, you most certainly are paying extra for a nice case, and that is all.

PS. Yes yes I know, OSX blah blah blah, personally I dont like it and its been shown by the black hats to have inferior security (this is irrefutably true and outlined here and by the recent two years of Pwn2own contests), and as yet does not support 64bit. Its shiny yes so shiny... like the case it comes in.

So what? Is the judge sitting in the jury deliberations to make sure that you follow his instructions? Are you going to be punished if you find the defendant not-guilty even though a strict reading of the judges instructions would have suggested a guilty verdict?

Why, yes!

California has repeatedly upheld jury instructions to notify the judge if any other jury member "expresses an intention to disregard the law or to decide the case on . . . any . . . improper basis". (Google cache because the original site is hideously slow)

Colorado woman was charged with contempt and fined after refusing to convict. (Later overturned, mind you, but the fact that it had to go that far...)

And I can't find the reference, but I swear I saw an article where a judge in California had actually been monitoring the jury deliberations via video so that they could disqualify any jury member that was not following the judge's instructions.

Google cache)