Slashdot Mirror

* Test all Office-based applications to ensure that they work with the new code, because newly purchased, repaired or reimaged PCs are affected. Pay particular attention to Access applications that interface with Excel.
* Consider deploying Office without Access to users with no specific need for its database functionality, as a quick and viable alternative to installing the new code.
* Recognize that installing the patches on new implementations without testing may be a quick alternative that minimizes legal risk, but risks breaking applications.
* Request that Microsoft issue a patch for Office 2003 SP1, as it has for Office XP SP3, so that an entire service pack does not need to be tested and deployed for Office 2003.
* If you anticipate significant difficulties in complying with the letter, try to get Microsoft to offer consulting assistance at little or no cost. Microsoft says that account managers will make arrangements to help organizations that have major problems complying.
* If you feel you cannot comply with the order, work with legal counsel to understand your risk and exposure.

extraction from seawater is thought to cost as much as $200/kg.... Even at $200/kg of uranium, the heat produced by the uranium is around 35 times as much as its cost in fuel oil, assuming the entire cost goes for fuel oil (which is silly).

Anyone else remember the whole "Network Computer" concept of having a stripped-down machine that accessed applications and documents from a central server?

I do, but I'd have a hard time classifying them as "stripped down". ;-)

Ok, I'm so done with yahoo now. Nicholas D. Kristof wrote a great piece in the New York Times today. He gave a plug to http://www.booyahoo.blogspot.com/. Come on people, I know we can slashdot this site...

It is more modern rule and even then not that widespread.
Here is a so-so article with links to others which explain so of the background.

(not my blog) Prior art from Dilbert - it is my coffee mug at the moment! I'd link to the cartoon itself but it has expired from the archive.

Ogg, Wavpack, FLAC and MPC can all be played on Ipod (Color/Photo and Nano only for now) thanks to the recent Rockbox firmware port
No only that but with Rockbox ibloat is no longer needed (or any other special software for that matter) to load/unload audio files

And this has been made possible by the work of the iPodLinux Project.

This guy has recently found out a easy way of getting Yahoo avatars from yahoo servers directly into your webpage/blog! He has put up some samples here. He has also put up a complete article on how to do it here.

This guy has recently found out a easy way of getting Yahoo avatars from yahoo servers directly into your webpage/blog! He has put up some samples here. He has also put up a complete article on how to do it here.

This entry from the official google blog gives some insight into how things work with google.com vs. google.cn

Gstreamer is GPL

Wrong, GStreamer is LGPL only. The GStreamer website is adamant about denying developers the right to license contributed code under the GPL:
We require that all code going into our core package is LGPL. For the plugin code, we require the use of the LGPL for all plugins written from scratch or linking to external libraries.

Fluendo, the company that controls GStreamer, wants to link their DRM plugins to LGPL code contributed by the naive independent developers, who don't realize that by writing LGPL multimedia code, they might as well be working for the RIAA and MPAA.

Xine on the other hand is GPL, and any code that links to Xine must also be GPL. So even if someone decides to make DRM plugins or apps for Xine, they will have to give users the source code to those plugins. There will inevitably be some users who know how to extract the useful part of the codec while leaving out the DRM restrictions. As the KDE developer Aaron Seigo eloquently put it:
DRM + source code = no DRM

Now I realize why Richard Stallman warned against using LGPL for any code, including libraries. Too bad the makes of GTK and GNOME didn't listen. But thank God the makers of Qt and KDE did!

Gstreamer is GPL

Wrong, GStreamer is LGPL only. The GStreamer website is adamant about denying developers the right to license contributed code under the GPL:
We require that all code going into our core package is LGPL. For the plugin code, we require the use of the LGPL for all plugins written from scratch or linking to external libraries.

Fluendo, the company that controls GStreamer, wants to link their DRM plugins to LGPL code contributed by the naive independent developers, who don't realize that by writing LGPL multimedia code, they might as well be working for the RIAA and MPAA.

Xine on the other hand is GPL, and any code that links to Xine must also be GPL. So even if someone decides to make DRM plugins or apps for Xine, they will have to give users the source code to those plugins. There will inevitably be some users who know how to extract the useful part of the codec while leaving out the DRM restrictions. As the KDE developer Aaron Seigo eloquently put it:
DRM + source code = no DRM

Now I realize why Richard Stallman warned against using LGPL for any code, including libraries. Too bad the makes of GTK and GNOME didn't listen. But thank God the makers of Qt and KDE did!

I'm running Mandriva 2005, and although I've found the PalmPilot integration to be quite functional, Evolution is only hot-synching one of my task categories, which is a known bug.

Just using the conference to confuse, confound and inject a little fud ..

"I personally don't believe tech support calls for a commodity product is sustainable,"

No one ever made money out of Open Source ..

"In many regards, the Microsoft open-source story lends itself to a great metaphor of David and Goliath," "That is a challenge over perception"

One way of meeting the challenge is to hire on the best out of Open Source taking them out of the Gene pool.

"Microsoft has benefited from OSS, has participated in OSS projects, and feels that OSS will continue to have an important role in the ecosystem"

Pronouncments like this also give the impression that MS is in some way directing the development of the Open Source model. That and the use of the word 'open' at every opportunity. It's called stealing mindshare.

"We have an impact from what people call the ripple effect ... What would actually happen if we were in that environment?"

We hope to gain some control over that environment by engaging with it. He also had this to say previously ..

When we think about criteria around interoperability, we will have a great foundation in Longhorn to help exercise the criteria around that."

Open Source does not equal Open Standards.

But MS Open Standards does not actually mean the protocols and interfaces are in the public domain does it. A royalty free license is still tied to Microsoft. But keep on repeating the word 'open'.

"Linux is somewhat inferior to commercial offerings when considered as a general-purpose desktop operating system"

I'm sorry Bill, but you just lost your credibility. (Sent from a SuSE Desktop. No viruses, no blue screens etc ..)

http://fudwatcher.blogspot.com/

Installing and running cpufreq is relatively easy and the savings are considerable. For newbie linux users I have an explanatory step-by-step post http://pkt3141592.blogspot.com/2005/07/fun-with-li nux-cpufreq-driver.html on the subject in my (almost abandoned) blog.

Running a Turion is a hard-core option, but PowerNow should be enabled in ALL Athlon64 desktops.

P.

You are quite correct, Google didn't invent any of the above and what is more to the point doesn't claim to have but do deserve some credit for Gmail and the rest.

According to this blog entry MS invented Ajax in 1998: "All of the pieces of AJAX .. have been available in Internet Explorer for some time, and Outlook Web Access .. since 1998"

http://fudwatcher.blogspot.com/

I've just patented a method for comparing source code trees and tell Senior Gonzales that he is now violating my Intellectiual Property and I'm going to sue his ass off (as they say in America).

http://fudwatcher.blogspot.com/

Sorry, I'm not buying this "Mohammed is a father figure and offending him is like offending my father" argument

The 'offense' you are talking about is purely in your mind. Yes, it upsets you to hear bad things said about your prophet...

• China is censoring its citizens already. Google feels that they can at least provide more information than other companies can. Instead of simply deleting references, they make mention that certain items have been deleted at the bottom of the page.
• China is not the only place that censorship is occuring. Here in the US, for example, links to Scientology have been edited out. Likewise, google makes mention of this.
• They are not providing other services that they feel they have no right to censor like email or blogging on Chinese soil.
• So, while perhaps to be more realistic they should claim to do 'less evil', they (unlike the other 3 search engines that appeared in front of Congress) very conciencious of their decisions and ramification, and have done so lightly.

We really should be protesting censorship world wide. And not just in China.

Just for the benefit of a doubt, I'm going to guess that he wants to focus on distributing more white propaganda.

That means that he seriously believes that the people opposing us would stop if they just heard how nice we are.

That boggles the mind.

I can see why your mind is boggled since it is pretty certain that you are completely mistaken as to the intent.

It's more likely that the intent is to provide another source of news and views for the mass of Muslims & Arabs who are not committed to the violent Islamists cause. It might be a good thing if they had sources other than the hateful lies of the Islamists, and the government controlled media in the Middle East, which tends to spew some pretty vile things which you can see here. Muslim spokesmen regularly say that most Muslims want to live in peace. Maybe they will be more favorably inclined to so do, and to not assist the extremists, if they have access to news which sticks to being factual, or at least programming that doesn't regularly refer to Westerners as Crusaders, pigs and monkeys, call for the reconquest of Spain, applaud the exploits of terrorists bombing pizza parlors & pubs, etc. It is hard enough getting balance out of the American & European media. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this reported in the mainstream media. Arthur Chrenkoff's column listing good news from Iraq was practically unique, and not for lack of material. It is clear that if we don't speak up for ourselves, few if any there will.

The security of this system does not depend on secrecy of the design. It is the trusted hardware that is the critical point in the system.

This is actually a lousy copyright enforcement scheme. The number of equiped machines and hence the market for protected content is tiny. The chips in the machines only provide a limited degree of security against hardware attack. You cannot extract keys using power analysis or snoop on the buses but the chip can be cracked using destructive techniques.

Copyright enforcement is break once, run anywhere. Content rights management is much more feasible since you only provision a few tens or perhaps a hundred machines with the keys you care about.

The TCB drivers were ported to Linux by IBM. This is a good thing because keeping server signing keys in protected storage is going to be considered essential for SSL security at some point. For details see my blog essay

http://amphitwister.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-hav e-been-so-much-publicity-and.html

The NAS domestic surveillance program violates the FISA act which was specifically enacted in 1978 to clear up some of the questions left unresolved by the Supreme Court. It allows warrantless surveillance of conversations between "foreign powers" (and their agents) only if "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. In cases where a call was placed or initiated from a US citizen ONLY the part of the conversation from the foreign entity could be taped. Unilaterally deciding to extend the spying to a US citizen is an authorization of domestic spying and IS ILEGAL.

"1. We are at war. congress' AUMF gave the Pres all the authority he needs to prevent another attack."

False. To be at war the Congress must make a formal declaration. The Authorization to Use Military Force is NOT a declaration of war. We are NOT at war. But even if we were the president's inherent power as commander-in-chief during wartime DOES NOT override the provisions of FISA.

The suggestion that Congress has no power to interfere in any way with the president's Article II commander-in-chief power is ludicrous. There's no case law to back this up and no reason to believe this except for the president's own apparent belief in his unlimited authority during wartime. (Which this IS NOT.)

I suggest you read: www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf
and http://volokh.com/posts/1135029722.shtml
and http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/12/which-is-it-mr- president.html
and http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/12/definition-of-a udacity.html

You may now consider YOURSELF informed...

The NAS domestic surveillance program violates the FISA act which was specifically enacted in 1978 to clear up some of the questions left unresolved by the Supreme Court. It allows warrantless surveillance of conversations between "foreign powers" (and their agents) only if "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. In cases where a call was placed or initiated from a US citizen ONLY the part of the conversation from the foreign entity could be taped. Unilaterally deciding to extend the spying to a US citizen is an authorization of domestic spying and IS ILEGAL.

"1. We are at war. congress' AUMF gave the Pres all the authority he needs to prevent another attack."

False. To be at war the Congress must make a formal declaration. The Authorization to Use Military Force is NOT a declaration of war. We are NOT at war. But even if we were the president's inherent power as commander-in-chief during wartime DOES NOT override the provisions of FISA.

The suggestion that Congress has no power to interfere in any way with the president's Article II commander-in-chief power is ludicrous. There's no case law to back this up and no reason to believe this except for the president's own apparent belief in his unlimited authority during wartime. (Which this IS NOT.)

I suggest you read: www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf
and http://volokh.com/posts/1135029722.shtml
and http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/12/which-is-it-mr- president.html
and http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/12/definition-of-a udacity.html

You may now consider YOURSELF informed...

It's nice to see UAE mentioned on slashdot. As other posters mentioned , there are a lot of problems here, but with the govt bent on promoting tourism, they are quickly addressing problems that become well known in the mainstream media. So the more exposure UAE gets in the news, the better things will be for people here. I was born in the UAE and lived most of my life here, but don't have any citizenship benefits. At times I had to take a visit visa to stay here. Most of the gulf countries are the same, the difference with the UAE is they are now quite sensitive to negative publicity. Here's one of the more popular UAE blogs: http://secretdubai.blogspot.com/

Why don't the lawyers provide indemnification against getting "computer viruses".?

Why don't they make an OS that is immune from getting viruses just by clicking on a hot link or opening an attachment?

http://fudwatcher.blogspot.com/

Good thinking, but I'm still not too concerned. Last week, I downloaded/burned/and ran live CDs of a FreeBSD distro, GNU/HURD, an OpenSolaris distro, and Plan Nine from Bell Labs, just to see where my "emergency exits in case of Linux failure" are (which saga is covered here). With the exception of Plan 9 (Lucent tech's weird license for it's weird OS), the vast, sweeping majority of it's all GPL licensed, which belongs to you and I as well as anybody who bought it. We're on more solid ground than you can imagine!

By the way, the HURD booted and performed nicely on both my machines (God knows why it isn't being developed faster or promoted better, it's nearly as stable as Linux 1.0 was!), so we even have a GPL'd kernel to turn to.

"Vista takes security to the next level. There are literally too many changes to list here, from the bidirectional software firewall .."

A software firewall isn't really a firewall more an emulation of one that runs as a system process one that can be hijacked by the next virus/worm.

And one that wasn't 'bidirectional' was never a real firewall in the first place> That you have now to tout such as innovative is ludicrous.

"to Windows Services Hardening, which prevents obscure background processes from being hijacked and changing your system .."

When you say 'takes security to the next level' you do mean Windows security, don't you ?

"Perhaps most crucial (and least sexy) is the long-overdue User Account Protection,"

Err .. SuDO ?


"Internet Explorer .. tabbed pages"

Yawn ..

"new antiphishing features .."

How about a system that is immune to phishing, not that would be really innovative.

"IE7 on Vista will run in what Microsoft calls "protected mode""

You mean like Firefox running as a user proccess under Linux or Safari under OS X.

"The new OS tightly integrates instant desktop search .."

The old embed, engulf, make impossible to remove and devour switcheroo.

"And now key components, such as the Windows Defender antispyware module .."

How about building a system that didn't get hijecked by spyware just by browsing a web site. Not that would really be innovative, for Microsoft that is.

"You can also restrict each account's access by time of day or day of the week."

More innovation? ..

What's left, translucent windows that goes wavey when you move them. That I should live in such times ..

Fudwatcher

I think you're right, according to their latest blog post:

(1) Launch Google.cn.
We have recently launched Google.cn, a version of Google's search engine that we will filter in response to Chinese laws and regulations on illegal content. This website will supplement, and not replace, the existing, unfiltered Chinese-language interface on Google.com. That website will remain open and unfiltered for Chinese-speaking users worldwide.

My apologies for posting a "suggestion" that happened to be exactly what they were doing. I was under the impression google.ch and google.com were the same thing and Google did their thing based on IP.

• I. INTRODUCTION
  Google users trust that when they enter a search query into a Google search box, not only will they receive back the most relevant results, but that Google will keep private whatever information users communicate absent a compelling reason. The Government's demand for disclosure of untold millions of search queries submitted by Google users and for production of a million Web page addresses or "URLs" randomly selected from Google's proprietary index would undermine that trust, unnecessarily burden Google, and do nothing to further the Government's case in the underlying action.
  
  Fortunately, the Court has multiple, independent bases to reject the Government's Motion. First, the Government's presentation falls woefully short of demonstrating that the requested information will lead to admissible evidence. This burden is unquestionably the Government's. Rather than meet it, the Government concedes that Google's search queries and URLs are not evidence to be used at trial at all. Instead, the Government says, the data will be "useful" to its purported expert in developing some theory to support the Government's notion that a law banning materials that are harmful to minors on the Internet will be more effective than a technology filter in eliminating it.

• I. INTRODUCTION
  Google users trust that when they enter a search query into a Google search box, not only will they receive back the most relevant results, but that Google will keep private whatever information users communicate absent a compelling reason. The Government's demand for disclosure of untold millions of search queries submitted by Google users and for production of a million Web page addresses or "URLs" randomly selected from Google's proprietary index would undermine that trust, unnecessarily burden Google, and do nothing to further the Government's case in the underlying action.
  
  Fortunately, the Court has multiple, independent bases to reject the Government's Motion. First, the Government's presentation falls woefully short of demonstrating that the requested information will lead to admissible evidence. This burden is unquestionably the Government's. Rather than meet it, the Government concedes that Google's search queries and URLs are not evidence to be used at trial at all. Instead, the Government says, the data will be "useful" to its purported expert in developing some theory to support the Government's notion that a law banning materials that are harmful to minors on the Internet will be more effective than a technology filter in eliminating it.

Indeed such an Internet exists, read more about it at Freenet.

Once the state imprisons, this must be their duty. After all, they've been deprived of their liberty and means to earn, either legally or illegally. You should not be able to coerce a prisoner to 'get with the program' (for want of a better expression) as that will only be counter-productive. Of course, if they see that if they work then they'll get bread as well as gruel, milk and sugar to go with their coffee, a radio and other such comforts, then perhaps they're on the way. On the other hand, if the prisoner wishes to eat nothing but porridge and have one book a month for their entire sentence, than that should be allowed. Their failiure to comply shouldn't mean serious harm, but more a level of discomfort that is, should they apply themselves, easily allieveated.

I belive every human being has an inalieable responsibility to engage in useful employment. Prisoners do not undertake the former. Hence those institutions that seek to treat prisoners need to cure this problem.

Now there's a thing. When you use words like 'cure' in response to the criminal's failiure to comply, then I almost can't avoid invoking Godwin's law. Work will set you free, perhaps?
Just to change direction, what if the problem we were attempting to cure was the use of P2P applications? Or downloading music, should it become criminalised? Or sympathizing with communists, or having ginger hair, or being jews? Hang on, there's Godwin again.

I put it to you (with the greatest respect) that the human condition is a funny old thing, and whilst you can cajole, scare or influence behaviour so that it conforms with society as a whole, you sure as hell can't cure it.

As a side note, I'm not a great blog reader, but one I do read on a regular basis is that of a London magistrate and on the basis of our discussion, I suspect you may enjoy reading it- it sides with my views, but far better written then I'd be able to manage. I don't know if you'll agree with it, but that's another matter entirley.

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/ 09/0433252
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/ 29/1732238

Even with usernames/audit trails, the only difference is the "idiot" is identifiable. I'm not condemning Wiki, in fact as far as knowledge bases are concerned, it is incredibly powerful as a starting point of research, and for the most part fairly accurate. But erronious information does make its way into Wiki, and as the above artcles point out, people with an agenda of their own can make changes, and no amount of "accountability" is going to change that. The same thing will occur with an online spreadsheet like application with Wiki-type properties. While it has potential to be a useful technology, just like anything, if not set properly, it will be abused.

So I defend myself from your virtual "beating sense into my head" with an opionion better expressed by others.

Or better yet from here.

Similar mechanisms are at work during the process of insight, as shown in a recent PLOS biology paper (summary here). According to this research, insight is primarily a right-hemispheric process involving very "holistic" thinking about a problem. Interestingly, it is accompanied by suppression of incoming activity from the environment, as though giving the brain free reign to free-associate, we are able to more efficiently search the entire solution space.

Maybe it's because you don't notice the deterioration in dumb people.

I see dumb people... they're everywhere.
They walk around like everyone else.
They don't even know that they're dumb.

Fudwatcher

A bit of a shameless plug, but if you had read my take on this yesterday, you'd be well on your way to a healthier lifestyle by now via Indian food.

http://saccharomyces.blogspot.com/

A bit of a shameless plug, but if you had read my take on this yesterday, you'd be well on your way to a healthier lifestyle by now via Indian food.

http://saccharomyces.blogspot.com/

There's still people enough to profit. Plenty!

The only thing I can't understand is why Apple should bother to spend money on Blockbuster (even on sale) when all they need is a power-charged vending machine.

Cringley's not on crack. But Apple should be onto Coke

Pot. Kettle. Black. In essence, you have just pointed out that you believe the current "flat earth" economic theories that have been spouted for decades.

Capitalism does one thing really well. It allocates scarce resources efficiently. As oil diminishes prices will rise and demand will fall. The market will clear. This isn't good news for consumers and those of us raised on $15 a barrel oil. It isn't good news if you own a gas guzzeling SUV. It isn't good news for unemployment.

• Define your point of view when you say "Efficient". If you mean "Bread is scarce, people are starving (going without), I will have enough money to by a loaf of bread, but you will starve", then do you think I'll really be motivated by economics when I can just get a gun, kill you, take the bread, and feed myself (and my family)? Do you really think that anyone will care that "the market has cleared"?
• If the prior sentence shows an "externality" of economics, then what happens when you have millions of people that become "externalities"? Do they behave like rational economic consumers? Or do they fight in a civil war over scarce resources? Will they show restraint due to "ethics" or "morals", even though they are starving? In other parts of the planet, where people ARE starving, have they been peaceful? (Hint: see Africa)
• "It isn't good news for unemployment". Holy oblivious statement, Batman! If there is no employment, then how will people obtain the money they need to purchase goods and services? If there is no demand for goods and services, what will that do to the capitalists running the businesses that make them money? What will that do to the economy as a whole?

But it isn't the end of the world. We will end up living in a more energy efficient world. We will end up using other forms of power (solar, nuclear, coal, gas, etc.) Humankind will not be wiped out. Democracy will not die.

• It is the end of the world if you die of starvation. At least, from your own point-of-view.
• Yes, we will be in a very very very energy efficient world, I don't disagree. How that world looks might be something we do disagree on.
• All other forms of power combined would not be enough to replace the energy used from refined oil.
• Oil is used for more than just energy. Drastic changes would be required for the way we live in the US.
• There are strong indications (but nothing more than theory) that the earth's human population is 3 times larger than can be sustained; the theory more-or-less ties human population growth to the availability of cheap energy. Anyone care to prove or disprove this theory? Either way, what does it say about long-term prospects for the human race?
• Democracy IS dying. For shit's sake, our national government has all but removed the bill of rights, if not in name (on paper), then in spirit. Total Information Awareness? The ADVISE software project, just recently announced in slashdot to tie together internet communications (websites, blogs, IM chat)? Our President admitting that he's all for domestic spy programs? The push for a national ID card? This is Seriously Evil Shit.(tm) Any of this ring a bell? Papers, please.

You state that capitalism can't deal with this. I think this is the only thing c

A system like this could remove net carbon from the atmosphere.

I have not investigated where the rest of our oil goes, but I suspect that any carbon source converted to clean carbon monoxide could produce most or all of our petrochemical requirements by steam reforming to syngas (CO + H2O -> CO2 + H2) followed by Fischer-Tropsch, Sabatier or other chemical synthesis. A lot of things are already made that way and a process which yields CO would cut out the middleman.

seriously, if they want this to be taken seriously in a town like Washington, certainly if they want to attach themselves to the "burgeoning art community," they'd best locate themselves somewhere remotely near it, say the U-Street corridor or 13th street or something. Hell, Landover has more going on than H street.

Yes Dvorak can be full of sh**, and more often than not he is just that, full of sh**. However, he did predict Apple's move to Intel when everyone thought he was again full of sh**, and it did happen, eventually.

That being said, in this case there are a couple additional things to consider:

*developing/maintaining OS is a significant overhead for a company
*currently, even though the sales of computers in Apple generate a large portion of profits, they also amount to a large portion of expenditures (r & d, hardware, software etc.)
*if we compare the cost/performance ratio of iPod/iTunes business, this is really where Apple's bread and butter are
*recently, there have been a lot of rumors that Steve Jobs has gotten more and more disinterested in the Apple, especially around the time he was battling a cancer. This could be in part due to the fact that he is getting more and more involved with Pixar/Disney. See: this and this
*there are signs that OSX is increasingly becoming a mess (somewhat outdated but worth a look, although don't put too much weight into it: click here)


If we consider previous statements, dropping OS may actually free-up a significant portion of Apple's budget to do other things which appear to be more profitable and will definitely become more profitable as they become more dominant on other platforms. So, this does not seem so far-fetched, although I do admit that even I doubt this will happen anytime soon, if at all. On the other hand, whether you like hearing this or not, Microsoft in all likelihood hopes for Apple to stay independent as that is the last excuse they have to prevent the government from proclaiming them a monopoly (which they arguably already are).

What did Steve Jobs have to say when John C. Dvorak asked him to confirm this?

Fudwatcher

.Text - !

Object reference not set to an instance of an object. .[ wyhw2002@hotmail.com]

I'm looking into getting some quick, but I will check out this book to see for myself. Just wanted some redirects from this article since you've read the book and probably others on the finch subject. I haven't been able to find any on the internet. http://fdocc.blogspot.com/2005/12/finch-variation. html. Thanks

Peak Oil has been a constant discussion for years. This guy has some very interesting
info:

      Peak Oil Debunked

I have a little writeup of this situation and some keys to the success of portable movies.

http://kamalot.blogspot.com/2006/02/portable-movie -sales-dry-up.html

Sony does not seem to think of the big picture.

Make the PS3 a Recorder
The PS3 will come with the ability to playback DVDs. Why not embed the ability to copy the contents of a DVD to a Memory Stick for viewing on the PSP? Sony could control the fair-rights copyright within the PS3 and PSP since they create the hardware for both. They could enforce that your are only allowed to copy the DVD to a PSP a set number of times, much like iTunes handles digitally rights managed music.

If people could buy a DVD and use the PS3 to watch it on their TV as well as use it to copy the DVD to the PSP, people would see a greater value in both the PSP and the PS3. It would solve the problem consumers have with buying two copies of the same movie, an understandable complaint.

Absolutely wonderful, a nice homemade meal(chicken cordon bleu, green beans and fresh bread). EQ has been out for quite a while I was referring to not having money before I was married(i.e. could not afford a broadband connection.) Right now my wife plays WoW more than I do, She is 55 and I am 43. I married a great woman she loves video games(and sports for that matter) and has start playing RPGs(Kingdom Hearts and Dark Cloud, now WoW). The only problem is that I am lower than her but I can deal.
Learn more about the JerdKing and family. hahahaha

Thanks for your concern though, I hope you had a wonderful Valentine's Day as well.