Unfair to pick on one point in your otherwise excellent post, but... I'm gonna.
You could browse the web on Windows Mobile, but the experience was pretty painful. The iPhone was the first to make that feature actually useful enough to use all the time.
Then why are there so many iPhone-specific versions of web sites out there? Is it the mobile web site that's broken, or iPhone's browser? Surely the POINT of the Web is that a small-screen version should be good on Android, iPhone, Symbian, and Blackberry equally? Why isn't this happening?
Do bear in mind, though, that I'm the sort who thinks a widescreen monitor is best used rotated 90 degrees because emacs works really great that way.
Almost everything does. Not sure which "consumer" decided computers should all be widescreen rather than longscreen, but he better hope I never meet him in a narrow alleyway.
Not on Autobahn. The wheels on an RX8 weigh approx 9.5 kilos each which is LOW for a road car; but there were plenty of parts of the autobahn network where I dare not drive over 80mph entirely because of the surface.
On the other hand, ironically, I passed the BBS factory itself at about 130mph.:-)
Or if you do have a clunky client that drags everything else down - keep your old router and use it as an AP for that specific device. I did this for a while, had the Windows Mobile (yeah yeah I know) on the old 11b and ran everything else on shiny new 11n.
To test the *biological* capacity of the brain for keeping connections between people would require a training program that specifically targets improving that ability - kind of like we have sportspeople who train all their life to beat the olympics.
I'd suggest that some business leaders have this skill.
For instance, getting companies from "small" into "medium." One of the skills you need to get there is the ability to engage fully with ALL of staff during the restructure. The reason you NEED a restructure, of course, is that once you get to 150 staff you can't run a flat structure any more.
I have only a metaphorical method. I would pay $75 to avoid sitting in a truck for fourteen hours. The total pot of money does not change, I agree; but the total pot of disposable time does. Or did you buy pig iron and build the rest of that truck yourself?
Isn't this a difference between British and American legal principles of jurisdiction?
England and Wales' jurisdiction stops at the borders and any extradition agreements, peering, Interpol type things, WIPO, etc, are by agreement. IIRC Blair's administration upped the game on this a little bit for certain Obviously Evil crimes but still more or less true.
The US considers "universal" jurisdiction to be the default, so if you set foot on US soil you are fair game wherever the crime was actually committed and whatever it was (I assume it has to be Federal though.)
This post may be considered juris-my-dick-tion crap.
I'd like to see one aimed at a bunch of pseudonyms with disposable email addresses. I mean the only reason this is a problem is because people go daftly entering their *real name* in fields labelled "Your Name".
If you tweet consistently from your home broadband, you are traceable - or at least the household is.
At this point asking the householders to play Spartacus is likely to be deemed to be Perverting the Course of Justice, or Perjury, or Contempt, or all three, sentences to run consecutively, m'lud.
What is happening here is the courts are asking Twitter if they know who the person was, and for any information like IP address etc. They are not saying Twitter is liable.
It occurred to me this morning this already happens with phone companies in the UK - so it's hard to argue against this part.
So really all that's required is for one member of either House of Parliament to publicly say, "X slept with Y", then everyone could just quote him? Seems like a great way to earn campaign contributions "For a small donation to my re-election fund, I will allow you to quote me talking about about any injuncted topic of the day."
That would be bad faith. Parliamentary privilege does not apply to bad faith. I hope all the PPSes out there are aware of that, otherwise a populist MP or two might make a bad, bad mistake...
You have no rights under a super-injuction. Even the defending party, example a news paper, isn't even allowed in the courtroom when the injunction is made. That's how repressive these injunctions are.
That may be true when issuing the injunction. When you the punter are prosecuted for breaking a court order, you are being prosecuted for that act itself, which DOES provide for you to provide a defence.
Furthermore, if Giggs allows an innocent member of the public to be locked up at this point, Manchester United will be properly and thoroughly in the shit with the public; so it's unlikely to happen.
In the UK breaking a superinjunction is Contempt of Court. There is no First Amendment here so any defence relying on constitutional freedoms is a great deal more complicated; and the Court is never going to be very sympathetic to being told that it was wrong to issue the injunction in the first place. This is really the problem.
Does "against the world" imply that a conversation in a public place (such as Old Trafford perhaps:-) ) in England is subject to superinjunctions? Is there a "reasonably expected to know" defence?
No refunds allowed! The money is spent on points. Various laws of various lands require the ability to refund under various condition. But since you are just buying points, the medium of exchange becomes "not money" and so those laws tend not to apply.
This can't be true. I have given money to a company in return for goods. I don't care how they choose to launder and refactor along the way. I'm sure I could get the reasonable man in the street, and hence a court, to agree with this opinion.
The only response the company can make is to decry that there is a relationship between the goods and the money at all; in which case they're admitting fraud.
This morning I was sitting on a bus thinking there was little point in introducing a hybrid given that the driver was totally incapable of driving smoothly. This was not because of the prevailing road conditions; it was down to a total lack of awareness around how and why to ANTICIPATE. I seriously wonder how many tons of carbon London could save if drivers were retrained. This would also cut the number of injuries to standing passengers radically.
Europe have looked at Australia, looked at the Australian backlash, and decided "we don't care, let's just propose it anyway, to show how absolutely out of touch we are."
Slashdot Mirror
I am currently in project management, moving the virtualisation teams offshore. Fear me.
Isn't "Outsider" a dependency too?
Unfair to pick on one point in your otherwise excellent post, but... I'm gonna.
You could browse the web on Windows Mobile, but the experience was pretty painful. The iPhone was the first to make that feature actually useful enough to use all the time.
Then why are there so many iPhone-specific versions of web sites out there? Is it the mobile web site that's broken, or iPhone's browser? Surely the POINT of the Web is that a small-screen version should be good on Android, iPhone, Symbian, and Blackberry equally? Why isn't this happening?
Yeah, looking forward to having somewhere to keep all these RAW files and syncing it over GPRS...
Do bear in mind, though, that I'm the sort who thinks a widescreen monitor is best used rotated 90 degrees because emacs works really great that way.
Almost everything does. Not sure which "consumer" decided computers should all be widescreen rather than longscreen, but he better hope I never meet him in a narrow alleyway.
Not on Autobahn. The wheels on an RX8 weigh approx 9.5 kilos each which is LOW for a road car; but there were plenty of parts of the autobahn network where I dare not drive over 80mph entirely because of the surface.
On the other hand, ironically, I passed the BBS factory itself at about 130mph. :-)
They're not quite thinking OUTSIDE the box, just on the very perimeter of it. :-)
He doesn't need units where he's going.
Replace your router
Or if you do have a clunky client that drags everything else down - keep your old router and use it as an AP for that specific device. I did this for a while, had the Windows Mobile (yeah yeah I know) on the old 11b and ran everything else on shiny new 11n.
You don't have to choose sides in group conflicts.
Even if you don't, people will decide you are on one side or the other - or will dislike you intensely for being the one who wouldn't pick a side.
To test the *biological* capacity of the brain for keeping connections between people would require a training program that specifically targets improving that ability - kind of like we have sportspeople who train all their life to beat the olympics.
I'd suggest that some business leaders have this skill.
For instance, getting companies from "small" into "medium." One of the skills you need to get there is the ability to engage fully with ALL of staff during the restructure. The reason you NEED a restructure, of course, is that once you get to 150 staff you can't run a flat structure any more.
I have only a metaphorical method. I would pay $75 to avoid sitting in a truck for fourteen hours. The total pot of money does not change, I agree; but the total pot of disposable time does. Or did you buy pig iron and build the rest of that truck yourself?
14 hours of my time would cost substantially more than $150. You factored that in when you "came out ahead" right?
Isn't this a difference between British and American legal principles of jurisdiction?
England and Wales' jurisdiction stops at the borders and any extradition agreements, peering, Interpol type things, WIPO, etc, are by agreement. IIRC Blair's administration upped the game on this a little bit for certain Obviously Evil crimes but still more or less true.
The US considers "universal" jurisdiction to be the default, so if you set foot on US soil you are fair game wherever the crime was actually committed and whatever it was (I assume it has to be Federal though.)
This post may be considered juris-my-dick-tion crap.
I'd like to see one aimed at a bunch of pseudonyms with disposable email addresses. I mean the only reason this is a problem is because people go daftly entering their *real name* in fields labelled "Your Name".
If you tweet consistently from your home broadband, you are traceable - or at least the household is.
At this point asking the householders to play Spartacus is likely to be deemed to be Perverting the Course of Justice, or Perjury, or Contempt, or all three, sentences to run consecutively, m'lud.
What is happening here is the courts are asking Twitter if they know who the person was, and for any information like IP address etc. They are not saying Twitter is liable.
It occurred to me this morning this already happens with phone companies in the UK - so it's hard to argue against this part.
So really all that's required is for one member of either House of Parliament to publicly say, "X slept with Y", then everyone could just quote him? Seems like a great way to earn campaign contributions "For a small donation to my re-election fund, I will allow you to quote me talking about about any injuncted topic of the day."
That would be bad faith. Parliamentary privilege does not apply to bad faith. I hope all the PPSes out there are aware of that, otherwise a populist MP or two might make a bad, bad mistake...
For global readers: a Scottish newspaper HAS ALREADY PUBLISHED details.
You have no rights under a super-injuction. Even the defending party, example a news paper, isn't even allowed in the courtroom when the injunction is made. That's how repressive these injunctions are.
That may be true when issuing the injunction. When you the punter are prosecuted for breaking a court order, you are being prosecuted for that act itself, which DOES provide for you to provide a defence.
Furthermore, if Giggs allows an innocent member of the public to be locked up at this point, Manchester United will be properly and thoroughly in the shit with the public; so it's unlikely to happen.
IANAL.
In the UK breaking a superinjunction is Contempt of Court. There is no First Amendment here so any defence relying on constitutional freedoms is a great deal more complicated; and the Court is never going to be very sympathetic to being told that it was wrong to issue the injunction in the first place. This is really the problem.
Does "against the world" imply that a conversation in a public place (such as Old Trafford perhaps :-) ) in England is subject to superinjunctions? Is there a "reasonably expected to know" defence?
England had vacuum railways in the 1840s. (Croydon and South Devon from memory.) One of IKB's madcap schemes.
... to give your credit card details out to passing strangers. Problem solved.
No refunds allowed! The money is spent on points. Various laws of various lands require the ability to refund under various condition. But since you are just buying points, the medium of exchange becomes "not money" and so those laws tend not to apply.
This can't be true. I have given money to a company in return for goods. I don't care how they choose to launder and refactor along the way. I'm sure I could get the reasonable man in the street, and hence a court, to agree with this opinion.
The only response the company can make is to decry that there is a relationship between the goods and the money at all; in which case they're admitting fraud.
This morning I was sitting on a bus thinking there was little point in introducing a hybrid given that the driver was totally incapable of driving smoothly. This was not because of the prevailing road conditions; it was down to a total lack of awareness around how and why to ANTICIPATE. I seriously wonder how many tons of carbon London could save if drivers were retrained. This would also cut the number of injuries to standing passengers radically.
Europe have looked at Australia, looked at the Australian backlash, and decided "we don't care, let's just propose it anyway, to show how absolutely out of touch we are."