with things like AIR starting to be accepted by developers, do we still need the browser at all?"
Until AIR is open source or the open source community releases an AIR-compatible runtime, we will always need a browser. Even then, we will probably still need it for the developers who believe that AIR development is terrible on anything but Windows.
I've had very good luck so far with QNAP NAS devices, and I've messed with a Synology that I liked, but could have been better. The interface on the latter is better than the former, but the former has more features and an active user community.
I'd avoid Buffalo NAS unless you go high-end (Samba-only on the low end).
(Full disclosure: I'm a contractor for QNAP, but only because I liked their product and offered to improve it after I had already integrated it into my network.)
I think that's one of the points pro-gun folks use: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Law-abiding citizens are left without the means to protect themselves, instead relying on police or other law enforcement authorities to protect the people. The police can't be everywhere where there's crime (yet..Minority Report?). The law-abiding person is unable to ward off assailants, and the crime rate increases because there's not enough deterrent for the criminals--they don't have to worry about getting shot during a crime unless they're attacking other criminals.
'Twould be interesting to see a study of general folks' usage and knowledge of certificates. Since they never see a dialog popup when on an HTTPS site, they may not even know the difference.
Then, disable the certificate error thing and see if any of them notice a difference.
Call and remind your representative that he or she has an oath of office and a public image to sustain, and voting for this bill cannot possibly be a supportive action for either.
Seriously, if this thing passes and becomes law, it should be the job of every/.er to write to their local newspaper and lambaste their representative for voting in support of a bill which violates every citizen's constitutional rights, and aids, abets, and forgives those who broke the law in ante facto.
Conversely, if a/.er's rep votes against it, that/.er should write in support of their representative's action.
Does this apply to foreign workers? For instance, if I were to go work in Japan for a year or two after I'm 40, would my employer be fined if I didn't shrink my 37 to a 33.5?
They should visit film.disney.com, kids.disney.com, and fun.disney.com. The DNS works backwards, and people should learn that just as they learn how an email address works and how to work web forms.
Please, please, please call your Senator and urge him or her to vote against this bill. Make sure you say that it would be ludicrous to enact it because then even candidates collecting money via the Internet would be subject to its provisions, on top of the things mentioned by FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey (former House majority leader).
The best investment you can make is to give that laptop to some enterprising person and tell them to make a blog or site and give you the a percentage of the profits.
You might even be better of simply donating the laptop to charity and deducting the donation from your taxes.
If you really need it for some reason or cannot possibly afford something newer, consider putting Xubuntu, Puppy, or some other lightweight OS on there.
Exactly the defense that anyone would should use. If the plaintiff says, "Well, I didn't explicitly grant you permission to use my network," then you can fire back, "You did when your router gave me explicit permission by assigning me an IP address and giving me a gateway by which I could access the Internet. Essentially, I asked if I could use the network, and, acting on your behalf since you set it up, it said I could when it gave me the information required to use the network."
And so the information stays in a lockbox forever, information which should be public knowledge and which could incriminate the heads of the administration, which would then affect the judicial branch and make the legislative branch look really, really good.
A really good quote appeared in the footer of the page just now: "Presidency: The greased pig in the field game of American politics. -- Ambrose Bierce"
He believes in following the Constitution. The Constitution is constructed such that, if it were followed to the letter, states would have the power to do anything or regulate anything not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution.
If the states wanted to have uniform laws, then they should amend the Constitution to permit the federal government to have a say.
This system allows for diversity in such a large country, both in population and in geographic area. Some people might want it a certain way, and that's their right. States that don't agree would have the right to put economic pressure on states doing bad things, just like the US should be doing with foreign states (aka other countries to those who don't understand the nature of a "state").
Of course I don't agree with those who commit human rights violations. However, that doesn't give me the right to force my way upon them through outright aggression or legalized violence--that's just as much of a human rights violation to me. I can simply choose not to purchase their product or otherwise benefit them, and if enough people follow my lead, the violators' hand is forced: keep violating rights and run out of money, or stop violating rights and be in business.
This is a perfect world idea, one where everyone does what is right and within their limits of person, but if we can't dream and work toward such a thing, then we're just wasting our time.
The change must be in Congress, not necessarily the oval office. If we can get principled, ball-having (figuratively, not necessarily literally) Congresspeople, then Congress can take back the power it has unconstitutionally surrendered and impeach the president if he or she breaks his or her oath of office or the law.
Obviously, the 5th amendment would apply only in America. The password thing was decided in by SCOTUS sometime last year. They'd have to torture the person to get the password, or hold them in contempt of court--they'd never be able to convict them on the real charges if they needed the password or the protected data as evidence.
McCain has supporters who have blogs? Clearly the Internet belongs to Ron Paul, and we don't take too kindly to flippy-floppy neocons around these parts.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC, Americans enjoy the right to sell any of their possessions, provided they acquired them legally.
The roundescht object in the world isch your mother, Trebek.
Until AIR is open source or the open source community releases an AIR-compatible runtime, we will always need a browser. Even then, we will probably still need it for the developers who believe that AIR development is terrible on anything but Windows.
I've had very good luck so far with QNAP NAS devices, and I've messed with a Synology that I liked, but could have been better. The interface on the latter is better than the former, but the former has more features and an active user community.
I'd avoid Buffalo NAS unless you go high-end (Samba-only on the low end).
(Full disclosure: I'm a contractor for QNAP, but only because I liked their product and offered to improve it after I had already integrated it into my network.)
Algernon?
I think that's one of the points pro-gun folks use: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Law-abiding citizens are left without the means to protect themselves, instead relying on police or other law enforcement authorities to protect the people. The police can't be everywhere where there's crime (yet..Minority Report?). The law-abiding person is unable to ward off assailants, and the crime rate increases because there's not enough deterrent for the criminals--they don't have to worry about getting shot during a crime unless they're attacking other criminals.
I iz American. I can has OpenMoko?
translation: When is US getting sweet, sweet OpenMoko goodness?
'Twould be interesting to see a study of general folks' usage and knowledge of certificates. Since they never see a dialog popup when on an HTTPS site, they may not even know the difference.
Then, disable the certificate error thing and see if any of them notice a difference.
Call and remind your representative that he or she has an oath of office and a public image to sustain, and voting for this bill cannot possibly be a supportive action for either.
Seriously, if this thing passes and becomes law, it should be the job of every /.er to write to their local newspaper and lambaste their representative for voting in support of a bill which violates every citizen's constitutional rights, and aids, abets, and forgives those who broke the law in ante facto.
Conversely, if a /.er's rep votes against it, that /.er should write in support of their representative's action.
Does this apply to foreign workers? For instance, if I were to go work in Japan for a year or two after I'm 40, would my employer be fined if I didn't shrink my 37 to a 33.5?
The CEO did say that, should anything happen to LGP, he and all of his dev team are authorized to distribute patches which remove the check.
They should visit film.disney.com, kids.disney.com, and fun.disney.com. The DNS works backwards, and people should learn that just as they learn how an email address works and how to work web forms.
Party on on the roof, dude. You will be missed.
So if we invert the equation, will the result be the saddest day of the year?
I'd laugh if it was Christmas, which is 5 days more than 6 months hence. I'd laugh harder if it was Valentine's Day.
Please, please, please call your Senator and urge him or her to vote against this bill. Make sure you say that it would be ludicrous to enact it because then even candidates collecting money via the Internet would be subject to its provisions, on top of the things mentioned by FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey (former House majority leader).
The best investment you can make is to give that laptop to some enterprising person and tell them to make a blog or site and give you the a percentage of the profits.
You might even be better of simply donating the laptop to charity and deducting the donation from your taxes.
If you really need it for some reason or cannot possibly afford something newer, consider putting Xubuntu, Puppy, or some other lightweight OS on there.
Exactly the defense that anyone would should use. If the plaintiff says, "Well, I didn't explicitly grant you permission to use my network," then you can fire back, "You did when your router gave me explicit permission by assigning me an IP address and giving me a gateway by which I could access the Internet. Essentially, I asked if I could use the network, and, acting on your behalf since you set it up, it said I could when it gave me the information required to use the network."
DRM keeps an honest man honest, and that's it.
And so the information stays in a lockbox forever, information which should be public knowledge and which could incriminate the heads of the administration, which would then affect the judicial branch and make the legislative branch look really, really good.
A really good quote appeared in the footer of the page just now: "Presidency: The greased pig in the field game of American politics. -- Ambrose Bierce"
If I don't control it, I don't own it.
If I don't own it, I can't trust it.
He believes in following the Constitution. The Constitution is constructed such that, if it were followed to the letter, states would have the power to do anything or regulate anything not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution.
If the states wanted to have uniform laws, then they should amend the Constitution to permit the federal government to have a say.
This system allows for diversity in such a large country, both in population and in geographic area. Some people might want it a certain way, and that's their right. States that don't agree would have the right to put economic pressure on states doing bad things, just like the US should be doing with foreign states (aka other countries to those who don't understand the nature of a "state").
Of course I don't agree with those who commit human rights violations. However, that doesn't give me the right to force my way upon them through outright aggression or legalized violence--that's just as much of a human rights violation to me. I can simply choose not to purchase their product or otherwise benefit them, and if enough people follow my lead, the violators' hand is forced: keep violating rights and run out of money, or stop violating rights and be in business.
This is a perfect world idea, one where everyone does what is right and within their limits of person, but if we can't dream and work toward such a thing, then we're just wasting our time.
The change must be in Congress, not necessarily the oval office. If we can get principled, ball-having (figuratively, not necessarily literally) Congresspeople, then Congress can take back the power it has unconstitutionally surrendered and impeach the president if he or she breaks his or her oath of office or the law.
Don Knuth?
Obviously, the 5th amendment would apply only in America. The password thing was decided in by SCOTUS sometime last year. They'd have to torture the person to get the password, or hold them in contempt of court--they'd never be able to convict them on the real charges if they needed the password or the protected data as evidence.
McCain has supporters who have blogs? Clearly the Internet belongs to Ron Paul, and we don't take too kindly to flippy-floppy neocons around these parts.