Asked about their position on cross-strait relations, 66 percent of respondents supported the “status quo,” 24 percent wanted independence and 7 percent supported unification with China, according to the survey conducted by cable news channel TVBS between Thursday last week and Monday. However, the poll found that most respondents favored independence over unification if they were asked to choose between just those two options, with 71 percent supporting independence and only 18 percent supporting unification with China. With regards to identity, 78 percent of those polled identified themselves as Taiwanese, while 13 percent saw themselves as Chinese.
Apple also recently elevated a talented, gay employee to the most powerful position in the entire company. Tim Cook is probably the most powerful gay man in the entire world.
It is a bug, and also seems very likely to be a (granted rather trivial) exploit. Google seems to be the primary target here, even though multiple sites have been identified using the workaround, because of previous agreements it has made regarding privacy.
Agreed. Either the trademark was worth $50,000 to you or it wasn't. It should not matter who was buying it. Nor is there anything illegal about creating a shell company to do acquisitions like this.
They are trying to claim that they were told the name wouldn't be used in a similar market, but if that's the case they should have had that in writing in the contract.
Your belief system as you've defined it is not diametrically opposed to evolution. However, that does not mean your belief system is not diametrically opposed to science. It is.
You have faith that you know a truth about our universe despite your lack of scientific evidence, and there may not be any amount of scientific evidence that can make you change your mind.
It looks like Firefox 7 just about passes the Acid 3 test now (it scores 100/100, although I'm seeing a rendering error). Does that mean we should now expect to see work on Acid 4 begin in the near future?
Hickson had previously stated that work would begin when 3 of the 4 major rendering engines passed the Acid 3 test. WebKit and Presto already passed, so Mozilla should make that 3/4. Heck, even Trident is scoring 100/100 now.
The 5th paragraph (of black text) in the article clearly states: "Regarding price, Apple's" stuff is not cheap, a lot of its stuff is comparatively expensive, and there's many additional aspects of owning the device you have to pay for that are not cheap. For example, you can't install pirated software, download [free] music, you have to pay to watch movies, etc."
you'll discover that although it works in Acrobat Reader on the Mac, the Mac Preview application, which I would hazard is used to open the vast majority of PDFs on Macs, does not support/Launch and thus isn't vulnerable to the attack.
The actual Peacekeeper web site had data for all the browsers, including betas for Firefox (3.5) and Chrome (2.0). Safari 4 was still the fastest, with Chrome 2 and 1 coming in 2nd and 3rd respectively.
Not to mention the US now has an agreement allowing the US to trade nuclear material with India even though India never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Source: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/
The term acid test was first used to determine whether a metal was real gold or not, back in the 1850s. The metal would be dipped in acid to see if it corroded or not.
Today, the term "acid test" is used in a number of academic fields in a similar way... to test whether or not something meets certain specifications.
Damn Apple for using recyclable aluminum, which doesn't fit in nicely to Greenpeace's spreadsheet like recyclable plastic does.
For a recap of the things Apple scored Bad (0) on: 1) Use of recycled plastic 2) Global GHG emissions reduction support (do they need to join a club? Their energy efficiency on new products got the highest possible rating, which is probably the biggest contributor to GHG with regards to Apple). 3) Own GHG emissions reduction commitment 4) Amounts of renewable energy used 5) Precautionary principle
In other words, everything Apple scored Bad (0) on has nothing to do with their products (with the exception of 'use of recyclable plastic', since they use the more recyclable aluminum).
Their Partially Bad (1+) scores were also more related to press releases and not actually to their products, ie: 1) Time for additional substance phaseout 2) Information to individual customers 3) Carbon footprint disclosure
When you look at their Partially Good (2+) and Good (3+) scores though, they are almost all related to products, ie: 1) Chemicals Management (2+) 2) PVC and BFR phaseout (3+) 3) PVC-free / BFR-free models (2+) 4) Energy Efficiency of new models (3+)
And here's some example reasoning from Greenpeace's report: "Apple makes no reference to the precautionary principle even though its progress in eliminating hazardous substances seems to be guided by this principle of environmental policy." Therefore, even though Apple is actually acting environmentally conscious, they get a 0 because they didn't explicitly state that's their intention. Conversely, companies that don't act as responsibly as Apple but say they intend to get rated higher.
Additionally, on commitment to reduce GHG emissions: "Apple seeks to minimize GHG emissions by setting stringent design-related goals for material and energy efficiency. However, there are no details of these goals." Again, good on action, but no press release, so 0.
This "research" is just utterly worthless, and does not come even close to representing what it claims to.
So from June 4 to Election Day, Obama had 51.73% of the stories, and McCain had 48.26% of the stories. That looks pretty damn even to me. Do you expect news agencies to count how many stories they have run in the past and use that to set some sort of quota?
"Well, Obama did get a crowd of 200,000 people in Germany for his speech, which is pretty big news... but he's currently 3 news stories over quota, so we're going to have to not report that one." And not all the news was fluffy either. There were the stories about Rev Wright, and Obama going to a Madrassa in Indonesia for example that everyone ran with. Those were legitimate things to report (and investigate, and then retract). If the media didn't cover those stories, people would have been up and arms over that as well.
McCain was simply a known entity and there was very little exploring done in his background. Even up to election day, despite all the media coverage and longest election race in history, people were still claiming that they didn't know who Obama was. That alone I think justifies the slight disparity in news coverage, as it's the media's responsibility to help investigate and explain to voters Obama's background. No such intense scrutiny was needed for McCain, and people didn't ask for it.
You are aware that campaign donations from "organizations" is actually based on individuals who donate to that candidate and then self-identify with a specific organization, right? The information comes from what you list as your employer when you donate.
Looking at the actual data available, it shows Obama receiving $2,000 from the RIAA. OMG, the sky is falling, $2000? That's probably a single individual. There's no way you can possibly draw conclusions based on that... a single individual has far too many possible extraneous reasons for choosing who to donate money to.
If you actually did a little bit of research though, by going to a free site like opensecrets.org, you could actually get some more substantial donor information for both candidates. For example, Obama's 5th largest donor is Google, 8th is Microsoft, and 12th is Time Warner. He also has a number of universities showing up near the top, including Cal at #2 and Harvard at #3.
Comparatively, 7 of McCain's top 8 donors, and all of his top 5, are financial institutions. AT&T is mixed in there at 6. There's no other computer/technology/communications company showing up on McCain's top 20.
So what conclusions do you want to draw from that? Google is pretty invested in net neutrality, and its employees seem to be voting with their dollars pretty heavily for Obama. Should we conclude instead that Obama is really better for net neutrality? AT&T was also one of the biggest opponents of net neutrality, and its employees seem to favor McCain a lot more strongly than Obama.
The thing with data like this, is you can prove just about anything you damn want. That's why I always do my own research on issues that matter to me instead of reading a random blog. If you care about net neutrality, do research about donors at sites like opensecrets.org, and check out voting records and interest group ratings at votesmart.org. And also just read the positions of the candidates themselves.
Well, you can actually draw asian language characters as well, although that's less efficient than that fiddly qwerty nonsense.
Most people who speak Chinese (and I believe Japanese as well) actually tend to use roman characters to enter characters (for example, in China Hanyu Pinyin is used).
The one notable exception is Taiwan, which uses Zhuyin instead, which is the same concept as using roman characters, but has a different character set.
A few others are used as well, but the most common ones to use qwerty anyway (I'm not sure about Korean).
Extrapolating from the performance development chart which shows a 10 fold increase about every 4 years (desktop computers should be pretty similar), and assuming top desktop computers today hit around 100 gigaflops, then you can expect we'll hit that sometime around 2024.
Geolocation services are just large databases that map IP addresses to physical locations. There's really nothing else to it. Who owns a set of IP addreses can also change quite frequently, and so these databases need constant updating.
As an example, here's the FAQ provided by a geolocation service I've used in the past:
GEO I/O compiles several sources of data to achieve 99% accuracy at the country level, 85% at the state/regional level, 80% at the (US) city level (within a 25-mile radius), and 60% accuracy for cities outside of the US. The data is stored in a proprietary format, limiting our ability to make individual changes to it, however the database is updated monthly by our data providers.
Basically, it will get fixed when the group maintaining the data updates it, which in my experience can be anywhere from a couple weeks to a year.
Slashdot Mirror
The annual independence vs unification poll was just released recently in Taiwan.
Disable JavaScript[1], close page, there's no step 3.
[1] Preferences -> Security Tab -> uncheck 'Enable JavaScript'
Did you notice the first link in the post (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/08/us/texas-county-retreats-over-apple-s-gay-policy.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)? It was Apple sticking up for its gay employees back in 1993.
Apple also recently elevated a talented, gay employee to the most powerful position in the entire company. Tim Cook is probably the most powerful gay man in the entire world.
It is a bug, and also seems very likely to be a (granted rather trivial) exploit. Google seems to be the primary target here, even though multiple sites have been identified using the workaround, because of previous agreements it has made regarding privacy.
Agreed. Either the trademark was worth $50,000 to you or it wasn't. It should not matter who was buying it. Nor is there anything illegal about creating a shell company to do acquisitions like this.
They are trying to claim that they were told the name wouldn't be used in a similar market, but if that's the case they should have had that in writing in the contract.
This case is not going to go anywhere.
Your belief system as you've defined it is not diametrically opposed to evolution. However, that does not mean your belief system is not diametrically opposed to science. It is.
You have faith that you know a truth about our universe despite your lack of scientific evidence, and there may not be any amount of scientific evidence that can make you change your mind.
Did it exactly the same way without really even thinking about it.
It looks like Firefox 7 just about passes the Acid 3 test now (it scores 100/100, although I'm seeing a rendering error). Does that mean we should now expect to see work on Acid 4 begin in the near future?
Hickson had previously stated that work would begin when 3 of the 4 major rendering engines passed the Acid 3 test. WebKit and Presto already passed, so Mozilla should make that 3/4. Heck, even Trident is scoring 100/100 now.
"Apple has 50% of profit share from smartphone makers, can’t hear the haters behind huge wall of cash"
Apple crowned No. 1 with biggest market cap
I wish I could fail as well as Apple does.
The 5th paragraph (of black text) in the article clearly states: "Regarding price, Apple's" stuff is not cheap, a lot of its stuff is comparatively expensive, and there's many additional aspects of owning the device you have to pay for that are not cheap. For example, you can't install pirated software, download [free] music, you have to pay to watch movies, etc."
It can, although it doesn't mean that Mac and Linux are just as vulnerable as Windows.
If you download this proof of concept which works on Linux, Windows and Mac:
http://seclabs.org/fred/docs/sstic09/samples/actions/launch/calc.pdf
you'll discover that although it works in Acrobat Reader on the Mac, the Mac Preview application, which I would hazard is used to open the vast majority of PDFs on Macs, does not support /Launch and thus isn't vulnerable to the attack.
Bandwidth?
Since XP still has 75% or more of the install base, compared to about 17-20% for Vista, yes, XP is still EXTREMELY relevant.
The actual Peacekeeper web site had data for all the browsers, including betas for Firefox (3.5) and Chrome (2.0). Safari 4 was still the fastest, with Chrome 2 and 1 coming in 2nd and 3rd respectively.
Not to mention the US now has an agreement allowing the US to trade nuclear material with India even though India never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Source: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/
Wrong.
The term acid test was first used to determine whether a metal was real gold or not, back in the 1850s. The metal would be dipped in acid to see if it corroded or not.
Today, the term "acid test" is used in a number of academic fields in a similar way... to test whether or not something meets certain specifications.
Damn Apple for using recyclable aluminum, which doesn't fit in nicely to Greenpeace's spreadsheet like recyclable plastic does.
For a recap of the things Apple scored Bad (0) on:
1) Use of recycled plastic
2) Global GHG emissions reduction support (do they need to join a club? Their energy efficiency on new products got the highest possible rating, which is probably the biggest contributor to GHG with regards to Apple).
3) Own GHG emissions reduction commitment
4) Amounts of renewable energy used
5) Precautionary principle
In other words, everything Apple scored Bad (0) on has nothing to do with their products (with the exception of 'use of recyclable plastic', since they use the more recyclable aluminum).
Their Partially Bad (1+) scores were also more related to press releases and not actually to their products, ie:
1) Time for additional substance phaseout
2) Information to individual customers
3) Carbon footprint disclosure
When you look at their Partially Good (2+) and Good (3+) scores though, they are almost all related to products, ie:
1) Chemicals Management (2+)
2) PVC and BFR phaseout (3+)
3) PVC-free / BFR-free models (2+)
4) Energy Efficiency of new models (3+)
And here's some example reasoning from Greenpeace's report:
"Apple makes no reference to the precautionary principle even though its progress in eliminating hazardous substances seems to be guided by this principle of environmental policy."
Therefore, even though Apple is actually acting environmentally conscious, they get a 0 because they didn't explicitly state that's their intention. Conversely, companies that don't act as responsibly as Apple but say they intend to get rated higher.
Additionally, on commitment to reduce GHG emissions:
"Apple seeks to minimize GHG emissions by setting stringent design-related goals for material and energy efficiency. However, there are no details of these goals."
Again, good on action, but no press release, so 0.
This "research" is just utterly worthless, and does not come even close to representing what it claims to.
Zealandia.
So from June 4 to Election Day, Obama had 51.73% of the stories, and McCain had 48.26% of the stories. That looks pretty damn even to me. Do you expect news agencies to count how many stories they have run in the past and use that to set some sort of quota?
"Well, Obama did get a crowd of 200,000 people in Germany for his speech, which is pretty big news... but he's currently 3 news stories over quota, so we're going to have to not report that one." And not all the news was fluffy either. There were the stories about Rev Wright, and Obama going to a Madrassa in Indonesia for example that everyone ran with. Those were legitimate things to report (and investigate, and then retract). If the media didn't cover those stories, people would have been up and arms over that as well.
McCain was simply a known entity and there was very little exploring done in his background. Even up to election day, despite all the media coverage and longest election race in history, people were still claiming that they didn't know who Obama was. That alone I think justifies the slight disparity in news coverage, as it's the media's responsibility to help investigate and explain to voters Obama's background. No such intense scrutiny was needed for McCain, and people didn't ask for it.
You are aware that campaign donations from "organizations" is actually based on individuals who donate to that candidate and then self-identify with a specific organization, right? The information comes from what you list as your employer when you donate.
Looking at the actual data available, it shows Obama receiving $2,000 from the RIAA. OMG, the sky is falling, $2000? That's probably a single individual. There's no way you can possibly draw conclusions based on that... a single individual has far too many possible extraneous reasons for choosing who to donate money to.
If you actually did a little bit of research though, by going to a free site like opensecrets.org, you could actually get some more substantial donor information for both candidates. For example, Obama's 5th largest donor is Google, 8th is Microsoft, and 12th is Time Warner. He also has a number of universities showing up near the top, including Cal at #2 and Harvard at #3.
Comparatively, 7 of McCain's top 8 donors, and all of his top 5, are financial institutions. AT&T is mixed in there at 6. There's no other computer/technology/communications company showing up on McCain's top 20.
So what conclusions do you want to draw from that? Google is pretty invested in net neutrality, and its employees seem to be voting with their dollars pretty heavily for Obama. Should we conclude instead that Obama is really better for net neutrality? AT&T was also one of the biggest opponents of net neutrality, and its employees seem to favor McCain a lot more strongly than Obama.
The thing with data like this, is you can prove just about anything you damn want. That's why I always do my own research on issues that matter to me instead of reading a random blog. If you care about net neutrality, do research about donors at sites like opensecrets.org, and check out voting records and interest group ratings at votesmart.org. And also just read the positions of the candidates themselves.
A list of "private" sites is a pretty convenient way for somebody to figure out what sites you're going to that you don't want people to know about.
The whole point of this is to *not* leave a trail.
That actually isn't a very good example. You can write that about as fast as somebody can write "Japanese". It's just a matter of what you're used to.
Well, you can actually draw asian language characters as well, although that's less efficient than that fiddly qwerty nonsense.
Most people who speak Chinese (and I believe Japanese as well) actually tend to use roman characters to enter characters (for example, in China Hanyu Pinyin is used).
The one notable exception is Taiwan, which uses Zhuyin instead, which is the same concept as using roman characters, but has a different character set.
A few others are used as well, but the most common ones to use qwerty anyway (I'm not sure about Korean).
Extrapolating from the performance development chart which shows a 10 fold increase about every 4 years (desktop computers should be pretty similar), and assuming top desktop computers today hit around 100 gigaflops, then you can expect we'll hit that sometime around 2024.
Geolocation services are just large databases that map IP addresses to physical locations. There's really nothing else to it. Who owns a set of IP addreses can also change quite frequently, and so these databases need constant updating.
As an example, here's the FAQ provided by a geolocation service I've used in the past:
GEO I/O compiles several sources of data to achieve 99% accuracy at the country level, 85% at the state/regional level, 80% at the (US) city level (within a 25-mile radius), and 60% accuracy for cities outside of the US. The data is stored in a proprietary format, limiting our ability to make individual changes to it, however the database is updated monthly by our data providers.Basically, it will get fixed when the group maintaining the data updates it, which in my experience can be anywhere from a couple weeks to a year.