Hey there are third-party apps that allow you to open multiple IE windows and I imagine some of them might even be freeware. Go to the pocketpc usenet newsgroup and ask there. I forgot what they were but I remember coming across them a while ago. I just mainly use my PocketPC to take notes and never for net.
It astounds me how people go on arguing over a faslity; the judge did NOT rule that "web journalists do not count"! I said it last time this was on slashdot and I'll say it again; from TFA: "Kleinberg offered no explanation for the preliminary ruling", but I guess it's not sensational and spectacular enough to keep to the truth of what really happened. Even if they were print journalists from the oldest establishment the judge would've ruled just the same; this is NOT a case about corporate secrets, blogging, journalism, or free speech... it is a case about contracts (NDA = contract), and "contracts are promises that the law will enforce", hence he will force them to reveal who broke the contract if there was no other way to enforce the law. Journalists are NOT above the law and do NOT have the right to obstruct justice. While the law provides them with protections for the confidentiality of their sources it is explicit that those should be overriden to serve four countervailing interests if the information can not be obtained by other means: "the right of an accused person to a full defence, the interest of litigants in a civil trial to obtain evidence (Apple!), prevention of crime and safeguarding public order or national security".
I second this. Kashmiris never wanted to be part of India and the intervention of the Indian army has caused atrocities there that only made their feelings worse. Let the people have their freedom and decide their own future.
This doesn't surprise me at all. What surprises me is that people continue to remain oblivious to the obvious and in denial of the damning. O'Keefe's decisions do not represent NASA, they represent the Bush administration. People seem to assume that because he was a NASA administrator then his decisions reflect those of NASA, well NO, he's a politician who joined the Bush administration on its very first day and whose niche is spinning budgets wherever he was dispatched to serve their political objectives. Does it surprise me that he made a decision without a formal study of the technical and scientific issues? No more so than the policies of the Bush administration on climate change that continue to ignore and defy all scientific and technical consensus, or for that matter, on embryonic stem cell research, the economy, or other issues. This is an administration that's driven by dogma and electoral politics. This is an administration whose core electorates and campaigners include evengelical creationists who continue to believe that God created man and woman 6000 years ago and that creation as told in Genesis ought to be reintroduced to science curriculae and taught to school children. This is an administration headed by a president who asserted that "On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth", which is an even more explicit assertion than the creationist campaigners' own "evolution is a theory, not a fact" stickers that they want on schools' science books. Anyone who cares enough about science to study its history and how its epistemological method came to be what it is today will be clear in knolwedge and mind that for many centuries from Copernicus through Kepler and Galileo and to Haley and Newton the the history of science was none other than the history of astronomy; the history of the struggle between the scientists who directly observed the heavens with their eyes and telescopes and the clergy who derived their authority from the scriptures that they claimed came from those very same heavens. Telescopes were the defning instrument of science that eventually led to societal secularism through Descartes and Bacon and Hubble is simply a fancy version of Galileo's own instrument that continues to inform us on how we came to exist by eyeing the birth of the universe that's evident in its distant depths and giving further credence to secular teachings, and many of Hubble's findings have found their way into university and school curriculae already. Anyone who believes that money for the Hubble servicing mission can not be found by an administration that provides tens and tens of billions in "faith-based initiatives" that amount to nothing more than handouts to their core campaigners and that deliberaly runs a budget deficit of hundreds and billions that will lead to nothing less than the cold-blooded collapse of the humanist institutions of social security and welfare programs is out of his mind. This is kleptocratic administration that seeks to reverse centuries of humanist progress and return us to our "original foundation" of being under the mercy of a criminal clergy and under the dominion of a militant marcantile. I suspect what I have written above may invite the diatribe of a kukluxitious clan whose ideas of political conduct derives from their tribalist tradition in spectator sports and who approach reasoned debates with the mentality of a dogfight, but I couldn't care less about responding to them, for it is all futile to reason with dogs, and they'll eventually get what they deserve in their trashtastic future from a political elite who couldn't care less about them beyond the expolitation of their mass stupidities.
It's harmful to conservative and religious ideologies. Most minors are sexually aware and by nature go into sex full steam once they could. There's no credibility to the idea that sexual censorship leads to better individuals; the individuals that are the outcome of the permissive Swedish society are certainly no less healthy than the repressed Saudis. If anything, they're much healthier.
"Journalists, like all citizens, are subject to the law and are not above the law, refusal (to name a source) is a defiance to the authority of the court and an obstruction of justice."... Read what's below.
"This paper demonstrates ways in which intergovernmental bodies within Europe as well as a number of domestic jurisdictions inside and outside of Europe have sought to provide legal protection to annonymous journalists' sources. All of these jurisdictions (including United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom) have recognised that the right of the public to receive information is to a large extent dependent upon journalists who in turn rely on individuals to supply them with information, often on a confidential basis.
Notwithstanding the importance of protecting source confidentiality, all the jurisdictions surveyed here recognise, to a greater or lesser degree, that source confidentiality may be overridden in certain circumstances. Among the jurisdictions surveyed, four countervailing interests are of particular relevance: the right of an accused person to a full defence, the interest of litigants in a civil trial to obtain evidence, prevention of crime and safeguarding public order or national security.
In most jurisdictions, the party seeking disclosure will have to demonstrate not only the presence of a countervailing interest but also that the information sought is of sufficient importance to warrant a disclosure order. In many jurisdictions this means that the courts will weigh the harm of disclosure to freedom of expression against the countervailing interest. Given the importance of the former, the latter is only occasionally deemed dominant. In addition, in a number of jurisdictions, if the information may be obtained by other means, or if the goal served by disclosure has substantially been satisfied in another way, courts will not order disclosure. This careful balance, reflected in both international and national law standards, is necessary to protect a free press and hence the fundamental democratic right to right to freedom of expression." http://www.article19.org/docimages/638.htm
How is this not about journalism and blogging? Apple wants to know who passed on trade secrets to a website; said site isn't going to give said secrets as they say they're journalists. The judge has ruled that they aren't journalists and have to give up the info.
What I would like to know if this judge considers others in his proffession aren't actually judges just cause they work in traffic court?
That's nonsense. The judge did not "rule that they aren't journlalists"! The article clearly stated that the "Kleinberg offered no explanation for the preliminary ruling". The job of the judge is to apply the law; he was having none of this nonsense about "free speech", "journalism", "blogging", "secrets"... it's simple as far as the law is concerned in this case; there's a contract that has been breached and "Contracts are promises that the law will enforce", and there are individuals who are obstructing the enforcement of the law.
That's nonsense. The law does not care about "protecting your (corporate) secrets". This is only relevant because the NDA is a contract, and, like I already said, "Contracts are promises that the law will enforce"! (google for this sentence and see how often it occurs) The law in this case does not care about "journalism and blogging"; but simply that they are obstructing the enforcement of the law.
You're both wrong. It's not about secrets, blogging, journalism, or free speech. It's about breaking conctractual agreements, and "contracts are promises that the law will enforce".
I'm wondering what the grey matter mass of an average individual of the future will look like once we have everything accessible and computable on demand and using one's own biological memory or mental faculties would be a less frequent event.
From the page you linked to "Regis McKenna Advertising agency of Palo Alto had successfully helped big computer firms like Compaq, America Online and Intel establish themselves, so Apple decided to hire them to redesign their own logo." That's complete bullshit! There was no compaq in 1977, let alone an America Online!
This is not correct. Apple, and its bitten rainbow apple logo of old were tribute to Alan Turing whose personal problems that mostly stemmed out of being gay drove him to commit suicide by biting a cyanide-laced apple in 1954.
It's about volume; AMD only makes 3% of the processors and Intel makes 97% of them. Dell needs volume, a lot of it, and consistently. AMD probably can't meet the supply needs of dell, regardless of how better their processors are than Intel's.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey there are third-party apps that allow you to open multiple IE windows and I imagine some of them might even be freeware. Go to the pocketpc usenet newsgroup and ask there. I forgot what they were but I remember coming across them a while ago. I just mainly use my PocketPC to take notes and never for net.
It astounds me how people go on arguing over a faslity; the judge did NOT rule that "web journalists do not count"! I said it last time this was on slashdot and I'll say it again; from TFA: "Kleinberg offered no explanation for the preliminary ruling", but I guess it's not sensational and spectacular enough to keep to the truth of what really happened. Even if they were print journalists from the oldest establishment the judge would've ruled just the same; this is NOT a case about corporate secrets, blogging, journalism, or free speech... it is a case about contracts (NDA = contract), and "contracts are promises that the law will enforce", hence he will force them to reveal who broke the contract if there was no other way to enforce the law. Journalists are NOT above the law and do NOT have the right to obstruct justice. While the law provides them with protections for the confidentiality of their sources it is explicit that those should be overriden to serve four countervailing interests if the information can not be obtained by other means: "the right of an accused person to a full defence, the interest of litigants in a civil trial to obtain evidence (Apple!), prevention of crime and safeguarding public order or national security".
Linux, BSDs, OOo, Mozilla, etc etc are all large code, open sourced and well tested software. Now even Solaris has joined the party.
Maybe they can take a clue from other large code projects and open source it?
I second this. Kashmiris never wanted to be part of India and the intervention of the Indian army has caused atrocities there that only made their feelings worse. Let the people have their freedom and decide their own future.
The release of a Netscape still matters; only now we call it a mozilla (Firefox/Thunderbird etc).
It bugs me that they call them "reality shows". There's nothing real about "The apprentice, "Big Brother", "American Idol", "Survivor", etc etc.
Those are GAME SHOWS!... NOT reality shows!
This doesn't surprise me at all. What surprises me is that people continue to remain oblivious to the obvious and in denial of the damning. O'Keefe's decisions do not represent NASA, they represent the Bush administration. People seem to assume that because he was a NASA administrator then his decisions reflect those of NASA, well NO, he's a politician who joined the Bush administration on its very first day and whose niche is spinning budgets wherever he was dispatched to serve their political objectives. Does it surprise me that he made a decision without a formal study of the technical and scientific issues? No more so than the policies of the Bush administration on climate change that continue to ignore and defy all scientific and technical consensus, or for that matter, on embryonic stem cell research, the economy, or other issues. This is an administration that's driven by dogma and electoral politics. This is an administration whose core electorates and campaigners include evengelical creationists who continue to believe that God created man and woman 6000 years ago and that creation as told in Genesis ought to be reintroduced to science curriculae and taught to school children. This is an administration headed by a president who asserted that "On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth", which is an even more explicit assertion than the creationist campaigners' own "evolution is a theory, not a fact" stickers that they want on schools' science books. Anyone who cares enough about science to study its history and how its epistemological method came to be what it is today will be clear in knolwedge and mind that for many centuries from Copernicus through Kepler and Galileo and to Haley and Newton the the history of science was none other than the history of astronomy; the history of the struggle between the scientists who directly observed the heavens with their eyes and telescopes and the clergy who derived their authority from the scriptures that they claimed came from those very same heavens. Telescopes were the defning instrument of science that eventually led to societal secularism through Descartes and Bacon and Hubble is simply a fancy version of Galileo's own instrument that continues to inform us on how we came to exist by eyeing the birth of the universe that's evident in its distant depths and giving further credence to secular teachings, and many of Hubble's findings have found their way into university and school curriculae already. Anyone who believes that money for the Hubble servicing mission can not be found by an administration that provides tens and tens of billions in "faith-based initiatives" that amount to nothing more than handouts to their core campaigners and that deliberaly runs a budget deficit of hundreds and billions that will lead to nothing less than the cold-blooded collapse of the humanist institutions of social security and welfare programs is out of his mind. This is kleptocratic administration that seeks to reverse centuries of humanist progress and return us to our "original foundation" of being under the mercy of a criminal clergy and under the dominion of a militant marcantile. I suspect what I have written above may invite the diatribe of a kukluxitious clan whose ideas of political conduct derives from their tribalist tradition in spectator sports and who approach reasoned debates with the mentality of a dogfight, but I couldn't care less about responding to them, for it is all futile to reason with dogs, and they'll eventually get what they deserve in their trashtastic future from a political elite who couldn't care less about them beyond the expolitation of their mass stupidities.
Don't forget the card games. Playing poker against an ATM computer appeals to me. Now that's a computer I'd like to beat!
It's harmful to conservative and religious ideologies. Most minors are sexually aware and by nature go into sex full steam once they could. There's no credibility to the idea that sexual censorship leads to better individuals; the individuals that are the outcome of the permissive Swedish society are certainly no less healthy than the repressed Saudis. If anything, they're much healthier.
This "article" (not really an article, it's a flamepost) would probably not have been posted had there been a moderation system.
Psychiatrists and social workers too can enter without your consent.
"Journalists, like all citizens, are subject to the law and are not above the law, refusal (to name a source) is a defiance to the authority of the court and an obstruction of justice."... Read what's below.
"This paper demonstrates ways in which intergovernmental bodies within Europe as well as a number of domestic jurisdictions inside and outside of Europe have sought to provide legal protection to annonymous journalists' sources. All of these jurisdictions (including United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom) have recognised that the right of the public to receive information is to a large extent dependent upon journalists who in turn rely on individuals to supply them with information, often on a confidential basis. Notwithstanding the importance of protecting source confidentiality, all the jurisdictions surveyed here recognise, to a greater or lesser degree, that source confidentiality may be overridden in certain circumstances. Among the jurisdictions surveyed, four countervailing interests are of particular relevance: the right of an accused person to a full defence, the interest of litigants in a civil trial to obtain evidence, prevention of crime and safeguarding public order or national security. In most jurisdictions, the party seeking disclosure will have to demonstrate not only the presence of a countervailing interest but also that the information sought is of sufficient importance to warrant a disclosure order. In many jurisdictions this means that the courts will weigh the harm of disclosure to freedom of expression against the countervailing interest. Given the importance of the former, the latter is only occasionally deemed dominant. In addition, in a number of jurisdictions, if the information may be obtained by other means, or if the goal served by disclosure has substantially been satisfied in another way, courts will not order disclosure. This careful balance, reflected in both international and national law standards, is necessary to protect a free press and hence the fundamental democratic right to right to freedom of expression." http://www.article19.org/docimages/638.htm
You really don't get it, do you? You're making up the "argument from googlerank", not me, so tell yourself that it's pointless!
How is this not about journalism and blogging? Apple wants to know who passed on trade secrets to a website; said site isn't going to give said secrets as they say they're journalists. The judge has ruled that they aren't journalists and have to give up the info. What I would like to know if this judge considers others in his proffession aren't actually judges just cause they work in traffic court?
That's nonsense. The judge did not "rule that they aren't journlalists"! The article clearly stated that the "Kleinberg offered no explanation for the preliminary ruling". The job of the judge is to apply the law; he was having none of this nonsense about "free speech", "journalism", "blogging", "secrets"... it's simple as far as the law is concerned in this case; there's a contract that has been breached and "Contracts are promises that the law will enforce", and there are individuals who are obstructing the enforcement of the law.
That's nonsense. The law does not care about "protecting your (corporate) secrets". This is only relevant because the NDA is a contract, and, like I already said, "Contracts are promises that the law will enforce"! (google for this sentence and see how often it occurs)
The law in this case does not care about "journalism and blogging"; but simply that they are obstructing the enforcement of the law.
You're both wrong. It's not about secrets, blogging, journalism, or free speech. It's about breaking conctractual agreements, and "contracts are promises that the law will enforce".
"King's basic objection, Trainor said, stands -- in a free-market system it's not acceptable to let public government compete with private businesses"
We're glad someone out there finally understands the role of public government in a free-market system!
Dear Mr. Senator,
One word: The Police.
Sincerely,
Billy Joe Ray Junior & Jim Bob Jones
The American Association of Bounty Hunters
I'm wondering what the grey matter mass of an average individual of the future will look like once we have everything accessible and computable on demand and using one's own biological memory or mental faculties would be a less frequent event.
The only 'games' i play on my computer are chess engines. What about those? Will they benefit from dual-core?
Does anyone know what the ebay auction ended for?
the one that puzzles me more than how he sleeps or eats, is how does he shit?
From the page you linked to "Regis McKenna Advertising agency of Palo Alto had successfully helped big computer firms like Compaq, America Online and Intel establish themselves, so Apple decided to hire them to redesign their own logo." That's complete bullshit! There was no compaq in 1977, let alone an America Online!
This is not correct. Apple, and its bitten rainbow apple logo of old were tribute to Alan Turing whose personal problems that mostly stemmed out of being gay drove him to commit suicide by biting a cyanide-laced apple in 1954.
It's about volume; AMD only makes 3% of the processors and Intel makes 97% of them. Dell needs volume, a lot of it, and consistently. AMD probably can't meet the supply needs of dell, regardless of how better their processors are than Intel's.