Safari web browser is a bane to developers and users alike. Apple hasn't given a shit about the Safari browser for years. It has no market share, no web standards, no users. That Apple is using it as the phone's built in interface to web services is a negative, not a plus.

On another note, controlling the user experience by limiting the functionality or unifying the interface is a good thing. The Iphone shouldn't be a pocket computer with a bunch of buggy third party apps. It should have focus. That is why Itunes is a success, and Winamp sucks the lama's ass.

Google could, if it wanted to, swap your IP address for a unique identifier immediately. Instead it wants to track you over the course of time. There actions are creepy. It will be a matter of time before the public realizes this.

This is the real story:

"Taguba was given the job of investigating Abu Ghraib because of circumstance: the senior officer of the 800th Military Police Brigade, to which the soldiers in the photographs belonged, was a one-star general; Army regulations required that the head of the inquiry be senior to the commander of the unit being investigated, and Taguba, a two-star general, was available."

So this is the process? They investigate themselves. We roll the dice and hope for an honest investigation instead of a cover up? I remember another instance of military self investigation. The My Lai massacre was reported and Colin Powell was asked to investigate. Unlike Taguba, he chose cover up and whitewash. Taguba retires a pariah, Powell becomes beloved by the people.

"During the next two years, Taguba assiduously avoided the press, telling his relatives not to talk about his work."

His naiveté is an unwanted characteristic in a general. His silence during the process is complicit.

Since when did tech reviewing become nothing more than parroting press releases and doing product reviews. Technology = expensive gadgets?

If I wanted to read advertisements disguised as articles I would read wired.com.

I'll second you without alteration. Well written.

You need to keep the print head wet, or it dries out. If it dries out it clogs. If it clogs it doesn't print at all, or you get intermittent lines in your print job.

Some printers use thermal inkjet printing. Epson uses meniscus control technology in their printheads (branded Micro Piezo.) Both types dry out, if the cartridge runs dry.

"In July 2003, A Dutch Consumer Association advised its 640,000 members to boycott Epson ink jet printers. The Netherlands-based organization alleged that Epson customers were unfairly charged for ink they could never use. Later that month however, the group retracted its call for a nationwide boycott of Epson products and issued a statement conceding that residual ink left in Epson cartridges is necessary for the printers to function properly."

~ wikipedia

The courts need to get very specific when dealing with a technology issue like this. It is not like a telephone and wire tap. There are split up packets, stored data, IP addresses in headers, header information, time and date stamps, packet routes etc... that need to be addressed. You might be able to state that I can not ask an ISP to hand over someone's email, but what if I want to intercept the packets? What if I want to match emails with IP address info and track to whom emails are sent? What if I just want a log of time and date of all traffic? How long can a server keep email against the wishes of the user? Can a ISP be compelled to keep email on its mail server past the standard monthly dump? Lots of technical questions that need to be addressed by informed courts. We may need a separate court system to deal with technological issues as most judges don't have the background for highly technical decisions. The Microsoft anti-trust case was a harbinger of problems to come.

I will continue to point out when your articles are nothing more than advertisements disguised as articles. Any article on the iPhone is nothing more or less than a product advertisement for Apple. Simple as that.

You can fire U.S. attorneys for political reasons. It is standard practice for incoming presidents to sweepingly fire the previous administration's picks and replace them with their own. Each administration has a political agenda that they wish to pursue and mandate the new U.S. attorneys to support that agenda with prosecutions. Be tough on voter fraud...seek out civil rights cases...push for a lot of child victim crime prosecutions...etc...

They have chosen the strategy of hold them off on every minute point. They are making the democrats fill up their time, energies, political capital, and most importantly television air time with investigations that are bound to lead nowhere. Look how long it took for the Valery Plame case to play out and look how much attention that diverted from real a prescient issues. The result of that case? One person will get a few days in jail. Karl Rove is spreading breadcrumbs down every trail and the Democrat Nancy Drews are following these red herrings.

Recently Mitt Romney supported Guantanamo torture camp and stated that it should not be closed down. This statement should be a campaign killer. Where is the main stream media on this? Howard Dean screems and they crucify him...Romney supports an institution that even this corrupt administration is trying to back away from before legal gavels fall, and he (Romney) gets a pass? This is huge and no one is noticing.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/22/romney-closing-guantanamo-wrong-course/#comments