But, will it be funnier than Sean Connery?. Hope it can make more word-games as "The pen is mightier"
Which is interesting... would he had done it in 6 days if the seventh he couldn't rest? or he would have take longer to have energy for the next engagement, or did he just procrastinated in the next one? Does he need to rest at all? Is that a weakness?
Deep questions, for sure.
Well, IBM and I suspect HP (don't know about Apple) have an Intranet that goes all over the world. Each thing on the network needs a valid IP address on that network (is not like they NAT an entire country/division), every printer, every phone, every wifi cell phone (so you have IM, VoIP and email), every router, every server, every laptop, every desktop. I work on one of these international networks, and one of the limitations on some of them is that sometimes you just don't get your ip address because they ran out, you better wake up early. We are about 10.000 employees just in the city I work in).
I don't want to believe, otherwise I'd go to a church.
Because being sure that your internal network can not be addressed from the internet as it uses private IP numbers is a way to add security by making sure that if you make a mistake in the border, at least there's no way to address your internal network directly. The people that implement this see this NAT as a feature. If you don't need to use it, please don't.
Yes. I live in South America, and work in Argentina. I travel to the US at least once a year. I own a E71. My wife a E51. It supports my companies VPN, email, even putty, and instant messaging. Battery (on the E71 at least) is very good. I even run Garmin XT so I don't need a standalone GPS most of the time.
At least three of my buddies in the company own E71's as well. So yes, they are actually used
Or lets quote her:
Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! Thursday, June 10 2010 @ 04:14 PM EDT
Here you go, munchkins. Judge Ted Stewart has ruled for Novell and against SCO. Novell's claim for declaratory judgment is granted; SCO's claims for specific performance and breach of the implied covenant of good fair and fair dealings are denied. Also SCO's motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial: denied. Novell is entitled to waive, at its sole discretion, claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees.
Maybe I should say cases closed. The door has slammed shut on the SCO litigation machine. The judge writes in the Memorandum Decision and Order about SCOsource, "Finally, while SCO's witnesses testified that the copyrights were 'required' for SCO to run its SCOsource licensing program, this was not something that SCO ever acquired from Novell." He totally got it. He noticed Darl McBride admitted that SCO didn't need the copyrights for anything but SCOsource. It couldn't be any better if I'd written it myself.
Was the jury misled or confused? Not at all, the judge writes: "The jury could have rejected the testimony of SCO's witnesses for a number of reasons, including their lack of involvement in drafting the APA, the fact that there was little testimony on any actual discussions concerning the transfer of copyrights, or that many of the witnesses had a financial interest in the litigation."
"The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith," Stewart writes in the final judgment. I believe that means SCO v. IBM is essentially over now, unless IBM wishes to pursue its counterclaims.
And now it is -- finally -- time, once again, for my red dress! And a huge thank you to Michael Jacobs and the team at Morrison & Foerster, who never gave up but, more importantly, showed that you can fight hard and win with ethics and dignity, and to Sterling Brennan of Workman|Nydegger, who was frankly absolutely wonderful at trial. And thank you to you, Groklaw volunteers, because we made a difference in this world.
In the realm of scientific observation, luck is granted only to those who are prepared. - Louis Pasteur