Comment Hello, IT . . . (Score 1) 366
. . . have you tried turning it off and on again? :-)
Comment Right . . . (Score 1) 154
Meet the new boss—same as the old boss.
Comment Really, Myron? (Score 2) 193
"Mister potato head . . . MISTER POTATO HEAD . . . back doors are not secrets!"
Texas Rangers Use Internet To Breathe New Life Into Cold Case Homicides 73
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Katherine Rosenberg reports that the Texas Department of Public Safety has unveiled a new web site dedicated to unsolved cold case homicides to make sure the victims are not forgotten and to try to catch a break in even the coldest of cases. DPS spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger says continual strides in technology make focusing on cold cases more important than ever because there are more opportunities to solve them with each emerging process or device. The web site was created because the more readily available information is the more people may be apt to pick up the phone and report what they know. 'It helps to refresh these cases in the public's mind and hopefully we'll shed new light on it. In some cases, we can also re-examine evidence if there's an opportunity or need there as well,' says Cesinger. One featured case from 1993 is Kathleen Suckley who was 29 when her throat was slashed and she was stabbed about 40 times inside her rented duplex, while her two sons, ages 4 and 1, were home. Officials said they interviewed numerous witnesses but never got enough information for an arrest. Capt. Tim Wilson maintains that in any homicide case there always is someone who knows something. At some point, he believes, the murderer will tell someone out of guilt or pride, or simply the pressure of holding it in. Cesinger points out that over time as relationships change, if prompted by something like the website or a news article, that confidant finally may come forward. 'I think we owe it to Kathleen to be this tenacious. It drives me nuts that somebody can do this and get away with it,' says Kathleen's mother-in-law Luann Suckley. 'I think the website is great ... maybe someone will finally speak up because I'm tired of sitting back and waiting.'"
Submission + - Apple v Samsung Jurors Speak, Skipped Prior Art for "Bogging Us Down" (groklaw.net)
eldavojohn writes: PJ over at Groklaw has consolidated some of the more interesting juror comments made following the landmark $1 billion settlement. Apparently the foreman (a patent holder himself) took the jury through the process of how patents work and thus allowed them to return so quickly with a verdict without need of any instructions on how to work through all the material. Most sources are incredulous that all of the information was considered in the process. CNET quote a juror as saying 'After we debated that first patent — what was prior art — because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple. In fact we skipped that one so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down.' While the fact that they they voted one way on infringement and another way on invalidity shows they were at least consistent, Groklaw is reporting on some odd inconsistencies in the aftermath of accounts from jurors. The appeal for something this huge goes without question but the accounts collected at Groklaw make this verdict and verdict process sound hasty, ambiguous and probably the result of one man's (the foreman's) personal opinion of patents.
Comment Re:Nuke it from orbit (Score 2) 547
Who says there's an "IT department"? It might be three guys in a basement.
Or two guys and a "relationship manager."
Comment How smart? (Score 1) 663
No, the FCAT measures student achievement. No standardized test would claim or attempt to measure "how smart the students are."
