Lawyers discussing a possible reason why lawyers operate as scammers on the Internet. It is simply the way it is: when blow flies appear in small quantities, they are useful. When the quantities become too large, they become a nuisance.
At Telepolis News there is the original article.
But banning headscarves, that's what Mr. Koch wants (and is allowed) to do ...
At RP-Online: Politik I found the original article.
Great - nonconforming opinions are apparently not even allowed to be held privately at Dresdner Bank. My expressions of opinion would probably also meet with disapproval at Dresdner Bank. Always stay nice and conformist with management, never speak up - that seems to be what is expected in times of high unemployment. Following any rules apparently doesn't apply to bank executives. They resort to the lowest drawer of mobbing and oppression. Our economy is built on such people. Doesn't that give us all courage? But what can one expect in terms of behavior from such a bank ... At Telepolis News there is the original article.
I believe there's nothing more to add to that, except a hearty, approving yay. At INSTANT NIRVANA you can find the original article.
Since we're talking about the misuse of the legal system for censoring unpopular opinions ... (a law from 1890?) At Telepolis News there's the original article.
Amazing.
At Spiegel Online: Wissenschaft there's the original article.
Class act. On one hand, the US government calls the UN obsolete, on the other hand they keep interfering constantly.
At RP-Online: Politik I found the original article.
My feelings about this are mixed. Of course, good standards are helpful - especially when they make the end device and browser more powerful in function, and new, efficient user interfaces can be implemented based on them.
On the other hand, however, the multitude of standards and sub-standards creates so much technical overhead that it becomes harder for ordinary people to get into it. And regardless of how we feel about the result of invalid and partly haphazardly cobbled together HTML dumps, it is precisely this easy access and the fairly tolerant implementation in browsers that allowed HTML and the web to take off in the first place.
It's much more accessible for a lot more people to produce this format - if necessary, you take another site, look at the source and do something similar. Many started that way, many don't get beyond copying - but that doesn't matter, they are present.
Sure, designers recoil in horror, HTML standard purists too, as do software developers. I myself get screaming fits when I look at certain output on the web. But the fact remains that with more complicated techniques, these people wouldn't be here at all.
Would the web be better because of that? Is it really sensible to shield yourself through technical barriers and make the web more elitist? Or is it precisely the haphazardly hacked and sometimes truly awful content that makes the web what it is: an almost popular medium?
The new W3C standards are becoming ever more technical, ever more complex. And in doing so, they raise the barrier to entry. Sure, HTML 4 still exists and will certainly be supported for a long time - but it will become, so to speak, the dumbed-down version. The professional will throw XHTML and XForms around, the amateur with shoddy HTML 4.
I don't know what would be more fun for me. But I'm afraid it would be the shoddy HTML 4...
At heise online news there's the original article.
A report about the prosecution's censorship attempts against Alvar Freude. A great way to deal with critics. I wonder if perhaps one authority (Stuttgart public prosecutor's office) is just trying to give support to another authority (Düsseldorf regional president's office)? It's also great that the legal system is being abused for this.
At Der Rollberg you can find the original article.