this service from Google you can read books and magazines around the world. In Italian there is still a little bit more but definitely will. A special mention to
LIVE magazine that you can read the whole magazine and several if not all numbers.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Do U Wear Underwear With A Wrestling Singlet
Books and magazines
Monday, June 14, 2010
Piper Aztec Parts Catalog
New Interface Google
recently went into operation the new interface of Google, where, as you can see in the picture, you can personalize with great pictures provided by Google itself or with their photos published on the web with Picasa. The layout is very nice but I wanted to make a remark, the beauty of google and maybe their strength was the simplicity 'of their page, but lately delay between effects and backgrounds seems to me to go to overturn what has always been the Their main feature. In the photo page of google with a photo of me performed in Florence in front of one of the most beautiful churches and facilities in the city. (But do not tell you what ...) 
recently went into operation the new interface of Google, where, as you can see in the picture, you can personalize with great pictures provided by Google itself or with their photos published on the web with Picasa. The layout is very nice but I wanted to make a remark, the beauty of google and maybe their strength was the simplicity 'of their page, but lately delay between effects and backgrounds seems to me to go to overturn what has always been the Their main feature. In the photo page of google with a photo of me performed in Florence in front of one of the most beautiful churches and facilities in the city. (But do not tell you what ...)
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Short Skirt No Knickers Pic
Two Maps. 01.02-2010
stole two plants on your balcony
and transplanted into mine. How
grow well,
together, close together
one o'clock in support of the other
always close, never far
never alone ...
... so We.
stole two plants on your balcony
and transplanted into mine. How
grow well,
together, close together
one o'clock in support of the other
always close, never far
never alone ...
... so We.
Lorenzo
April 14, 2010
April 14, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The Best Tabletfor Writing
RETURN TO TELECOM
as always I was wrong and I must say I made a big blunder. Have returned to TELECOM. After an equally bad experience with FastWeb are returned in telecom, but he was not yet I understand why there ADSL 3 years ago 'I had changed. A living hell! - Telephone operators irritating and incompetent but if you're luckier than you can speak with a friendly and helpful but completely incompetent or unsympathetic with that but a little 'more competent you feel that maybe Bill Gates (but it is not because in the end the answer is always the usual "if the matter is not resolved within 48 hours to call you back") in reference to
: Telecom Italy - 187 ( displays Google Sidewiki ) Friday, June 4, 2010
List Of Symptoms Of The Black Death
Who rules the web? None! The web is self-regulating and self-governing. Thus the gurus were expressed at the beginning of the impending revolution communicational network. This patent absurdity, constantly contradicted by the facts, circulated at that time if it were the revealed word, and still circulates, and indeed it is revived by influential political leaders as a dogma that does not allow objections.
To discuss this is the decision of the Court in Milan has convicted three managers of Mountain View, California, for allowing the publication on YouTube, albeit for a few hours of a video that took up a disabled child beaten and abused by other boys . The protest Google owns YouTube, it was not long in coming. So far nothing strange, because the fortunes of the wealthiest and most powerful company in the virtual world are closely tied to the rules of finance.
The theorem is simple: if the information is money, and if it is true that the free movement of financial capital guarantee economic growth, then the information is completely circular - whatever the cost - as freely as possible. Ideally, in fact it circulated without limitation, regardless of content. In this logic, any obstacle to the vital flow of blood-money information should be considered as a dangerous angioma, to be removed promptly with an angioplasty, or even resorting to the scalpel.
But there is a problem. Two, in fact. First of all content. Unlike cash, they are never neutrals. If it is true, following the apophthegm attributed to Vespasian, who pecunia non olet, in short, that money does not stink, so is not of any Content posted on the web, and even less of what motivated the court's ruling in Turin and that set off a maelstrom of a global internett.
Also, you can endlessly debate the legality of the methods and objectives of a company, but to defend that company, or rather that business model, reduction in authoritative representatives of the political field belonging to the same country where the establishment of the center of gravity of that company, and if you rely on this defense no less than the inviolable rights democracy, then the scenario changes completely. The official statement of the American embassy in Rome that responds to the decision of the judges in Turin by invoking "the fundamental principle of freedom of the Internet, vital for democracies" immediately becomes a trivial episode from criminal connotations - the legal responsibility of having imposed on media coverage a disgusting gesture - in a political interest, indeed global.
And here the first contradiction: how can a sovereign claim to legislate on such a sensitive matter in behalf of all other sovereign states? Such a clear stance is democratic or autocratic? And then, is meant by "democracy"? All in the name of democracy should be allowed? In the name of democracy no court or law should put his hand to what circulates on the net?
The paradox is magnified if they are to be called into question the democratic institutions of states as the great American moralizing. With China, for example, it is easy to adopt two weights and two measures: first words of condemnation expressed by the Chinese censorship Hilary Clinton, the other to accept tight regulation by Google and other search engines U.S. willing to do anything to win the largest virtual marketplace that exists today. But in the case of democratic countries the two weights and two measures do not work. And here is the need to invoke the principles are so general and abstract to generate the absurd belief that the judges in Turin have been the architects of a real ostracism, expulsion from a highly political content.
But the judges are really just limited to ostracize a particular content offensive and disgusting, if not morally dangerous. Big companies like Google can safely withstand the expulsion or omission of any piece of information, and in fact I gladly accept this logic, if just for the tax to be huge potential markets such as China. But if the penalty involves the direct managers of the company, here you open the vexed question of the injured democratic content.
In conclusion, the web breaks down the subtle but important barrier that runs between the imagination and action. Everyone knows that. So, between saying and doing the elusive virtual universe not only puts half of the sea, but not standing in the way even a hair. And so we find ourselves confronted with an insoluble dilemma: to ensure the free expression of all allow free expression to all. You pass by a short abstract right, recognized erga omnes according to their moral status, a license is granted to sovereign personam, which, however, all the emissaries, without distinction, are in theory free the owners. There is no reason to envy the poor legislator dealing with a matter so elusive.
To discuss this is the decision of the Court in Milan has convicted three managers of Mountain View, California, for allowing the publication on YouTube, albeit for a few hours of a video that took up a disabled child beaten and abused by other boys . The protest Google owns YouTube, it was not long in coming. So far nothing strange, because the fortunes of the wealthiest and most powerful company in the virtual world are closely tied to the rules of finance.
The theorem is simple: if the information is money, and if it is true that the free movement of financial capital guarantee economic growth, then the information is completely circular - whatever the cost - as freely as possible. Ideally, in fact it circulated without limitation, regardless of content. In this logic, any obstacle to the vital flow of blood-money information should be considered as a dangerous angioma, to be removed promptly with an angioplasty, or even resorting to the scalpel.
But there is a problem. Two, in fact. First of all content. Unlike cash, they are never neutrals. If it is true, following the apophthegm attributed to Vespasian, who pecunia non olet, in short, that money does not stink, so is not of any Content posted on the web, and even less of what motivated the court's ruling in Turin and that set off a maelstrom of a global internett.
Also, you can endlessly debate the legality of the methods and objectives of a company, but to defend that company, or rather that business model, reduction in authoritative representatives of the political field belonging to the same country where the establishment of the center of gravity of that company, and if you rely on this defense no less than the inviolable rights democracy, then the scenario changes completely. The official statement of the American embassy in Rome that responds to the decision of the judges in Turin by invoking "the fundamental principle of freedom of the Internet, vital for democracies" immediately becomes a trivial episode from criminal connotations - the legal responsibility of having imposed on media coverage a disgusting gesture - in a political interest, indeed global.
And here the first contradiction: how can a sovereign claim to legislate on such a sensitive matter in behalf of all other sovereign states? Such a clear stance is democratic or autocratic? And then, is meant by "democracy"? All in the name of democracy should be allowed? In the name of democracy no court or law should put his hand to what circulates on the net?
The paradox is magnified if they are to be called into question the democratic institutions of states as the great American moralizing. With China, for example, it is easy to adopt two weights and two measures: first words of condemnation expressed by the Chinese censorship Hilary Clinton, the other to accept tight regulation by Google and other search engines U.S. willing to do anything to win the largest virtual marketplace that exists today. But in the case of democratic countries the two weights and two measures do not work. And here is the need to invoke the principles are so general and abstract to generate the absurd belief that the judges in Turin have been the architects of a real ostracism, expulsion from a highly political content.
But the judges are really just limited to ostracize a particular content offensive and disgusting, if not morally dangerous. Big companies like Google can safely withstand the expulsion or omission of any piece of information, and in fact I gladly accept this logic, if just for the tax to be huge potential markets such as China. But if the penalty involves the direct managers of the company, here you open the vexed question of the injured democratic content.
In conclusion, the web breaks down the subtle but important barrier that runs between the imagination and action. Everyone knows that. So, between saying and doing the elusive virtual universe not only puts half of the sea, but not standing in the way even a hair. And so we find ourselves confronted with an insoluble dilemma: to ensure the free expression of all allow free expression to all. You pass by a short abstract right, recognized erga omnes according to their moral status, a license is granted to sovereign personam, which, however, all the emissaries, without distinction, are in theory free the owners. There is no reason to envy the poor legislator dealing with a matter so elusive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)