Cowboy Who?

#Ryo #Rowen #RoninWarriors

Well ... it was the only Y word we could think of.
What? Yahoo?
Yippee! #CowboyWho

A veteran Austin journalist, Melissa will lead a newsroom dedicated to closing the information gaps in Austin; fostering strategic collaborations with local organizations; and delivering relevant, timely journalism that keeps pace with Austin’s explosive growth.

Susan Monarez testified she had refused RFK Jr's demands to approve vaccine recommendations because they were not based on science.

Officials with METRO and the City of Houston say they’re prepared to bring the iconic Pride landmark back to the Montrose neighborhood. But the Trump administration may prevent that from happening.

A reader writes:

Earlier this month in Ohio, a pair of Republican lawmakers introduced a bill to create a website with lists of people who’ve no showed for interviews. I’ve included a link to Ohio’s Statehouse News Bureau’s reporting information — because truly when I first heard about it, I thought for sure the person was doing a bit.

It seems to be specially focused on those receiving unemployment benefits, but it seems it could quickly turn into including everyone.

I’m curious about your thoughts in general, but also in application. How on earth could they validate that the person no showed, and what if the person who entered the name into the database is an ex or disgruntled employee? I’ve received unemployment benefits twice in the 30+ years I’ve been in the workforce, so what’s to say my name would ever be dropped from said lists? Would future employers know I’d no-showed to an interview in five years prior?

This is a fully bananapants idea.

Private employers don’t need the government to track who does and doesn’t show up for interviews; this is not a problem that is in need of a government-level solution.

If the government wants to make sure that people who are receiving unemployment benefits are genuinely conducting a good-faith search for work and not cavalierly blowing off interviews, they can do what most states do: require benefits recipients to fill out periodic reporting on their job hunt, with spot checks for accuracy. Is this 100% foolproof? It’s not; people who just want to collect benefits for as long as possible without putting real effort into find a job can lie, or they can deliberately send in applications that won’t get them interviews, or they can target jobs they’re not qualified for, or they can show up for interviews and deliberately bomb. Some people will always look for a way to beat the system, but a database to find out who ghosted their interviewers won’t solve any of that.

Moreover, how are they going to guard against inaccuracy? After all, we’ve all heard about interviewers who get their interview scheduling wrong — are they going to report someone for not showing up for a 10 am Tuesday interview when they accidentally told the person Thursday? To deal with that, they’d have to include a way for people to challenge a report — and now we’re talking about significant additional bureaucracy for a problem that didn’t require a solution in the first place.

And to be clear, this proposal isn’t confined to people receiving unemployment benefits — they note that would be part of it, but they’re proposing it would cover all job-seekers. Why? Once you take unemployment benefits recipients out of this, what part of it is the government’s business?

Then, of course, there’s the obvious elephant in the room, which is that employers ghost candidates far more often than candidates ghost employers. Orders of magnitude more. The numbers of each side are so disproportionately out of whack that, again, you have to ask: how is this a problem that needs a government solution? If they want to do a public service, they’d be helping more people if they tracked employers that mistreated candidates, not the other way around — not something that will ever happen, of course, but come on. (Hmmm, kind of seems like maybe people aren’t who they’re looking to help.)

Apparently these two legislators in Ohio feel that they have solved all the other problems in their state and thus have the leisure time to contemplate weird Orwellian measures like this, but they could better serve Ohio by staying out of it.

The post Ohio wants to keep track of applicants who skip job interviews appeared first on Ask a Manager.

The resemblance is uncanny!

EDMONTON – The government of Alberta has declared all citizens must now carry a little picture of Premier Danielle Smith in their wallets. Smith made the announcement this week in front of a giant image of her own face. “This is about streamlining Albertans’… access to my face,” she said, gesturing at her own visage. […]

The post Alberta to require citizens to carry little picture of Danielle Smith in wallets appeared first on The Beaverton.

Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
I believe Buddhists aren't allowed to get mad about this misrepresentation, because that'd be a form of attachment.

Today's News:

Raffensperger is likely to aim his appeal at Republicans who have at times been lukewarm on Trump.

Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., asked Dr. Debra Houry during a hearing about upheaval at the agency if she believed that Kennedy is “incompetent and dangerous to the American people's health.”

Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield is leaving the ice cream brand after 47 years. He says the freedom the company used to have to speak up on social issues has been stifled.

A reader writes:

I work in a company with a lot of young employees and a completely optional hybrid working policy. We have an office, but they no longer enforce any in-office mandates. I am basically a middle manager, and there’s no consistent presence of senior leadership in person. The people who come into the office the most are a cohort of junior-level employees right out of college who seem to enjoy the camaraderie of the in-office life.

Of this cohort, last week there was one worker in her early 20’s who wore a skirt so short that I could see her butt cheeks. It was shocking, and I almost wondered if her skirt was folded up or if she didn’t realize. It didn’t get corrected all day, and she has at least five peers/friends in the office who could have mentioned it, so I assume it was intentional.

Our dress code is explicitly casual, but it also says to take caution with revealing attire. In my opinion, and I think any reasonable person’s, the skirt is in no way appropriate for any work environment. How would you go about approaching this, though? She’s not in my management chain, and her manager does not regularly come into the office. While I don’t have power over her, I fear my talking to her could be taken as a formal or official reprimand. While the attire is distracting, I more want her to know for her own professional career that this is not appropriate.

Do you have any relationship with her boss? Ideally you’d give that person a heads-up, paired with a suggestion that they give their team clearer guidance on the dress code.

It might seem like a dress code that explicitly prohibits revealing attire should be clear enough, but in reality people can have very different understandings of what that means, particularly recent grads who are new to the work world. It’s far better for dress codes to be specific about exactly what they mean, rather than assuming everyone will have the same implicitly understood frame of reference. You might think, How could someone not know visible butt cheeks aren’t okay? But here’s someone who didn’t, which is evidence that it’s not universally understood … or, more likely, she didn’t realize how revealing the skirt actually was.

Regardless, if a manager can see that people on their team are out of sync with their expectations, they need to issue their own clearer guidance about what is and isn’t okay.

But when managers and senior leadership are all off off-site, the reality is that they might not know about problems that are occurring on-site — whether it’s visible butt cheeks, someone setting toilet paper in fire in the bathroom, interns tattooing each other in the conference room, a thriving sex club on the premises, or something more mundane, like people routinely making so much noise that others can’t focus — and they need to manage in a way that accounts for that. That can mean making sure they’re checking with their team members often enough (and being approachable enough) that they’ll hear about problems, or it can mean checking in with other teams who have people on-site, or at least building relationships with those teams’ managers to establish channels for hearing about stuff that they’re not seeing firsthand.

So I’d rather you give her boss a heads-up and let them decide if/how to address it rather than feeling you have to take it on yourself, unless you’re in a role that makes this squarely your business or unless you have enough of a relationship with the employee that you can do it in a mentoring type way.

The post employee came to work with her butt cheeks exposed appeared first on Ask a Manager.

Over the past week since the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk, we’ve watched conservatives unabashedly take ownership of “cancel culture” and crack down on free speech right before our eyes.

---

In the last week, American conservatives have dropped their professed commitment to free speech over the previous decade.

“There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi on Monday in response to a podcast host’s question about public reactions to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. “And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie,” for the latter. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

As she should know, hate speech is not a legal category of speech in the United States. Our legal system prohibits incitements to immediate violence and other narrow infractions, but “hate speech” is a fungible term that has always put free-speech advocates on high alert for politically motivated censorship.

By “hate speech,” in this instance, Bondi presumably means social media posts celebrating Kirk’s death, which have become an obsession of the Right since he was murdered last Wednesday.

“There is no unity with the people who celebrate Charlie Kirk’s assassination,” said Vice President J. D. Vance. “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out,” Vance elaborated on Monday. “And hell, call their employer.”

For the past decade, the Right has claimed to be the champions of free speech against a censorious Left. It doesn’t look like they meant it.

“We do not censor and silence disfavored viewpoints,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said. Americans “are allowed to say crazy things,” but “if I’m an employer or I’m a government agency, and I have someone in my employ who is online celebrating . . . I can make the decision that they don’t deserve to work for me.” In other words, you have a right to express “disfavored viewpoints” if you don’t rely on either a private employer or a government agency to make a living. That excludes the majority of nonwealthy adults.

We argued last week that Kirk’s assassination is no cause for celebration from the Left. But if you don’t believe people should be free to make misguided or even odious statements, you don’t believe in free speech.

If you don’t believe people should be free to make misguided or even odious statements, you don’t believe in free speech.

In the days following Charlie Kirk’s assassination, several major corporations have fired or suspended employees for social media comments deemed inappropriate or mocking of his death. University officials, including staff at the University of California, Los Angeles, have placed employees on leave pending investigation into their posts. Employer statements and reporting confirm dismissals at companies like Delta, Nasdaq, and Office Depot, and the Washington Post fired columnist Karen Attiah over her posts about Kirk. In many cases, the offending posts do not even appear to celebrate Kirk’s murder per se, only to criticize or disparage Kirk’s character and political legacy.

Louisiana Republican congressman Clay Higgins articulated a vision for punishing offending speech that went far beyond firing. “I’m also going after their business licenses and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked from every school, and their driver’s licenses should be revoked,” Higgins said. “I’m basically going to cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination.”

President Donald Trump immediately and starkly illustrated the civic implications of the administration’s emerging “hate speech” paradigm. When an ABC reporter asked Trump what Bondi meant by “hate speech” on Tuesday, Trump responded, “We’ll probably go after people like you, because you treat me so unfairly. It’s hate. You have a lotta hate in your heart. Maybe they’ll come after ABC.”

---

Free Speech Hot Potato

Representative Clay Higgins’s unironic, unabashed use of the word “cancel” for how he wants to handle offending speakers is right on the money. We’re watching conservatives assume ownership of cancel culture before our eyes.

Proponents of censorship have always justified their position on the basis that certain types of speech lead to violence and must therefore be prohibited. This week, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller followed the playbook precisely when he claimed that an “organized campaign . . . led to this assassination.” Even though the man accused of murdering Kirk seems to have been a lone-wolf assassin with indistinct political leanings, Miller spoke vaguely about “terrorist networks,” which he associated with “campaigns of dehumanization” and “vilification.”

This is similar to the arguments liberals used when they were busy getting employees fired and college speakers disinvited for expressing offensive views in the 2010s. Right-wing speech was impermissible, they claimed, because it was apt to lead to violence. Conservatives saw the flaws in those “slippery slope” arguments about free speech and violence then but seem to have forgotten their critiques now that they’re in a position to exercise cultural hegemony. It truly seems, as many users on X have observed, that the Right’s opposition to cancel culture over the preceding decade was little more than jealousy that they weren’t the ones doing the canceling.

We’re watching conservatives assume ownership of cancel culture before our eyes.

While the threats to the Left in this moment are not to be taken lightly, there is a sense in which one aspect of the political cosmos is returning to proper alignment. We have repeatedly argued in this magazine that free speech is a left-wing issue. The Right should never have had an opportunity to claim the free speech mantle.

The founding father of modern American conservatism, William F. Buckley, first came onto the scene in 1951 (four years before he founded National Review magazine) with a book called God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of Academic Freedom. It was an unabashed call for radical professors to be fired. The core of the conservative worldview is all about hierarchy and submission. That’s never been a comfortable fit with a serious commitment to free speech and the protection of dissidents.

The Left, meanwhile, has historically been doggedly pro–free speech, from the “free speech fights” conducted by the radical trade unionists of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) to the Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkeley, in the 1960s. In our worldview, free speech is indispensable. The whole point of democratic socialism, as C. L. R. James once put it, is that “every cook can govern,” meaning we trust ordinary people to hear every point of view and make up their own minds. And we also understand that, as both Red Scares vividly illustrate, speech crackdowns pose a significant threat to our movements and the viability of our political project.

Contemporary liberal technocrats don’t share the Left’s historical commitment to free speech. In recent years, their zeal for purifying elite institutions of unwanted ideas (many of them genuinely heinous, others rather innocuous) briefly gave the Right an opening to posture as advocates of free speech and open debate about controversial ideas. It was always nonsense. The Right’s objection to cancel culture was always that the wrong people were being canceled. Their objection to conflating speech with violence was always that they didn’t like which speech was being equated with violence.

The Right’s objection to cancel culture was always that the wrong people were being canceled.

Charlie Kirk’s own considerable hypocrisies on this subject are telling. He frequently talked about how even the most offensive speech should be protected, but he also maintained a blacklist of “dangerous” left-wing professors, channeling the spirit of Buckley.

In the past few days, there’s been no shortage of liberals and leftists pointing out the incoherence of the Right on this topic. They’ve dug up innumerable instances in which the same right-wing figures who dismissed “hate speech” as a concept six months or a year ago are calling for crackdowns now. But it’s easy to point out the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of your political enemies. It’s harder and more important to explain exactly what you think and why.

So here’s what we think: Speech isn’t violence. Democracy is impossible if citizens can’t be trusted to be exposed to even the worst and most repulsive points of view. And free speech is a nonnegotiable left-wing value.

---

See you all next monday!

SAN FRANCISCO—In response to ongoing concerns regarding the safety of its female passengers, rideshare giant Uber reportedly introduced a new feature Wednesday that allows women to request a nonthreatening eunuch driver. “With UberCastrated, female riders can feel more at ease on their way to bars and spin classes knowing their driver doesn’t have testicles,” said Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, adding that thousands of harmless eunuchs had already signed up to drive for the service. “We listen to women, and we know what they want—hairless, sexless drivers medically incapable of feeling any carnal desire whatsoever. Many of our eunuchs underwent their gelding operations in childhood, so they’ve never even experienced a powerful surge of testosterone and can entertain passengers with beautiful, high-pitched castrato arias. We’re excited to see that drivers who aren’t already eunuchs are opting to castrate themselves to get more rides.” Uber confirmed that female passengers would still be regularly subjected to a driver unloading his emotional trauma on them, regardless of whether or not he was a eunuch.

The post New Uber Feature Allows Women To Request Nonthreatening Eunuch Driver appeared first on The Onion.

Spirited away by carriage under cover of night, the two lovers were wed deep in the forest by an unfrocked priest.

The post Luna Fisher and Oliver Cox appeared first on The Onion.

That fucker, aged who the fuck cares, finally kicked the bucket Monday, that prick. After living a no-good waste of a life, family and friends are invited to say good riddance, you sorry piece of shit.

The post That Fucker appeared first on The Onion.

The Vuelta a España, Spain’s premier cycling stage race, saw the participation of team Israel–Premier Tech, organized to promote Israel’s reputation. Thousands of protesters disrupted the race on Saturday to decry the team’s sportswashing of genocide.

---

On Saturday, the Vuelta a España, Spain’s premier cycling stage race and its equivalent to the Tour de France, was scheduled to end its three-week Grand Tour schedule in a largely ceremonial sprint stage in downtown Madrid. But thousands of pro-Palestine protesters, present at stages throughout the race, massed near the finish circuit, overwhelming the crowd control and dragging metal barriers onto the course.

The stage was called off soon after with no winner, the overall prizes already determined and locked in. These protest actions were a statement by the Spanish public against the participation in the race of team Israel–Premier Tech, a team specifically named and organized to “sportswash” Israel, a country currently perpetuating an ongoing genocide responsible for the deaths of more than 64,000 Palestinians, a majority of them children.

The scenes on the circuit in Madrid were striking as hundreds of protesters filled the race course, facing up to riot police, waving Palestinian flags, lighting flares, and strewing race infrastructure behind them onto the course. Protesters chanted “No pasarán,” literally forbidding passage of Israel-Premier Tech cyclists, echoing the famous anti-fascist slogan used in the Spanish civil war by left-wing forces fighting against fascist dictator Francisco Franco.

Following the stage’s cancellation, Socialist Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez decried the “barbarism” perpetrated by Israel and voiced his support for the protests, saying “Israel cannot use international events to whitewash its presence.” He added, “Today Spain shines as an example and as a source of pride. It’s [giving] an example to the international community by taking a step forward in defense of human rights.”

Some individual protesters decided to place themselves in the way of riders over the course of the race — a very dangerous maneuver, as riders often achieve racing velocities of over 30 miles per hour while clad only in Lycra. But some riders understand the desperation that causes this.

Jonas Vingegaard, winner of the 2025 Vuelta and the 2022 and 2023 Tours de France, and one of the most famous and visible cyclists in the world, explained, “I think they think that it doesn’t get attention enough, and they’re really desperate, and that’s why they do it. . . . It’s horrible what’s currently happening, and I just think that those who are [protesting] want a voice.” While riders have been understandably concerned about their safety due to these individual actions, it has been the mass actions that have had the most impact, ultimately culminating in Madrid.

---

Sportswashing Genocide

Palestinian flags have been staples at recent Vueltas and many cycling races, but it was in this Vuelta that these protests gained a critical mass and so were able to disrupt the race and make a larger statement. These protests are not simply about the genocide in Gaza but specifically about the presence in the race of second-division ProTeam Israel-Premier Tech, due to be promoted next year to the top-tier World Tour circuit.

Israel–Premier Tech is not owned or financed by Israel itself — a fact used by critics of the protests to dismiss them as unreasonable — but privately owned by Canadian-Israeli billionaire Sylvan Adams. Adams is a personal friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, who has joined Adams’s team on promotional events and has recently tweeted support of Israel–Premier Tech remaining in the race despite the outcry: “Great job to Sylvan and Israel’s cycling team for not giving in to hate and intimidation. You make Israel proud!”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

Great job to Sylvan and Israel's cycling team for not giving in to hate and intimidation. You make Israel proud! 🇮🇱

— Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) September 5, 2025

Adams has called himself the “self-appointed Ambassador-at-Large for Israel,” dedicating his life, in his words, to correcting misunderstandings about the country created by the media. He has called his cycling team’s work “the antidote to BDS [the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement].” Adams is not only involved in sportswashing Israel’s international reputation but has also personally donated large sums of money to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), saying of the occupation and genocide, “Our IDF has gone in there and done what they have to do, I hope they are permitted and allowed to finish the job.”

Riders and staff are aware of the political implications of the team’s presence. “By displaying the Israel logo in a race, we’re advertising or getting involved in the conflict in a certain way, because we’re not neutral,” says Hugo Houle, a rider for the team, which aligns with Adams’s vision: “Our athletes understand that being on an Israeli team, they are each ambassadors for the team’s home country.” In professional cycling, teams primarily obtain funding from sponsoring organizations, not ticket sales, and the sponsors expect them and their riders to act as moving billboards for those organizations. The protests were specifically opposed to Israel being put on billboards on public roads.

In an interview with BikeRadar, Lidón Soriano, organizer with BDS Deportivo in Spain, explicitly identifies the shared objective of the various movements involved in the protests as removing Israel from sports competition and expelling it from La Vuelta, with their work continuing “until governments and sports organisations fulfill their legal obligation to do everything possible to end the occupation, apartheid, and genocide in Palestine.” Removal of the team from the race has been a clear call to action by protesters since the beginning.

---

Righteous Disruption

Many cyclists, commentators, and fans have railed against the protest and the protesters, angry to see races cut short and the competition at the highest level of the sport reduced in scope. Criticism of the protests has intensified after the abandonment of the Madrid stage. Michał Kwiatkowski, a rider in the race for INEOS Grenadiers and notable to many as a former world champion and longtime member of the professional peloton, released an exasperated statement soon after the early conclusion of the stage:

If the UCI and the responsible bodies couldn’t make the right decisions early enough, then long-term it’s very bad for cycling that the protesters managed to get what they wanted. You can’t just pretend nothing is happening.

From now on, it’s clear for everyone that a cycling race can be used as an effective stage for protests and next time it will only get worse, because someone allowed it to happen and looked the other way.

These comments were echoed by other prominent individuals in the cycling world, including 2023 Tour de France Femmes winner Demi Vollering, but they ignore that cycling races, like the Vuelta and the Tour de France, have taken place on open, public roads for over a hundred years. Spectators are free to attend, with no tickets; attendees show up on the side of the road. The open, public nature of cycling racing makes the sport uniquely democratic but also open to disruption in ways not applicable in other sports that use closed, gated stadiums. Races are often subject to many kinds of disruptions; in this year’s Tour of Britain, the race was paused as cows were herded across the course.

Other protests, like those raising awareness for climate change in 2022 or by local farmers, have disrupted a day’s racing for political causes before. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza perpetrated by Israel has galvanized the Spanish public, already largely left-leaning and sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

While Barcelona is set to host the 2026 Tour de France’s Grand Départ, city council members have called for its cancellation if Israel–Premier Tech is not removed from the competition. Though some argue a “Pandora’s box” may be opened by the effectiveness of the protests, they ignore that this disruption is the direct result of the World Tour and the Vuelta playing host to a professional cycling team actively championing Israel — the country behind one of the most egregious genocides of the twenty-first century.

---

In brief: Houston will see plenty of sunshine through the weekend, but we will also start to see some slightly better rain chances. By later Sunday or more likely Monday, the pattern will change more noticeably, with increased clouds and the potential for widespread showers.

A slowly changing pattern

With one or two exceptions, most of the first half of September has seen sunny days with near zero rain chances. This pattern, especially over the last 10 days or so, has seen high pressure dominate our region’s weather. This is now slowly beginning to change, and by this weekend an upper-level system will shake things up. As a result we will see modest rain chances over the next couple of days before the potential for more widespread showers by Monday, which perhaps will persist for much of next week.

Wednesday

Today will bring sunny skies into the region with our typical temperatures in the low 90s for much of the central metro area, with inland areas getting a little warmer than this and the coast remaining a little cooler. There is some support in high resolution models for the development of scattered showers, and perhaps a few isolated thunderstorms, between about 3 pm and 7 pm this afternoon and early evening, before the loss of daytime heating. Lows tonight will drop into the mid-70s for most locations.

Thursday and Friday

Both of these days should see sunny skies. I do think high temperatures may be 1 or 2 degrees cooler, but it will still be hot during the afternoon. Rain chances both days look a bit lower, perhaps on the order of 10 to 20 percent.

Saturday and Sunday

Most of the region should see highs of around 90 degrees this weekend, with mostly sunny skies. However, there will be a slight chance of some showers and thunderstorms as the atmosphere starts to become more unsettled. I think the more widespread rain chances will probably hold off until Monday, but I’m not sure of that. For now I’ll go with about a 20 percent chance of rain on Saturday, and maybe 40 percent on Sunday, but these are kind of fuzzy at this point.

Next week

By Monday-ish we should see an atmosphere more broadly supportive of showers and potentially some thunderstorms. This should set the tone for next week, with something like a 40 to 60 percent chance of rain each day. This should also limit high temperatures to about 90 degrees, or less, on a daily basis. As of yet there’s no strong signal for the next cold front, but maybe something weaker may back door its way in later next week. We’ll have to wait and see.

Alright, you can watch the show now. #CowboyWho

Some time ago, people noticed that buried in the Windows Bluetooth drivers is the hard-coded name of the Microsoft Wireless Notebook Presenter Mouse 8000. What’s going on there? Does the Microsoft Wireless Notebook Presenter Mouse 8000 receive favorable treatment from the Microsoft Bluetooth drivers? Is this some sort of collusion?

No, it’s not that.

There is a lot of a bad hardware out there, and there are a lot of compatibility hacks to deal with it. You have CD-ROM controller cards that report the same drive four times or USB devices that draw more than 500mW of power after promising they wouldn’t. More generally, you have devices whose descriptors are syntactically invalid or contain values that are outside of legal range or which are simply nonsensical.

Most of the time, the code to compensate for these types of errors doesn’t betray its presence in the form of hard-coded strings. Instead, you have “else” branches that secretly repair or ignore corrupted values.

Unfortunately, the type of mistake that the Microsoft Wireless Notebook Presenter Mouse 8000 made is one that is easily exposed via strings, because they messed up their string!

The device local name string is specified to be encoded in UTF-8. However, the Microsoft Wireless Notebook Presenter Mouse 8000 reports its name as Microsoft⟪AE⟫ Wireless Notebook Presenter Mouse 8000, encoding the registered trademark symbol ® not as UTF-8 as required by the specification but in code page 1252. What’s even worse is that a bare ⟪AE⟫ is not a legal UTF-8 sequence, so the string wouldn’t even show up as corrupted; it would get rejected as invalid.

Thanks, Legal Department, for sticking a ® in the descriptor and messing up the whole thing.

There is a special table inside the Bluetooth drivers of “Devices that report their names wrong (and the correct name to use)”. If the Bluetooth stack sees one of these devices, and it presents the wrong name, then the correct name is substituted.

That table currently has only one entry.

The post Why is the name of the Microsoft Wireless Notebook Presenter Mouse 8000 hard-coded into the Bluetooth drivers? appeared first on The Old New Thing.

McConaughey says this book came out of both a desire to keep writing and a need to fight the cynicism he saw growing in himself and around him.

Powell St. John was born in Houston in September 1940 and grew up along the border in Laredo.

An analysis by the Houston Chronicle found that several big building companies are responsible for much of these developments.

The court, appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott, recently allowed O’Rourke to continue raising and dispersing donations, and cast doubt on Paxton’s main arguments.

White, the son of the late Gov. Mark White, previously ran for governor in 2018.

On Wednesday's show: We get insight on the latest developments in politics in our weekly roundup. And Houstonians share how the Fifth Ward shaped their lives.

NORVAL, ON ― A 74-year-old woman lost over $60 000 from her retirement savings yesterday in a sophisticated, but in her situation, quite obvious scam, police say. Gina Rossi was just preparing to go out and do her weekly grocery shopping when she received a call which, unbeknownst to her, was from a scam artist […]

The post Gullible mother falls for voice cloning scam even though her son would obviously never call appeared first on The Beaverton.

Antarctica, New Zealand and a sliver of Australia are in prime position as the moon slips between the sun and Earth, obscuring a good portion of our star.