Unless of course someone at your company wants to send a legitimate exe, vbs, etc. I don't know what your company does, but at my consulting company they tried this and it didn't fly.
You can keep your car from being stolen by taking of the wheels, but that doesn't make it very useful.
I wouldn't be too concerned about privacy, we can just submit a slashdot story about them each time they get on your case. Of course it would have to be accepted first.
Two services that I'll mention. Bigfoot.com was my email address for about 7 years. They provide email forwarding for free. It was with no strings attached until about 6 months ago when they started charging you, or limiting you to 25 emails a day. I might still be viable if you don't get too much email.
Registerfly.com will register your domain name and forward email and web for $9.99 a year. You get both the domain registration and the forwarding pretty cheap. Their domain administration screens are ten times better than NSI. Oh wait, NSI's don't work. Sorry, sidetracked. Registerfly is good.
Throw in the price tag for PHP/Perl/etc ($0) and it really *should* be scaring MS some.
Actually, If you're running on a Windows box, ASP is free with the included IIS. If you compare to PHP on a Linux box there is a price difference, but Apples to Apples (just to confuse things) PHP vs ASP is the same price on the Windows platform.
The new input arrays sound like a great idea that is long overdue. Bravo to the PHP team for producing a well thought out implementation and still providing backward compatability.
Now y'all can rip me apart for being positive in a/. post.
Well, you haven't completly convinced me that saving a particular breed of tiger out of the entire population is extremely important, but your argument is very well worded and thought out. I think you are correct in saying that radical environmentalists have harmed the ecological argument, but you may want to take that point to heart before you talk about exchanging a tiger for several thousand humans.
I can certainly see the value of preserving grace and beauty, and your mueseum analogy is good, although I think that it is easier, albiet maybe not better, for us to appreciate things in a mueseum which are of our (human) of creation than of a tiger which is not. I suppose we should treasure it more since it is God's creation, but that can get into a whole other discussion.
We may have to agree to disagree on this point, but I apreciate your your well metered and honest reply.
I wonder how much these studies were skewed by the fact that most very experienced Internet users stopped filling out surveys years ago. They're either too busy, too paranoid, or have burned too many times by "surveys". How many of the people here would have contributed to this survey if asked. I'm sure somewhere in these 95 pages it talks about this, or at least gives the numer of experienced vs newbies, but I didn't read it all the way through. Will there ever be a poll that accuratly shows what experienced users do?
Here is the policy section from their disclaimer page.
...
The following web link activities are explicitly prohibited by KPMG and may present trademark and copyright infringement issues:
Links that involve unauthorized use of our logo
Framing, inline links or metatags
Hyperlinks or a form of link that disguises the URL and bypass the homepage
...
Add that to the 78000 that were available earlier and that makes 156,000. You've really got to hand it to those NASA guys. They take a lot of pictures.
Not to belittle your problem, but you have the resources to issue laptops to all students 7-12 and a 802.11 network and you're complaining about it? Either you have a very small school, or a huge budget. I'd have given my right arm for something like this when I was in junior high!
I know that you probably are from the south... Again, your reality is flawed
...but don't presume to know reality In reality, I presume that you are from one of the coasts, 18-20 and think you know everything. I also presume that you have very few real friends and are a bit of a loner. But that may not be reality.
Stop being clouded by what your mother/priest/rabbi/politican is telling you is wrong and start looking at the world through your own eyes. Sometimes, you can look through your own eyes and see that your mother/priest/rabbi is actually right for once. Don't assume you know everything.
I hate to do this since this seems like a neat site, but the "radio" broadcasts are not very packed with facts. I listened to several of them, and the only one that had any facts in it was the Cell Phone Ban segment. Most of it is just his opinoins. Maybe my definition of facts is too rigid. I like the concept, but the name doesn't ring true.
I hate to do this since this seems like a neat site, but the "radio" broadcasts are not very packed with facts. I listened to several of them, and the only one that had any facts in it was the Cell Phone Ban segment. Most of it is just his opinoins. Maybe my definition of facts is too rigid. I like the concept, but the name doesn't ring true.
What I am saying is that we do not properly define profanity. Is it bad if I say damn it, I fucked up? Of course not. But If I say damn you, you fucked up, that is completely different. We need to teach kids that words are not bad, the actions and the meaning of the words are bad.
What!? How is the meaning in those different? One is pointed at you and one is at me, but the meaning is the same. And, if I'm hearing either one on a TV show, or more importantly, my kid hears it, then they are both equally worng, to my ears, maybe not yours. Some people have more vulgar tastes than others.
Some would consider the altering of reality, of public discourse, so as to not possibly offend someone... as a little bit profane in itself. We're not talking about editing a live broadcast of news or anything, we're talking about changing the dialog of a giant blue bug. If that's your idea of reality, then we've got bigger problems. I know that most people don't use profanity in every sentence, contrary to what I see on TV.
Why would you be concerned w/ my choice of language? with the verbage I use? Really friend, cencorship is bad, m'kay. I could care less what you have to say, however, if you are given a public medium, ala a tv station, I expect you to treat me with some respect, as if I have a brain and am not some mindless joybuzzer you can pump for money!
Your argument basically tells producers/networks/whatever that because the content they support/produce/distribute is 'wrong' by some moral standard that they do not have the right excercice their freedom of speech.
How did you make the leap from "encouraging a higher moral standard" to limiting free speech? All I'm saying is that instead of chasing the almighty buck, maybe creative types should work for a more mature and less vulgar society. Surely you can agree that reducing profanity is a higher moral standard than increasing it, no matter what you think is "right".
Can I ask you something? Who cares about profanity. It has always seemed like the silliest issue.
On one hand you say that profanity is silly, and then you turn around and say that we need to teach our children not to use "words that mean bad things". According to Webster, profane is defined as "serving to debase or defile what is holy" so, by limiting profanity, I am saying that profane things need to be limited on TV. It makes us appear to be a much cruder society than I think, hope, we are.
The networks feel hamstrung; HBO and CineMax can cuss all day and night, and show all sorts of body parts, that the networks are constrained from doing.
<rant>
Some would consider the lack of nudity, profanity, and general nastiness as a plus, not a constraint. Why is it that the television producers feel a need to "push the envelope" when it comes to profanity. You could argue that more profanity makes it more realistic, but I would argue that it's a self fulfilling prophesy. The more that people, young and old, see profanity on TV, the more they will assume it to be the norm and adopt it. Maybe it is up to producers to encourage a higher moral standard instead of a lower one.
</rant>
The name Shell was well known, the judge said, and most customers would expect to find the firm's website at shell.de, not that of the individual.
So, now we bow to what customers want, not citizens, or people in general? I'm sure that members of this man's family would expect his site to be here. I'm also sure that people going to www.whitehouse.com aren't expecting what they get either. Does that mean we have to take it away? Supposedly, individuals have the same rights as corporations, not less.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless of course someone at your company wants to send a legitimate exe, vbs, etc. I don't know what your company does, but at my consulting company they tried this and it didn't fly.
You can keep your car from being stolen by taking of the wheels, but that doesn't make it very useful.
I wouldn't be too concerned about privacy, we can just submit a slashdot story about them each time they get on your case. Of course it would have to be accepted first.
Two services that I'll mention. Bigfoot.com was my email address for about 7 years. They provide email forwarding for free. It was with no strings attached until about 6 months ago when they started charging you, or limiting you to 25 emails a day. I might still be viable if you don't get too much email.
Registerfly.com will register your domain name and forward email and web for $9.99 a year. You get both the domain registration and the forwarding pretty cheap. Their domain administration screens are ten times better than NSI. Oh wait, NSI's don't work. Sorry, sidetracked. Registerfly is good.
Throw in the price tag for PHP/Perl/etc ($0) and it really *should* be scaring MS some.
Actually, If you're running on a Windows box, ASP is free with the included IIS. If you compare to PHP on a Linux box there is a price difference, but Apples to Apples (just to confuse things) PHP vs ASP is the same price on the Windows platform.
The new input arrays sound like a great idea that is long overdue. Bravo to the PHP team for producing a well thought out implementation and still providing backward compatability.
/. post.
Now y'all can rip me apart for being positive in a
Well, you haven't completly convinced me that saving a particular breed of tiger out of the entire population is extremely important, but your argument is very well worded and thought out. I think you are correct in saying that radical environmentalists have harmed the ecological argument, but you may want to take that point to heart before you talk about exchanging a tiger for several thousand humans.
I can certainly see the value of preserving grace and beauty, and your mueseum analogy is good, although I think that it is easier, albiet maybe not better, for us to appreciate things in a mueseum which are of our (human) of creation than of a tiger which is not. I suppose we should treasure it more since it is God's creation, but that can get into a whole other discussion.
We may have to agree to disagree on this point, but I apreciate your your well metered and honest reply.
You know there's only less than 20 Sumatran Tigers left
Honest question here. Why should I care? I'm really curiouse why you think this is important. Clue us all in.
I wonder how much these studies were skewed by the fact that most very experienced Internet users stopped filling out surveys years ago. They're either too busy, too paranoid, or have burned too many times by "surveys". How many of the people here would have contributed to this survey if asked. I'm sure somewhere in these 95 pages it talks about this, or at least gives the numer of experienced vs newbies, but I didn't read it all the way through. Will there ever be a poll that accuratly shows what experienced users do?
Here is the policy section from their disclaimer page.
...
The following web link activities are explicitly prohibited by KPMG and may present trademark and copyright infringement issues:
Links that involve unauthorized use of our logo
Framing, inline links or metatags
Hyperlinks or a form of link that disguises the URL and bypass the homepage
...
I love a good minute long flash intro. I wish more pages would do this. It really enhances the feel of the site.
Add that to the 78000 that were available earlier and that makes 156,000. You've really got to hand it to those NASA guys. They take a lot of pictures.
Not to belittle your problem, but you have the resources to issue laptops to all students 7-12 and a 802.11 network and you're complaining about it? Either you have a very small school, or a huge budget. I'd have given my right arm for something like this when I was in junior high!
I know that you probably are from the south...
...but don't presume to know reality
Again, your reality is flawed
In reality, I presume that you are from one of the coasts, 18-20 and think you know everything. I also presume that you have very few real friends and are a bit of a loner. But that may not be reality.
Stop being clouded by what your mother/priest/rabbi/politican is telling you is wrong and start looking at the world through your own eyes.
Sometimes, you can look through your own eyes and see that your mother/priest/rabbi is actually right for once. Don't assume you know everything.
I feel so ashamed! :(
I hate to do this since this seems like a neat site, but the "radio" broadcasts are not very packed with facts. I listened to several of them, and the only one that had any facts in it was the Cell Phone Ban segment. Most of it is just his opinoins. Maybe my definition of facts is too rigid. I like the concept, but the name doesn't ring true.
Sorry, that was obviously meant for the previous story. Since they look so similar, I must have clicked on the wrong one. Sorry.
I hate to do this since this seems like a neat site, but the "radio" broadcasts are not very packed with facts. I listened to several of them, and the only one that had any facts in it was the Cell Phone Ban segment. Most of it is just his opinoins. Maybe my definition of facts is too rigid. I like the concept, but the name doesn't ring true.
I truley feel sorry for you and the reality you live in.
I'm obviously not going to change your mind, and I think that you are in the minority here. But to each his own.
What I am saying is that we do not properly define profanity. Is it bad if I say damn it, I fucked up? Of course not. But If I say damn you, you fucked up, that is completely different. We need to teach kids that words are not bad, the actions and the meaning of the words are bad.
What!? How is the meaning in those different? One is pointed at you and one is at me, but the meaning is the same. And, if I'm hearing either one on a TV show, or more importantly, my kid hears it, then they are both equally worng, to my ears, maybe not yours. Some people have more vulgar tastes than others.
Some would consider the altering of reality, of public discourse, so as to not possibly offend someone... as a little bit profane in itself.
We're not talking about editing a live broadcast of news or anything, we're talking about changing the dialog of a giant blue bug. If that's your idea of reality, then we've got bigger problems. I know that most people don't use profanity in every sentence, contrary to what I see on TV.
Why would you be concerned w/ my choice of language? with the verbage I use? Really friend, cencorship is bad, m'kay.
I could care less what you have to say, however, if you are given a public medium, ala a tv station, I expect you to treat me with some respect, as if I have a brain and am not some mindless joybuzzer you can pump for money!
Your argument basically tells producers/networks/whatever that because the content they support/produce/distribute is 'wrong' by some moral standard that they do not have the right excercice their freedom of speech.
How did you make the leap from "encouraging a higher moral standard" to limiting free speech? All I'm saying is that instead of chasing the almighty buck, maybe creative types should work for a more mature and less vulgar society. Surely you can agree that reducing profanity is a higher moral standard than increasing it, no matter what you think is "right".
Can I ask you something? Who cares about profanity. It has always seemed like the silliest issue.
On one hand you say that profanity is silly, and then you turn around and say that we need to teach our children not to use "words that mean bad things". According to Webster, profane is defined as "serving to debase or defile what is holy" so, by limiting profanity, I am saying that profane things need to be limited on TV. It makes us appear to be a much cruder society than I think, hope, we are.
The networks feel hamstrung; HBO and CineMax can cuss all day and night, and show all sorts of body parts, that the networks are constrained from doing.
<rant>
Some would consider the lack of nudity, profanity, and general nastiness as a plus, not a constraint. Why is it that the television producers feel a need to "push the envelope" when it comes to profanity. You could argue that more profanity makes it more realistic, but I would argue that it's a self fulfilling prophesy. The more that people, young and old, see profanity on TV, the more they will assume it to be the norm and adopt it. Maybe it is up to producers to encourage a higher moral standard instead of a lower one.
</rant>
The name Shell was well known, the judge said, and most customers would expect to find the firm's website at shell.de, not that of the individual.
So, now we bow to what customers want, not citizens, or people in general? I'm sure that members of this man's family would expect his site to be here. I'm also sure that people going to www.whitehouse.com aren't expecting what they get either. Does that mean we have to take it away? Supposedly, individuals have the same rights as corporations, not less.
I'm trying to find the power button on my calculator. Can you please help me? Urgent.