"Congress has much more influence on spending and the economy than the President does."
Still GWB doesn't get a free pass here either. He had the opportunity, but not the polictical courage, to veto a lot of pork that Congress sent his way.
If Kerry had any sense he'd attack the Republican party on the deficit, not because of military spending (a true function of the federal government and one where I'm willing to give them some leeway) but instead on the massive pork-barreling that the supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans engaged in once they got control of Congress. Republicans typically condemn Democrats as being tax-and-spend, but the Republican record in that regard has been pretty awful since they got a hold of the reins.
Yeah, what I like most about the Green party are the fundamental inconsistencies in it's positions. Energy policy is a great example.
Greens want people to change their behavior by conserving more engery. Setting aside for the moment the futility of hoping for or forcing such a change, the Greens turn right around and advocate an agricultural policy (no-chemicals, no-GMO's) that by necessity will _increase_ energy consumption! (Less efficient yields => more land planted to get the same output => more energy spent for the same food output.)
Cobb says: "And those two parties have done everything in their power to maintain their power and eliminate, _ridicule_ and harass the competition." (emphasis added)
Perhaps Greens would suffer less ridicule if they'd stop making it so darn easy.
1) "We cannot be certain whether the state government in Florida had any role in influencing the outcome of the Elector elections in its state."
Sure we can. The Florida Supreme Court actively participated in the process by trying to change the rules of the game _after_ the election. They were subsequently smacked down by the US Supreme Court.
2) "While the failure was partially due to technology being confusing..."
I've voted punch card ballots many times (not in FL) and I'm not convinced that the inability to follow the big black arrow to the hole and then punch out the corresponding "chad" is really something you can blame on a failure of technology. Sounds like user error to me.
Now, the ballots could have arguably been confusing, but IIRC the new ballot was designed by a Democrat (Not K. Harris), so you'd think if they were up to mischief they'd try not to throw the election the other way.
Some of the other packages you specify could be covered as a level three exam. The yet-to-be-developed L3 exams are intended to be more specific and in-depth on subjects that are not necessarily the "core" of Linux. I believe the first L3 is going to be security related and any others will be dictated by demand.
(It costs, literally, hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop an exam, so we need to be sure that there's at least some demand for an exam before we develop it.)
The website is a good place to start and you might also want to sign up to the mailing list lpi-discuss. Best of Luck!
If you didn't like our exams, then you're probably not going to like Linux+ at all. Linux+ is, or was, targeted at entry level Linux users and not system administrators. We actually recommend it as a starting point for people who are completely unfamiliar with Linux prior to moving onto our exams.
Many people have good things to say about the RCHE, although I'm not convinced that it's any better an indicator of ability or success than our exams, although it is both a lot more expensive and not distribution neutral. RH is very impressed with the hands-on requirements of their certification, but to the best of my knowledge the jury's still out on whether it's actually any better in certifying ability than a regular computer based test. Personally I think they get a lot of lift by riding the coat tails of the CCIE which also has hands on components and is a VERY highly respected certification for Cisco.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the exam items are the way they are because we can demonstrate psychometrically that people who know this material also know how to do the technical tasks of the job of Linux System Administrator.
1) The exams are developed that way because psychometriclly we can demonstrate that people who know these things are able to do the job requirements of a Linux System Administrator. In otherwords, an LPIC will actually be able to do the technical requirements of system administration; the questions weren't just throw in randomly. I would also dispute "very little understanding is required."
2) Some things may be out of date, but we are working on correcting that. We're a non-profit and we don't have tons of cash or other resources which has made updating the exams more challenging in the past. We're going to be addressing that however in the near future and soon you'll see exams that have fresh items rotated in on a regular and frequent basis.
3) The topics were re-arraged to make them hang together more consistently over the exams. The publishers had more than eight months of notice that we were going to do this and there are new books coming out now that are aligned with the topic moves.
4) As with any other Linux community effort, if you don't like the results we're more than happy for you to volunteer to help make things better. Why don't you sign up to create questions that are not "ambiguous and poorly written?" It's all there on our "amateurish" web site.
Prepare to be surprised. I laid hands on a pre-production model the other day and because there are only 2 letters per key the predictive text is pretty darn good. Walt Mossberg over at WSJ says that typing URLs and email addresses can be hard and I agree the predictive text doesn't help you much there, but for the majority of the typing you'd do (responding to emails, posting on slashdot) it's pretty darn good. It's leaps and bounds better than T9.
Senator Kerry admited that he personally committed war crimes (see the attached excerpt from an MSNBC transcript which quotes Senate hearings from 1971).
In the attached excerpt you'll see that he tries to back pedal out of that statement, but the fact is that he either did commit atrocities as he says he personally did or he lied to Congress about it. Either way the man is not fit to be the Commander in Chief of the United States.
MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
(End videotape)
Mr. Russert: You committed atrocities.
Senator Kerry: Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big question for me. You know, I thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word. I think it's an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.
Mr. Russert: You used the word "war criminals."
Senator Kerry: Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don't like it when I hear it today. I don't like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the soldiers' blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them. But the words were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top. And I think that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions. There were policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of warfare, and everybody knows that. I mean, books have chronicled that, so I'm not going to walk away from that. But I wish I had found a way to say it in a less abrasive way.
Mr. Russert: But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited, and in hindsight was your testimony...
Senator Kerry: Actually, a lot of them have been documented.
Mr. Russert: So you stand by that?
Senator Kerry: A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. The problem is that's not where the focus should have been. And, you know, when you're angry about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable of not--I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently. Needless to say, I'm proud that I stood up. I don't want anybody to think twic
I haven't seen F9/11 and if you re-read my post you see I don't take a position on it's credibility. I made just two points:
1) There are at least two other reasons why liabelous statements in F9/11 might not have been pursued in court. 2) The original poster had indicated no-one had seriously tried to dispute or discuss the validity of Moore's work. Since I knew this not to be true, I pointed him/her to a reference s/he could have easily visited prior to making such a broad statement.
"His political opponents depicted so disparagingly in his film could sue him for libel, but have no grounds."
There's a higher standard to prove liable or slander against a political figure than would apply to you or me.
If there were liabelous statements in Moore's films it's more likely he's not getting sued because such a suit would only generage more free publicity for his views and films.
Politically speaking it's probably more savvy to let him rant and rave to the "choir" (a.k.a. the hard core Anybody-But-Bush crowd) than to give him the ostensible legitimacy of a lawsuit and thus expose his works to the rest of the voting populace.
Oh, and as to the statement that no-one's discredited or argued with Moore, give Google a try. Here's the top hit on "Moore truth":
Coincidently, this morning I happened to overhear our email folks (in my day job) talking about our SPAM rate. We're up to 88% now. That represents 1.3 million of the average 1.5 million messages we receive per day.
Actually, we're looking for a new lawn care provider right now. If I can be sure that Darl will remember to pull the weeds (our current provider can't seem to get that) then I'd be more than happy to pay Darl up to $175 a month for the service. (He's got to have insurance though; no swinging from my peach trees with a chainsaw otherwise.)
Sure, it's Dallas not Houston, and our humidity's not so bad, but we're still plenty hot!;)
> To play devils advocate, will all of the Mexican-American Immigrants eventually want statehood for Mexico or want California and Texas back for their homeland? That could be nasty.
Umm...Texas won its independence from Mexico prior to joining the US. For a few years there Texas was an independent republic with embassies and everything. (Try visiting the Texas Embassy in London sometime; it's a hoot. Too bad they can't seem to import Shiner beer though...*sigh*)
Not even remotely. Vonage sent the email because someone you presumably know went to the web site, logged in with their account, added you to a referral list, and then made the concious decision to send the mail to you. Not much different than if they'd just emailed you directly saying "hey vonage is great, you should sign up." The incentive to do it through the web site is so that you get credit if they do sign up.
IIRC, Vonage has controls in place to prevent someone from sending an invitation to 5000 of their "closest" friends.
You paid for your converter hardware? I got mine free and the website still indicates that it's free as well. Perhaps I misunderstood.
I understand Vonage has switched to a Motorola adapter, but I've got the Cisco and I don't have ANY inbound ports open with no problems placing or receiving calls.
1. Call quality - Excellent. Rarely can I or my callers tell the difference between this and a POTS line and on the rare occasion that they can it's more like cell phone quality.
I'll agree that if you decide to use all your bandwidth downloading then yeah your call quality is going to suffer. Depends a lot though on how much your native connection can handle. I can often download an ISO (at > 100Kb/sec) or play something like CS or RoN with no effect on my voice quality at all.
2. Hardware - I've only got the Cisco ATA-186, so I can't speak to the Moto quallity problems, but my Cisco has been consistently stable. I've had the service for several years and I can't think of more than a handful of occasions that I've had to bounce that box. (And I don't know if it was the box that flipped out or just a result of a hiccup on the cable network.) Yes, not as reliable as POTS but also not a hassle. Total time for a fix less than 30 seconds.
As to accessing the Cisco itself; I don't. Quite simply I bought Vongage for the phone service not to fiddle with the ATA-186. If I want to play I'll setup an Asterisk server. A lay person is never going to do either.
3. Customer Service - I've only rarely had to call Vonage; in fact perhaps only once. I had a good experience which is much more than I can say for the various telco's I've ever worked with.
4. Loss of service - I've rarely had this happen. At worst, no more than once/quarter and usually it's the cable modem that's the issue, not Vonage. Again, not POTS quality, but easily as good as a cell phone.
5. Spam - I have never received an unsolicted call or email from Vonage. Ever.
6. Service package - Awesome, light years beyond what the incumbent telcos are going to offer. Love the ability to do so much via the web and all the extra lines/800 #'s you can get are pretty cool too, although I'll admit I've not used them. Still the idea of being able to just drop one virtual number on for $5/month is pretty cool
7. Fax - I have zero experience here. I don't even know what I'd fax these days even if I wanted to; I guess I'd have to print something out first.
8. Setup and billing - I was up and running 10 mintues (or less) after opening the box. Granted I didn't try to port my local POTS line, but based on my work experience with porting numbers I'd be willing to bet not all the problems you experienced in porting your number were Vonage's fault. Carriers are very very bad about letting go of numbers.
9. Extremely low rates - No only does Vongage have some of the best rates around, as I posted earlier, Vonage is the ONLY telco I've ever worked with that (without me asking) has lowered my rates...TWICE!
Regulatory fees are minimal as well ($1.50/line) so what's advertised is closer to what you pay than with a traditional carrier where typically you'll pay 50% to 100% above the advertised price in fees and taxes.
Let me guess though...you're nominally paying $49 bucks a month for the service, but after taxes, regulatory, and other 'screw you because we can' fees, your actual bill is like $65 or $70/month, right?
Even with the regulatory recovery fee, we're paying less than $25/month for all calls in the US and Canada as well as the features you describe and more (web management, retrieve voicemail on-line, etc.)
AFAIK, Vonage doesn't spam. What they DO do is send emails to people who've been specifically referred by another Vonage customer. The referring customer has to go to the web site and enter your email address and then specifically choose to send and invitation to you. (Referring customer gets a month free service.) So you should check around and see if someone you know (even a little bit) may have recommended the service to/for you.
Wow, I'd have to say I'm surprised by your quality problems; are you on DSL?
I've only experienced quality problems when my cable modem service was having issues. Otherwise, 99.999 % of the time it's toll quality service and at worst as good as a cell phone.
In any case I've never had any "pause" or wait to talk issues.
I will agree though that it's possible to kill your own quality if you're using too much bandwidth, but the caller on the other end usually seems to detect it before you do.
I've had Vonage for several years now and not only is the service and quality great, but I can truthfully say that Vonage is the only company to EVER voluntarily lower my phone bill...TWICE! (Without me asking.)
I love Vonage and would recommend it unhesitatingly.
Agreed...8 maybe, but not 12 unless the Terran is just plain slow. Either way even w/o a bunker complete you'd still have the marines out by then.
Terran's real problem though is that they tend to take the bunker down mentality. Makes for some initially really cool kill ratios, but always guarantees destruction in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
"Congress has much more influence on spending and the economy than the President does."
Still GWB doesn't get a free pass here either. He had the opportunity, but not the polictical courage, to veto a lot of pork that Congress sent his way.
If Kerry had any sense he'd attack the Republican party on the deficit, not because of military spending (a true function of the federal government and one where I'm willing to give them some leeway) but instead on the massive pork-barreling that the supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans engaged in once they got control of Congress. Republicans typically condemn Democrats as being tax-and-spend, but the Republican record in that regard has been pretty awful since they got a hold of the reins.
Yeah, what I like most about the Green party are the fundamental inconsistencies in it's positions. Energy policy is a great example.
Greens want people to change their behavior by conserving more engery. Setting aside for the moment the futility of hoping for or forcing such a change, the Greens turn right around and advocate an agricultural policy (no-chemicals, no-GMO's) that by necessity will _increase_ energy consumption! (Less efficient yields => more land planted to get the same output => more energy spent for the same food output.)
Cobb says: "And those two parties have done everything in their power to maintain their power and eliminate, _ridicule_ and harass the competition." (emphasis added)
Perhaps Greens would suffer less ridicule if they'd stop making it so darn easy.
You're correct. Apportionment of the electorial votes is up to the States and their lattidude in doing this is fairly wide.
A state could in theory go IRV.
*sigh* ok, I'll bite:
1) "We cannot be certain whether the state government in Florida had any role in influencing the outcome of the Elector elections in its state."
Sure we can. The Florida Supreme Court actively participated in the process by trying to change the rules of the game _after_ the election. They were subsequently smacked down by the US Supreme Court.
2) "While the failure was partially due to technology being confusing..."
I've voted punch card ballots many times (not in FL) and I'm not convinced that the inability to follow the big black arrow to the hole and then punch out the corresponding "chad" is really something you can blame on a failure of technology. Sounds like user error to me.
Now, the ballots could have arguably been confusing, but IIRC the new ballot was designed by a Democrat (Not K. Harris), so you'd think if they were up to mischief they'd try not to throw the election the other way.
Lars,
Some of the other packages you specify could be covered as a level three exam. The yet-to-be-developed L3 exams are intended to be more specific and in-depth on subjects that are not necessarily the "core" of Linux. I believe the first L3 is going to be security related and any others will be dictated by demand.
(It costs, literally, hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop an exam, so we need to be sure that there's at least some demand for an exam before we develop it.)
The website is a good place to start and you might also want to sign up to the mailing list lpi-discuss. Best of Luck!
Jared
**bias alert: I volunteer for LPI**
If you didn't like our exams, then you're probably not going to like Linux+ at all. Linux+ is, or was, targeted at entry level Linux users and not system administrators. We actually recommend it as a starting point for people who are completely unfamiliar with Linux prior to moving onto our exams.
Many people have good things to say about the RCHE, although I'm not convinced that it's any better an indicator of ability or success than our exams, although it is both a lot more expensive and not distribution neutral. RH is very impressed with the hands-on requirements of their certification, but to the best of my knowledge the jury's still out on whether it's actually any better in certifying ability than a regular computer based test. Personally I think they get a lot of lift by riding the coat tails of the CCIE which also has hands on components and is a VERY highly respected certification for Cisco.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the exam items are the way they are because we can demonstrate psychometrically that people who know this material also know how to do the technical tasks of the job of Linux System Administrator.
Jared
1) The exams are developed that way because psychometriclly we can demonstrate that people who know these things are able to do the job requirements of a Linux System Administrator. In otherwords, an LPIC will actually be able to do the technical requirements of system administration; the questions weren't just throw in randomly. I would also dispute "very little understanding is required."
2) Some things may be out of date, but we are working on correcting that. We're a non-profit and we don't have tons of cash or other resources which has made updating the exams more challenging in the past. We're going to be addressing that however in the near future and soon you'll see exams that have fresh items rotated in on a regular and frequent basis.
3) The topics were re-arraged to make them hang together more consistently over the exams. The publishers had more than eight months of notice that we were going to do this and there are new books coming out now that are aligned with the topic moves.
4) As with any other Linux community effort, if you don't like the results we're more than happy for you to volunteer to help make things better. Why don't you sign up to create questions that are not "ambiguous and poorly written?" It's all there on our "amateurish" web site.
Jared
Prepare to be surprised. I laid hands on a pre-production model the other day and because there are only 2 letters per key the predictive text is pretty darn good. Walt Mossberg over at WSJ says that typing URLs and email addresses can be hard and I agree the predictive text doesn't help you much there, but for the majority of the typing you'd do (responding to emails, posting on slashdot) it's pretty darn good. It's leaps and bounds better than T9.
Senator Kerry admited that he personally committed war crimes (see the attached excerpt from an MSNBC transcript which quotes Senate hearings from 1971).
In the attached excerpt you'll see that he tries to back pedal out of that statement, but the fact is that he either did commit atrocities as he says he personally did or he lied to Congress about it. Either way the man is not fit to be the Commander in Chief of the United States.
I haven't seen F9/11 and if you re-read my post you see I don't take a position on it's credibility. I made just two points:
1) There are at least two other reasons why liabelous statements in F9/11 might not have been pursued in court.
2) The original poster had indicated no-one had seriously tried to dispute or discuss the validity of Moore's work. Since I knew this not to be true, I pointed him/her to a reference s/he could have easily visited prior to making such a broad statement.
"His political opponents depicted so disparagingly in his film could sue him for libel, but have no grounds."
1 77 &contentid=252483
There's a higher standard to prove liable or slander against a political figure than would apply to you or me.
If there were liabelous statements in Moore's films it's more likely he's not getting sued because such a suit would only generage more free publicity for his views and films.
Politically speaking it's probably more savvy to let him rant and rave to the "choir" (a.k.a. the hard core Anybody-But-Bush crowd) than to give him the ostensible legitimacy of a lawsuit and thus expose his works to the rest of the voting populace.
Oh, and as to the statement that no-one's discredited or argued with Moore, give Google a try. Here's the top hit on "Moore truth":
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=
Now, I don't know who the New Democrats are, but they seem to have some problems with Moore's version of the world.
I'm pretty rabidly anti-electronic voting (as currently implemented), but these two papers I stumbled across have me rethinking my position:
CFP'93 - Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat
Paper v. Electronic Voting Records - An Assessment
WSJ's OpinionJournal.com has a pretty poorly written article as well at:
No Doctored DRE (Subscription might be required for this one though)
Enjoy.
Coincidently, this morning I happened to overhear our email folks (in my day job) talking about our SPAM rate. We're up to 88% now. That represents 1.3 million of the average 1.5 million messages we receive per day.
*sigh*
Please try to pay attention...the missing $184 was obviously stolen by Linux.
Actually, we're looking for a new lawn care provider right now. If I can be sure that Darl will remember to pull the weeds (our current provider can't seem to get that) then I'd be more than happy to pay Darl up to $175 a month for the service. (He's got to have insurance though; no swinging from my peach trees with a chainsaw otherwise.)
;)
Sure, it's Dallas not Houston, and our humidity's not so bad, but we're still plenty hot!
> To play devils advocate, will all of the Mexican-American Immigrants eventually want statehood for Mexico or want California and Texas back for their homeland? That could be nasty.
Umm...Texas won its independence from Mexico prior to joining the US. For a few years there Texas was an independent republic with embassies and everything. (Try visiting the Texas Embassy in London sometime; it's a hoot. Too bad they can't seem to import Shiner beer though...*sigh*)
Jared
Not even remotely. Vonage sent the email because someone you presumably know went to the web site, logged in with their account, added you to a referral list, and then made the concious decision to send the mail to you. Not much different than if they'd just emailed you directly saying "hey vonage is great, you should sign up." The incentive to do it through the web site is so that you get credit if they do sign up.
IIRC, Vonage has controls in place to prevent someone from sending an invitation to 5000 of their "closest" friends.
You paid for your converter hardware? I got mine free and the website still indicates that it's free as well. Perhaps I misunderstood.
I understand Vonage has switched to a Motorola adapter, but I've got the Cisco and I don't have ANY inbound ports open with no problems placing or receiving calls.
For balance, I'll reply with my own experiences:
1. Call quality - Excellent. Rarely can I or my callers tell the difference between this and a POTS line and on the rare occasion that they can it's more like cell phone quality.
I'll agree that if you decide to use all your bandwidth downloading then yeah your call quality is going to suffer. Depends a lot though on how much your native connection can handle. I can often download an ISO (at > 100Kb/sec) or play something like CS or RoN with no effect on my voice quality at all.
2. Hardware - I've only got the Cisco ATA-186, so I can't speak to the Moto quallity problems, but my Cisco has been consistently stable. I've had the service for several years and I can't think of more than a handful of occasions that I've had to bounce that box. (And I don't know if it was the box that flipped out or just a result of a hiccup on the cable network.) Yes, not as reliable as POTS but also not a hassle. Total time for a fix less than 30 seconds.
As to accessing the Cisco itself; I don't. Quite simply I bought Vongage for the phone service not to fiddle with the ATA-186. If I want to play I'll setup an Asterisk server. A lay person is never going to do either.
3. Customer Service - I've only rarely had to call Vonage; in fact perhaps only once. I had a good experience which is much more than I can say for the various telco's I've ever worked with.
4. Loss of service - I've rarely had this happen. At worst, no more than once/quarter and usually it's the cable modem that's the issue, not Vonage. Again, not POTS quality, but easily as good as a cell phone.
5. Spam - I have never received an unsolicted call or email from Vonage. Ever.
6. Service package - Awesome, light years beyond what the incumbent telcos are going to offer. Love the ability to do so much via the web and all the extra lines/800 #'s you can get are pretty cool too, although I'll admit I've not used them. Still the idea of being able to just drop one virtual number on for $5/month is pretty cool
7. Fax - I have zero experience here. I don't even know what I'd fax these days even if I wanted to; I guess I'd have to print something out first.
8. Setup and billing - I was up and running 10 mintues (or less) after opening the box. Granted I didn't try to port my local POTS line, but based on my work experience with porting numbers I'd be willing to bet not all the problems you experienced in porting your number were Vonage's fault. Carriers are very very bad about letting go of numbers.
9. Extremely low rates - No only does Vongage have some of the best rates around, as I posted earlier, Vonage is the ONLY telco I've ever worked with that (without me asking) has lowered my rates...TWICE!
Regulatory fees are minimal as well ($1.50/line) so what's advertised is closer to what you pay than with a traditional carrier where typically you'll pay 50% to 100% above the advertised price in fees and taxes.
Let me guess though...you're nominally paying $49 bucks a month for the service, but after taxes, regulatory, and other 'screw you because we can' fees, your actual bill is like $65 or $70/month, right?
Even with the regulatory recovery fee, we're paying less than $25/month for all calls in the US and Canada as well as the features you describe and more (web management, retrieve voicemail on-line, etc.)
AFAIK, Vonage doesn't spam. What they DO do is send emails to people who've been specifically referred by another Vonage customer. The referring customer has to go to the web site and enter your email address and then specifically choose to send and invitation to you. (Referring customer gets a month free service.) So you should check around and see if someone you know (even a little bit) may have recommended the service to/for you.
Wow, I'd have to say I'm surprised by your quality problems; are you on DSL?
I've only experienced quality problems when my cable modem service was having issues. Otherwise, 99.999 % of the time it's toll quality service and at worst as good as a cell phone.
In any case I've never had any "pause" or wait to talk issues.
I will agree though that it's possible to kill your own quality if you're using too much bandwidth, but the caller on the other end usually seems to detect it before you do.
I've had Vonage for several years now and not only is the service and quality great, but I can truthfully say that Vonage is the only company to EVER voluntarily lower my phone bill...TWICE! (Without me asking.)
I love Vonage and would recommend it unhesitatingly.
Agreed...8 maybe, but not 12 unless the Terran is just plain slow. Either way even w/o a bunker complete you'd still have the marines out by then.
Terran's real problem though is that they tend to take the bunker down mentality. Makes for some initially really cool kill ratios, but always guarantees destruction in the end.
> what would we do if another country started killing some of our population?
I'd say we get together an army and go invade them...oh wait we already did that.