Not holes, but varying resolutions. For instance, at "kansas city, mo", you can zoom all the way in with excellent resolution, while "columbia, mo" stops 4 zooms from the bottom
and looks horrible.
It looks like they have high resolution photos for most of the major cities and then they supplement with a low resolution blanket for the entire US
You access your bank from a computer you don't have complete control of?
Have you considered tapdancing in minefields as an alternative?
Hrm, I'm away from home and need to check my balance. I can:
a) use a cellphone b) use a payphone c) use a friend's computer
All three have problems with not having complete control and having the possibility of being intercepted.
For that matter, it is trivial for someone to tap your home line, so you have to assume a certain amount of risk if you want to function at all, and IMHO, using a friend's computer is no more risky that any of the other methods of contacting your bank.
They might not be redhat's intended market, but don't be so sure that they aren't dell's.
I was recently in charge of purchasing a $7000 poweredge server from dell. We decided to go with mandrake because redhat was too expensive. Yeah, it's only a a few hundred bucks, but we couldn't justify the added expense when there were other cheaper options available. And saving a little bit here and there sure helps stretch the IT budget.:)
I used to have a dlink, but got rid
of it because my telnet/ssh sessions kept
timing out after 10 minutes of idle time.
I replaced my dlink with a linksys
and have not had any problems since.
There are plenty of them on ebay
if you really want one. I got an
invite, but I'm selling it on ebay
because there will be plenty of time
to get one later and people apparently
want them worse than I do.
"Free" Health Insurance sucks even worse
than regular Health Insurance because
hypochondriacs drive the cost up for everyone
else. Private industries realize this
and have things like co-pay and deductibles
to compensate, but it still falls somewhat short.
Health insurance should be exactly what it
sounds like, insurance against something
dramatic. IMHO, health insurance with a
yearly deductible less than $10K should probably
not even exist.
Then I guess golf is an eXtreme sport, because people have died playing golf (and not just from old age). You would be hard pressed to find anything which includes people and/or things moving at a high rate of speed that hasn't killed someone.
Slashdot does partner with doubleclick, because as a rule, I do not block ads, but every once in a while one of slashdot's ads is blocked because I do block doubleclick.
I've tried that, and reported the
same site once a month for 4-5 months,
but after a while decided that they really
don't care. As they state on that page,
they use reported sites as testbeds for
new algorithms and don't really remove offending
sites.
Suffice it to say that shareaza is not only written incompetently but
makes every attempt it can to squeeze whatever it can out of the network,
regardless of how much damage to the network as a whole that results
in. In BitTorrent the amount of damage you can do is fairly limited. In
edonkey it took the whole search system down.
Come to think of it, I'm feeling actively hostile to shareaza, and have no
inclination to help make it support BitTorrent better, lest more people
start use it.
Maybe anecdotal, but one of my servers was once accidently added to AOL's spam list, and although it took about 2 days, I was able to get removed from their list fairly easily. So yes, it is possible, but the better thing is obviously to never get put on it to begin with.
I have my bittorrent upload capped at 5K,
but my bittorrent download still hits 50K+
which all but kills my ability to do anything
else while I'm using bittorrent.
If there is a download/upload ratio, presumably based on my numbers it is greater than 10/1.
I would like
my download to be capped at 20K, but I haven't
found a bittorrent client that lets me do that
yet.
>
>The better bittorrent clients let you do exactly that, specifying a limit to how much bandwidth it can consume.
>
The better bittorrent clients let you limit the UPLOAD speed, I have yet to see one that lets you limit the DOWNLOAD speed, which is what the original poster was asking. If you know of one, please share, because I have been looking for one.
Hrm, I knew of that policy, but I always thought
of it as a plus. I always thought of it as google giving a discount to high CTR users.
I.E. I can get position #1
for.25 instead of.50 if my click thru rate
is high, so this actually causes google to
get less per click than they would otherwise,
but still net the same therefore helping them maintain the quality of their ads without affecting their income. To me, I've always thought of it as a win-win situation for both google, the searchers, and the advertisers, but I guess it can also work against the advertiser if they have keywords with low CTRs and are trying to outbid someone with high CTRs.
>
>your cost per click goes up for each view that nobody clicks.
>
I've never heard of this, and I would be very interested in proof of your claim of the CPC
being adjusted up based on the CTR(click thru rate). Even if this is true (which I would be very surprised if it is), you can control you max CPC, and you NEVER get charged unless you actually get a click, so no, they don't charge for views. As far as shutting down keywords with
low CTR, they have this policy for exactly that reason. They don't want to give unlimited free
views to ads that noone is clicking on.
>
>Also, some places you advertise on charge a fee for just having the ad seen (google). In this case, you are helping the site even if you aren't clicking through.
>
Yes, some places still might charge for views, but google is not one of those. Google and
all of the other major search engines only charge for clicks.
The simplest solution would be to have
some sort of fixed rate or limits on it.
i.e. max X billable hours per X dollars will be reembursed if you win.
That would help limit somewhat the ability
of large companies to outspend the other guy,
but in all honesty, the only way to completely
eliminate the ability to buy the verdict
would be to eliminate private lawyers and only
allow public, court assigned lawyers.
I think it all comes down to
whether or not it really is an
ultimatum. I make off the cuff
comments like that alot. More than
likely the expression that his wife
is going with or without him is more
tongue in cheek than a serious ultimatum.
>
>Legal action over $29.95? You must be joking. Chalk it up to experience. While you're at it, try a new hobby like opening mysterious email attachments. Good Luck!
>
That is EXACTLY what companies like this want. Why do you think it is always 19.95 or 29.95.
It's always just enough that noone bothers to
fight if they get screwed. The right thing to
do is to fight it and then when you win make
THEM pay your legal costs.
>
>If it isn't necessary to do the freeze/thaw/boil routine, and who hasn't seen live lobsters at their grocery store, then why?
>
Of course, you are assuming that it is less cruel to live transport them than to freeze/thaw them. Transporting animals is also extremely
stressful and it could very possibly be more
humane to freeze/thaw them with them feeling
nothing in between than roughly transporting them all the way.
Speaking from experience, even the best written arrangements can turn out bad. I was in the
situation where I had to fire a close relative.
Luckily that went smoother than expected and
we are still on speaking terms.
Unfortunately, we were incorporated, so he
still owns his shares of the company, so at
this point I would probably have been better
off without any written documentation. I am
still trying to figure out the best way to
reclaim the part of the company that he still
technically owns, although since he has left the value of the company (and therefore the value of his shares) have continued to grow.
Slashdot Mirror
Not holes, but varying resolutions.
For instance, at "kansas city, mo", you
can zoom all the way in with excellent resolution,
while "columbia, mo" stops 4 zooms from the bottom
and looks horrible.
It looks like they have high resolution photos
for most of the major cities and then they
supplement with a low resolution blanket for
the entire US
You access your bank from a computer you don't have complete control of?
Have you considered tapdancing in minefields as an alternative?
Hrm, I'm away from home and need to check
my balance. I can:
a) use a cellphone
b) use a payphone
c) use a friend's computer
All three have problems with not having
complete control and having the possibility
of being intercepted.
For that matter, it is trivial for someone
to tap your home line, so you have to
assume a certain amount of risk if you want
to function at all, and IMHO, using a friend's
computer is no more risky that any of the
other methods of contacting your bank.
>reps put a sunset provision in the independant
>council bill that expired if they took over the
>presidency
Do you have a reference for this?
This seems a little far fetched and I would
love to verify this.
They might not be redhat's intended market, but
:)
don't be so sure that they aren't dell's.
I was recently in charge of purchasing a
$7000 poweredge server from dell.
We decided to go with mandrake because redhat
was too expensive. Yeah, it's only a a few
hundred bucks, but we couldn't justify the added
expense when there were other cheaper options
available. And saving a little bit here and there
sure helps stretch the IT budget.
I used to have a dlink, but got rid of it because my telnet/ssh sessions kept timing out after 10 minutes of idle time. I replaced my dlink with a linksys and have not had any problems since.
There are plenty of them on ebay if you really want one. I got an invite, but I'm selling it on ebay because there will be plenty of time to get one later and people apparently want them worse than I do.
e gory=193&item=4130782432&ssPageName=STRK:MESSE :IT
In case you're really interested:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&cat
"Free" Health Insurance sucks even worse than regular Health Insurance because hypochondriacs drive the cost up for everyone else. Private industries realize this and have things like co-pay and deductibles to compensate, but it still falls somewhat short. Health insurance should be exactly what it sounds like, insurance against something dramatic. IMHO, health insurance with a yearly deductible less than $10K should probably not even exist.
Yes, more information is great, but
all that info is just PR info.
Does anyone know where I can get some
documentation, or better yet a HOWTO.
Then I guess golf is an eXtreme sport, because
people have died playing golf (and not just
from old age). You would be hard pressed to find
anything which includes people and/or things moving
at a high rate of speed that hasn't killed someone.
Slashdot does partner with doubleclick,
because as a rule, I do not block ads,
but every once in a while one of slashdot's
ads is blocked because I do block doubleclick.
I've tried that, and reported the same site once a month for 4-5 months, but after a while decided that they really don't care. As they state on that page, they use reported sites as testbeds for new algorithms and don't really remove offending sites.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BitTorrent/message/
Maybe anecdotal, but one of my servers was once accidently added to AOL's spam list, and although it took about 2 days, I was able to get removed from their list fairly easily. So yes, it is possible, but the better thing is obviously to never get put on it to begin with.
I have my bittorrent upload capped at 5K, but my bittorrent download still hits 50K+ which all but kills my ability to do anything else while I'm using bittorrent.
If there is a download/upload ratio, presumably based on my numbers it is greater than 10/1.
I would like my download to be capped at 20K, but I haven't found a bittorrent client that lets me do that yet.
Unfortunately this only works as long as people don't start masquerading their traffic as
something else.
>
>The better bittorrent clients let you do exactly that, specifying a limit to how much bandwidth it can consume.
>
The better bittorrent clients let you limit the UPLOAD speed, I have yet to see one that lets you limit the DOWNLOAD speed, which is what the original poster was asking. If you know of one, please share, because I have been looking for one.
Hrm, I knew of that policy, but I always thought of it as a plus. I always thought of it as google giving a discount to high CTR users. I.E. I can get position #1 for .25 instead of .50 if my click thru rate
is high, so this actually causes google to
get less per click than they would otherwise,
but still net the same therefore helping them maintain the quality of their ads without affecting their income. To me, I've always thought of it as a win-win situation for both google, the searchers, and the advertisers, but I guess it can also work against the advertiser if they have keywords with low CTRs and are trying to outbid someone with high CTRs.
>
>your cost per click goes up for each view that nobody clicks.
>
I've never heard of this, and I would be very interested in proof of your claim of the CPC being adjusted up based on the CTR(click thru rate). Even if this is true (which I would be very surprised if it is), you can control you max CPC, and you NEVER get charged unless you actually get a click, so no, they don't charge for views. As far as shutting down keywords with low CTR, they have this policy for exactly that reason. They don't want to give unlimited free views to ads that noone is clicking on.
>
>Also, some places you advertise on charge a fee for just having the ad seen (google). In this case, you are helping the site even if you aren't clicking through.
>
Yes, some places still might charge for views, but google is not one of those. Google and all of the other major search engines only charge for clicks.
The simplest solution would be to have some sort of fixed rate or limits on it. i.e. max X billable hours per X dollars will be reembursed if you win. That would help limit somewhat the ability of large companies to outspend the other guy, but in all honesty, the only way to completely eliminate the ability to buy the verdict would be to eliminate private lawyers and only allow public, court assigned lawyers.
>
>Now, as to convincing your significant other that shiny purple-blue panels are the way to clad your house is the tough part.
Ok, I'm hooked, where can I buy solar siding at? That sounds cool.
Seriously, if it really existed, I would buy some in a heartbeat.
I think it all comes down to whether or not it really is an ultimatum. I make off the cuff comments like that alot. More than likely the expression that his wife is going with or without him is more tongue in cheek than a serious ultimatum.
>
>Legal action over $29.95? You must be joking. Chalk it up to experience. While you're at it, try a new hobby like opening mysterious email attachments. Good Luck!
>
That is EXACTLY what companies like this want. Why do you think it is always 19.95 or 29.95. It's always just enough that noone bothers to fight if they get screwed. The right thing to do is to fight it and then when you win make THEM pay your legal costs.
>
>If it isn't necessary to do the freeze/thaw/boil routine, and who hasn't seen live lobsters at their grocery store, then why?
>
Of course, you are assuming that it is less cruel to live transport them than to freeze/thaw them. Transporting animals is also extremely stressful and it could very possibly be more humane to freeze/thaw them with them feeling nothing in between than roughly transporting them all the way.
Speaking from experience, even the best written arrangements can turn out bad. I was in the situation where I had to fire a close relative. Luckily that went smoother than expected and we are still on speaking terms. Unfortunately, we were incorporated, so he still owns his shares of the company, so at this point I would probably have been better off without any written documentation. I am still trying to figure out the best way to reclaim the part of the company that he still technically owns, although since he has left the value of the company (and therefore the value of his shares) have continued to grow.