Simple - people don't want to upgrade their computers. All most people want to do is store photos, check e-mail, get on Facebook, and maybe do their taxes once a year. A single core Celeron 32-bit with a gig of ram is all the processing power these people need. Granted, their computer is 7 years old, but it does what they need it to. Why upgrade?
And I think this is pretty much the problem here - about 2004, computers got to the point where they were fast enough for most people. After that, they started adding multiple cores, 64 bit, multimedia this and that, terrabyte harddrives, and all sorts of stuff. As a Power user, I love those things. The average person just doesn't need them.
However, I think there is a valid point here. XP is 10 years old. When its finally end-of-lifed, it will be 13 years old. Where were we 13 years ago? 1.5 gig harddrives, processors were Pentium 1s at around 133Mhz, Most computers did not support more than 32 MEG of ram, and if you wanted high-speed internet, there was 64kbps ISDN or the blazingly fast Dual-Channel 128kbps ISDN line, or you could fork out a grand a month for an insanely fast 1.5Mbps T1 line.
Supporting 13 year old software is just unheard of in the software industry, and Microsoft shouldn't be expected to support it. They will be drawing no future profit from sales or support, so from a business standpoint, they have no reason to support it.
If you still have a 10-13 year old computer in 2014, and your harddrive hasn't crashed on you yet, consider yourself lucky and install a good firewall and antivirus. When it finally does crash, and you find out that your computer doesn't support SATA, suck it up and buy a new PC with the newest OS - it will probably be cheaper than getting the old one fixed.
For people buying computers with XP now, well, they are just stupid. This would be like buying a tube television with no digital tuner 2-3 years ago. Yes, they sold them, in small numbers, and you were probably warned when you bought them that there would be no analogue broadcasts in a year, yet you still bought one, and started crying when you realized you couldn't watch the 10:00 news anymore.
Most of the documentaries that Discovery and History do make their way onto Netflix. I found out this last week that the early seasons of 17 Kids / 18 Kids / 19 Kids and Counting and Man v Food is on there. For some stupid reason, around November of last year, I signed another 2 year contract with Dish. If my roommate ever moves out, I'll just pay the cancelation fee and go just OTA broadcast / streaming. Most of what I watch are movie channels and documentaries, and if its a movie I am interested in, chances are I own it on Blu-Ray before the movie channels get it, and if its a show I am interested in, its on Hulu / Netflix / respected-shows-website.
My only recommendation comes with a couple of question first - how many streaming devices will you have, how much of a stickler are you on quality, and does your ISP have a bandwidth cap? I switched over to a 30Mbps connection about 6 months ago, because I am streaming HD stuff from Netflix / Hulu / Vudu, have multiple devices that may be streaming at once, I am an HD snob, and we like being online on the laptops while watching some television shows. So, check the ISPs in your area - I would say that a 10Mbps connection would be the minimal you would want (my old 6Mbps DSL connection barely supported one HD stream on Netflix, and would constantly lower the quality as the DSL just wasn't fast enough).
And check about bandwidth caps. Its not unusual for me to use >300 gigs a month (i have hit 600 once) between streaming, downloads, online gaming (especially if you have OnLive), surfing, tosing HD video back and forth with collegues working on a project, and so forth.
Totally agree. Everyone I know has Blu-Ray now, and are buying all their new movies on Blu-Ray - especially if they have DVDs bundled in. Most people I know, the buying of a new HDTV includes the buying of a Blu-Ray player. The issue is, people are not going to rebuy all of their movies on Blu-Ray. I have rebought several movies myself, but still have a large DVD and Laserdisc collection.
Shoot, at my local Blockbuster, a quarter of the store is dedicated to Blu-Rays, and at Best Buy, half of their movie section is Blu-Ray. Not sure where the article writter is getting his data.
Saying that Blu-Ray hasn't caught on is like saying the Mac and Linux haven't caught on. Or saying that the smart phone hasn't caught on, because a cheapy phone is still able to make phone calls and send texts.
Just because not everyone owns a Blu-Ray player does not mean that it hasn't caught on. It has - BIG time!
I never had any issues with my home wireless network until a few months ago (Cannot tell you exactly when it happened). I have had an iPhone on my wifi for a little over two years now, and got an Android back in December. I thought I just had too many devices on my network or that my router was going out. If my iPhone or Android (or both) are on, my laptop is really slow, Netflix on the Wii will stop working, and the Roku looses network connectivity. I normally curse for buying a cheap router, and just reboot the thing. Looks like its not my router that is the issue after all.
This depends on the hospital. I worked (briefly) for the IT department at a hospital. Network closets were sometimes inside of records areas, bathrooms (I kid you not), janitor closets, any place the IT department could find a few inches to install some switches. The hospital was built years before it was concievable to have a hospital-wide network. On top of that, it wouldn't be unusual to find a few square feet here and there, thrown in at random, where someone setup a few cubes, bought a dlink router, and plugged in a few computers.
On top of all of this, there were two full-time IT guys, and a contractor or two (which is what I was). And they were generally powerless to do anything about anyone who pulled a security violation. We had some departments think it was a good idea to enable peer-to-peer filesharing, a few had even setup their own servers running Windows 95 (well, they called them servers, once again, just peer-to-peer filesharing). And the IT department was absolutely powerless to do anything about it.
So, this explains why the guy didn't get fired, and why the server is still online.
So, to answer his question, Should you give the IT department root access to the server? The answer to this is based on your needs - 1) do you need them to administer the server (sounds like the answer to that is no) or 2) do you need them to provide special services. The answer to the second is yes. You need them to open up a port in a firewall, effectively opening up a security hole.
So, now the question is, why do they want root access? Well, if they are opening up a security hole, and allowing your device privilaged access to their servers, then they need to make sure there are no security vulnerabilities on it. This is much more than simply making sure your A/V software is up to date and your software is up to date. They want to make sure your firewalls are properly configured, make sure your kernel is properly patched, make sure unneeded services are turned off.
Look, you already broke protocol. Be happy you still have a job, and give them root access. If you try to take it up the chain of command, you may possibly land in with your Legal department, and then they could make life really misrable for you. Forget being fired - think fines and jail time.
Give them root access, and pray that makes the IT department happy enough that THEY don't take it up the chain of command. Face it, one of two things are going to happen here - the IT department is going to get root access, or they could take it up the chain of command and your server could get pulled from the network.
Only Ads on the homepage? I can deal with that. Doesn't sound like much of an annoyance. Give me ads while I am reading and a huge discount on ebooks, and then we will really talk. I buy the majority of my books used, and rarely pay more than a couple of bucks for a book. When I see the kindle prices of $10 a book, I laugh.
Maybe you missed the part of the article that stated what countries were actually cut off. Armenia is a country with an entire population of just 3.2 million people. Shoot, many countries have cities that have a larger population than this. Granted, this does make it a fairly densly populated area as far as former Soviet states are concerned, but its still a small, poor coutry (the GDP is just around $2,600 per person, compared to the US at $46,000 per person). Azerbaijan, who also lost some internet, is a country of about 10 million and a GDP of just $10k. In other words, the fiber laid was very likely not from a business standpoint of providing broadband to these countries. It sounds like a business laid the line between distant offices, and decided to sell off some bandwidth to help subsidize the cost (or a humanitarian effort, depending on how you look at it). In either case, there would be almost no redundancy in the line. It is probably, from a business standpoint, cheaper to send a crew out every few years to do a splice than to pay all the money up-front for redundancy. And if it was a business trying to connect outlying offices, they are probably just going to connect to the closest High-speed hub and who has it for the cheapest - probably Russia or one of the other former Soviet States. Granted, it would make sense for Armenia to get their Internet from Turkey, but, once again, this probably wasn't a government-sponsered broadband roleout or a telecom roleout, but rather just hooking into a business that already had their own fiber line laid.
Point is, in Armenia, their capital city is in the western part of the state, and probably does get broadband from Turkey, but the rest of the coutnry probably gets theirs through this line. Azerbaijan probably has redundancy, but wouldn't be surprised if this came from an Arabic country - such as Iran.
Just because many countries have redundancy doesn't mean that everyone does, and I am sure many places have fiber lines laid out by the cheapest means necessary.
Look, I am a HUGE book fan, I love the feel of paper in my hand, the sound of the pages turning, the musky smell of paper. But lets think about this for a minute.
The public library system has always worked as a loss. It uses taxpayer money to fund something that is sadly appealing to less and less Americans. Shoot, I haven't been to my library in years - not when I can buy books used for a buck off of Amazon or my local resale bookstore.
I do think that libraries are necessary for the future of this country. Its funny, we complain here on Slashdot about the RIAA and MPAA not imbracing new technologies, yet we get all upset when the library does.
Shoot, its time for the library to modernize. Smaller buildings, throw in more terminals, check out ebook readers, and switch to digital copies. The library then does not have to go through the trouble of stocking a huge selection of books, readers can find rare and out-of-print titles easier, and it significantly reduces the costs of operation.
In cities with more than one branch, the main library can still stock paper books, and people can go in there if they want the old-library feel. People at the other branches can still requests book transfers from the main library if they prefer that over the ebooks.
Look, change is going to be hard for many people, but embracing technology is not a bad thing. Bring on the ebooks, and lets reduce costs.
Seriously, did any of you even bother to read the blurb, let alone the article, or did you just read the tag? This sounds like its specifically for people who refuse to follow guidelines set out for them by medical professionls - ie - lay off the fatty foods because you are at high risk of artery disease right now, or, stop smoking 2 cartons a day, you already have a spot on your lungs. Yeah, if you are going to do something that puts you at a higher health risk, and refuse to listen to your doctor's advice, you should pay a premium.
Do people who live in flood planes not pay more for flood insurance? Do people in California not pay more for earthquake insurance? Do people who have had heart or kidney transplants not pay higher medical premiums for their healthcare? So if someone is willingly putting themselves at risk of having health problems, they should be expected to pay higher premiums as well.
I think the problem is more along the lines of ignorant politicians. The USA is not a truely democratic society - ie we do not vote on every law that comes down, but instead we are a representative democracy. You really cannot vote for someone on a certain issue of none of your candidates understands the issue. In the few cases where a political party emerges that does understand (like the Pirate Party or something), they normally only have strong convictions about technologies and copyright. While that is all important, a politician with no major party backing, who has no clear cut agendas on things such as the economy, healthcare, education, enviornment, or any of the other hot topics, is probably going to recieve little votes.
Sadly, in the way the US government is setup, about the only way that progress is going to be made is if Party leaders come out, set forth guidelines of where the party stands in matters of copyright, get current politicians behind them, and then see where the votes lead. A half-dozen Congressmen who understand copyright and technology issues are probably going to have a hard time pushing reform through Congress if the other 400 members don't even know what an iPod or an MP3 or bittorrent even is.
I second this. The ones that started in 2005, while he was the 10th doctor, seemed to be made where one could easily pick up on the show with having no previous knowledge of it. Once you get the feel of the show, start with some of the older shows. What is nice is you can kind of watch some of the older shows out of order. The Three Doctors is a good few shows, and it gives you a feel for the first few doctors. There is also a fan edit out there called the 5 Doctors, which will introduce you to a couple more.
You won't be able to start from the begining and watch every single one, don't even try. The reason for this is that the BBC has LOST many of the original episodes - either by recording over the tapes they were recorded on, or whatnot. There has been an effort the past couple of years to scour the world looking for copies of these "lost" episodes. When they do find copies, they are sometimes several generations removed from the original, and look awful. I think a few have even been recreated based on the scripts and stuff, but I have not seen any of those.
I believe there was also one doctor who only made an appearence in a Fox Made For TV movie (I believe he is considered the 9th Doctor, but I could be mistaken. Of course, a simple search on Wikipedia would tell me, but I'm too lazy this morning). I got it on VHS somewhere, but good luck finding it online or anywhere else.
I should warn you, though, that if you do venture into classic Doctor Who territory, you will find the show to be pretty different than the modern day Doctor Who and Tourchwood. The shows are generally much slower paced - with a story lasting several episodes, and the shows are so low budget, you really have to use your imagination to buy the "special effects", scenery and props. It doesn't mean they are not good, but if you have only seen the modern ones, you will probably be in for a bit of a surprise.
Where did you come up with this? Many corporations in the US block external mail sites - in fact, the one I work at does. Its quite simple - to keep proprietary and classified information from inadvertantly leaving the company. Its amazing what people think is information that can be publicly shared. Restricting webmail, and forcing everyone to use the company e-mail, cuts down on the number of leaks. Of course, you can still use your iPhone or Blackberry or Android in the office for personal stuff, the idea is that there is much less chance of someone copy and pasting, or attaching a file, that they aren't supposed to. Its not perfect, but it does have SOME effect.
Now, if private corporations are doing this, think about how much more sense it would make for a government to make this call. Quite frankly, I am surprised it took them this long to do it.
I probably have a dozen or so family members under the age of 13 on FB, and know quite a few friends whose kids are. How else are they going to play Farmville? I can't think of any of them who have posted a single picture or status update.
Thank you for stating this! I was shocked no one stated it earlier! The only way that you are saving power is if you actually have a DC generator, but that is not the case. Stupid stupid experiment - as others have said, they are just moving the conversion, and heat distribution, to another place.
Most religions do not "ban" polygamy, and some even encourage it. While I would not practice it personally, I have no issue with people who do. In fact, I am really unsure where the concept that "polygamy is bad" came from.
One thing Apple does do that many other companies don't is adapt new technologies sooner and as a result are more likely to get bit in the ass by something going wrong.
Uh, The Microsoft Network was bundled with 95, and unless I am much mistaken, did not work on older versions, meaning it was released on August 24, 1995. Internet Explorer 1 was released on August 16, 1995, but was not originally included with Windows 95, although it was in the Plus pack that many OEMs shipped with their system.
Therefore, Microsoft had already licensed and released Internet Explorer before The Microsoft Network was released on the public. (Albeit only by a week)
What, you mean that 700,000 people with their iPhones can't access a single 802.11g connection hooked up to a DSL line? I thought wireless gave you 54Mbps of bandwidth!
Slashdot Mirror
Simple - people don't want to upgrade their computers. All most people want to do is store photos, check e-mail, get on Facebook, and maybe do their taxes once a year. A single core Celeron 32-bit with a gig of ram is all the processing power these people need. Granted, their computer is 7 years old, but it does what they need it to. Why upgrade?
And I think this is pretty much the problem here - about 2004, computers got to the point where they were fast enough for most people. After that, they started adding multiple cores, 64 bit, multimedia this and that, terrabyte harddrives, and all sorts of stuff. As a Power user, I love those things. The average person just doesn't need them.
However, I think there is a valid point here. XP is 10 years old. When its finally end-of-lifed, it will be 13 years old. Where were we 13 years ago? 1.5 gig harddrives, processors were Pentium 1s at around 133Mhz, Most computers did not support more than 32 MEG of ram, and if you wanted high-speed internet, there was 64kbps ISDN or the blazingly fast Dual-Channel 128kbps ISDN line, or you could fork out a grand a month for an insanely fast 1.5Mbps T1 line.
Supporting 13 year old software is just unheard of in the software industry, and Microsoft shouldn't be expected to support it. They will be drawing no future profit from sales or support, so from a business standpoint, they have no reason to support it.
If you still have a 10-13 year old computer in 2014, and your harddrive hasn't crashed on you yet, consider yourself lucky and install a good firewall and antivirus. When it finally does crash, and you find out that your computer doesn't support SATA, suck it up and buy a new PC with the newest OS - it will probably be cheaper than getting the old one fixed.
For people buying computers with XP now, well, they are just stupid. This would be like buying a tube television with no digital tuner 2-3 years ago. Yes, they sold them, in small numbers, and you were probably warned when you bought them that there would be no analogue broadcasts in a year, yet you still bought one, and started crying when you realized you couldn't watch the 10:00 news anymore.
Get used to it. XP is dying.
Most of the documentaries that Discovery and History do make their way onto Netflix. I found out this last week that the early seasons of 17 Kids / 18 Kids / 19 Kids and Counting and Man v Food is on there. For some stupid reason, around November of last year, I signed another 2 year contract with Dish. If my roommate ever moves out, I'll just pay the cancelation fee and go just OTA broadcast / streaming. Most of what I watch are movie channels and documentaries, and if its a movie I am interested in, chances are I own it on Blu-Ray before the movie channels get it, and if its a show I am interested in, its on Hulu / Netflix / respected-shows-website.
My only recommendation comes with a couple of question first - how many streaming devices will you have, how much of a stickler are you on quality, and does your ISP have a bandwidth cap? I switched over to a 30Mbps connection about 6 months ago, because I am streaming HD stuff from Netflix / Hulu / Vudu, have multiple devices that may be streaming at once, I am an HD snob, and we like being online on the laptops while watching some television shows. So, check the ISPs in your area - I would say that a 10Mbps connection would be the minimal you would want (my old 6Mbps DSL connection barely supported one HD stream on Netflix, and would constantly lower the quality as the DSL just wasn't fast enough).
And check about bandwidth caps. Its not unusual for me to use >300 gigs a month (i have hit 600 once) between streaming, downloads, online gaming (especially if you have OnLive), surfing, tosing HD video back and forth with collegues working on a project, and so forth.
Totally agree. Everyone I know has Blu-Ray now, and are buying all their new movies on Blu-Ray - especially if they have DVDs bundled in. Most people I know, the buying of a new HDTV includes the buying of a Blu-Ray player. The issue is, people are not going to rebuy all of their movies on Blu-Ray. I have rebought several movies myself, but still have a large DVD and Laserdisc collection.
Shoot, at my local Blockbuster, a quarter of the store is dedicated to Blu-Rays, and at Best Buy, half of their movie section is Blu-Ray. Not sure where the article writter is getting his data.
Saying that Blu-Ray hasn't caught on is like saying the Mac and Linux haven't caught on. Or saying that the smart phone hasn't caught on, because a cheapy phone is still able to make phone calls and send texts.
Just because not everyone owns a Blu-Ray player does not mean that it hasn't caught on. It has - BIG time!
I never had any issues with my home wireless network until a few months ago (Cannot tell you exactly when it happened). I have had an iPhone on my wifi for a little over two years now, and got an Android back in December. I thought I just had too many devices on my network or that my router was going out. If my iPhone or Android (or both) are on, my laptop is really slow, Netflix on the Wii will stop working, and the Roku looses network connectivity. I normally curse for buying a cheap router, and just reboot the thing. Looks like its not my router that is the issue after all.
This depends on the hospital. I worked (briefly) for the IT department at a hospital. Network closets were sometimes inside of records areas, bathrooms (I kid you not), janitor closets, any place the IT department could find a few inches to install some switches. The hospital was built years before it was concievable to have a hospital-wide network. On top of that, it wouldn't be unusual to find a few square feet here and there, thrown in at random, where someone setup a few cubes, bought a dlink router, and plugged in a few computers.
On top of all of this, there were two full-time IT guys, and a contractor or two (which is what I was). And they were generally powerless to do anything about anyone who pulled a security violation. We had some departments think it was a good idea to enable peer-to-peer filesharing, a few had even setup their own servers running Windows 95 (well, they called them servers, once again, just peer-to-peer filesharing). And the IT department was absolutely powerless to do anything about it.
So, this explains why the guy didn't get fired, and why the server is still online.
So, to answer his question, Should you give the IT department root access to the server? The answer to this is based on your needs - 1) do you need them to administer the server (sounds like the answer to that is no) or 2) do you need them to provide special services. The answer to the second is yes. You need them to open up a port in a firewall, effectively opening up a security hole.
So, now the question is, why do they want root access? Well, if they are opening up a security hole, and allowing your device privilaged access to their servers, then they need to make sure there are no security vulnerabilities on it. This is much more than simply making sure your A/V software is up to date and your software is up to date. They want to make sure your firewalls are properly configured, make sure your kernel is properly patched, make sure unneeded services are turned off.
Look, you already broke protocol. Be happy you still have a job, and give them root access. If you try to take it up the chain of command, you may possibly land in with your Legal department, and then they could make life really misrable for you. Forget being fired - think fines and jail time.
Give them root access, and pray that makes the IT department happy enough that THEY don't take it up the chain of command. Face it, one of two things are going to happen here - the IT department is going to get root access, or they could take it up the chain of command and your server could get pulled from the network.
Only Ads on the homepage? I can deal with that. Doesn't sound like much of an annoyance. Give me ads while I am reading and a huge discount on ebooks, and then we will really talk. I buy the majority of my books used, and rarely pay more than a couple of bucks for a book. When I see the kindle prices of $10 a book, I laugh.
Now if only they will go back and give Nobuo Uematsu a lifetime achievement award! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy#Music
Sorry, generalizing the Area. I know better than that. Persians and Arabs are not the same.
2. It is too thick to be comfortable to type on.
Is this better? http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_VicSlim.aspx
Maybe you missed the part of the article that stated what countries were actually cut off. Armenia is a country with an entire population of just 3.2 million people. Shoot, many countries have cities that have a larger population than this. Granted, this does make it a fairly densly populated area as far as former Soviet states are concerned, but its still a small, poor coutry (the GDP is just around $2,600 per person, compared to the US at $46,000 per person). Azerbaijan, who also lost some internet, is a country of about 10 million and a GDP of just $10k. In other words, the fiber laid was very likely not from a business standpoint of providing broadband to these countries. It sounds like a business laid the line between distant offices, and decided to sell off some bandwidth to help subsidize the cost (or a humanitarian effort, depending on how you look at it). In either case, there would be almost no redundancy in the line. It is probably, from a business standpoint, cheaper to send a crew out every few years to do a splice than to pay all the money up-front for redundancy. And if it was a business trying to connect outlying offices, they are probably just going to connect to the closest High-speed hub and who has it for the cheapest - probably Russia or one of the other former Soviet States. Granted, it would make sense for Armenia to get their Internet from Turkey, but, once again, this probably wasn't a government-sponsered broadband roleout or a telecom roleout, but rather just hooking into a business that already had their own fiber line laid.
Point is, in Armenia, their capital city is in the western part of the state, and probably does get broadband from Turkey, but the rest of the coutnry probably gets theirs through this line. Azerbaijan probably has redundancy, but wouldn't be surprised if this came from an Arabic country - such as Iran.
Just because many countries have redundancy doesn't mean that everyone does, and I am sure many places have fiber lines laid out by the cheapest means necessary.
This is actually not a bad idea
Look, I am a HUGE book fan, I love the feel of paper in my hand, the sound of the pages turning, the musky smell of paper. But lets think about this for a minute.
The public library system has always worked as a loss. It uses taxpayer money to fund something that is sadly appealing to less and less Americans. Shoot, I haven't been to my library in years - not when I can buy books used for a buck off of Amazon or my local resale bookstore.
I do think that libraries are necessary for the future of this country. Its funny, we complain here on Slashdot about the RIAA and MPAA not imbracing new technologies, yet we get all upset when the library does.
Shoot, its time for the library to modernize. Smaller buildings, throw in more terminals, check out ebook readers, and switch to digital copies. The library then does not have to go through the trouble of stocking a huge selection of books, readers can find rare and out-of-print titles easier, and it significantly reduces the costs of operation.
In cities with more than one branch, the main library can still stock paper books, and people can go in there if they want the old-library feel. People at the other branches can still requests book transfers from the main library if they prefer that over the ebooks.
Look, change is going to be hard for many people, but embracing technology is not a bad thing. Bring on the ebooks, and lets reduce costs.
Seriously, did any of you even bother to read the blurb, let alone the article, or did you just read the tag? This sounds like its specifically for people who refuse to follow guidelines set out for them by medical professionls - ie - lay off the fatty foods because you are at high risk of artery disease right now, or, stop smoking 2 cartons a day, you already have a spot on your lungs. Yeah, if you are going to do something that puts you at a higher health risk, and refuse to listen to your doctor's advice, you should pay a premium.
Do people who live in flood planes not pay more for flood insurance? Do people in California not pay more for earthquake insurance? Do people who have had heart or kidney transplants not pay higher medical premiums for their healthcare? So if someone is willingly putting themselves at risk of having health problems, they should be expected to pay higher premiums as well.
Gosh, a bunch of idiots on Slashdot today!
I think the problem is more along the lines of ignorant politicians. The USA is not a truely democratic society - ie we do not vote on every law that comes down, but instead we are a representative democracy. You really cannot vote for someone on a certain issue of none of your candidates understands the issue. In the few cases where a political party emerges that does understand (like the Pirate Party or something), they normally only have strong convictions about technologies and copyright. While that is all important, a politician with no major party backing, who has no clear cut agendas on things such as the economy, healthcare, education, enviornment, or any of the other hot topics, is probably going to recieve little votes.
Sadly, in the way the US government is setup, about the only way that progress is going to be made is if Party leaders come out, set forth guidelines of where the party stands in matters of copyright, get current politicians behind them, and then see where the votes lead. A half-dozen Congressmen who understand copyright and technology issues are probably going to have a hard time pushing reform through Congress if the other 400 members don't even know what an iPod or an MP3 or bittorrent even is.
PS - If you really want to get a feel for the show without delving too far into it, check out The Specials - http://www.amazon.com/Doctor-Who-Complete-Specials-Blu-ray/dp/B002ZHKZEC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301054662&sr=8-1 The stories there are generally self-contained, and require no previous knowledge of the show to Enjoy. The boxed set does NOT include the 2010 Christmas special - http://www.amazon.com/Doctor-Who-Christmas-Carol-Blu-ray/dp/B004FUYSUO/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1301054713&sr=8-5 - Just a warning, while the 2010 special is FUN, its a bit on the corny side. However, you do have an AMAZING vocalist in it!
I second this. The ones that started in 2005, while he was the 10th doctor, seemed to be made where one could easily pick up on the show with having no previous knowledge of it. Once you get the feel of the show, start with some of the older shows. What is nice is you can kind of watch some of the older shows out of order. The Three Doctors is a good few shows, and it gives you a feel for the first few doctors. There is also a fan edit out there called the 5 Doctors, which will introduce you to a couple more.
You won't be able to start from the begining and watch every single one, don't even try. The reason for this is that the BBC has LOST many of the original episodes - either by recording over the tapes they were recorded on, or whatnot. There has been an effort the past couple of years to scour the world looking for copies of these "lost" episodes. When they do find copies, they are sometimes several generations removed from the original, and look awful. I think a few have even been recreated based on the scripts and stuff, but I have not seen any of those.
I believe there was also one doctor who only made an appearence in a Fox Made For TV movie (I believe he is considered the 9th Doctor, but I could be mistaken. Of course, a simple search on Wikipedia would tell me, but I'm too lazy this morning). I got it on VHS somewhere, but good luck finding it online or anywhere else.
I should warn you, though, that if you do venture into classic Doctor Who territory, you will find the show to be pretty different than the modern day Doctor Who and Tourchwood. The shows are generally much slower paced - with a story lasting several episodes, and the shows are so low budget, you really have to use your imagination to buy the "special effects", scenery and props. It doesn't mean they are not good, but if you have only seen the modern ones, you will probably be in for a bit of a surprise.
"there are over 190 countries on the WORLD WIDE web each with their own mail sites, I doubt that even 10% are blocked."
Like China? Libia? Iran? Iraq? Egypt? Afghanastain? Russia? North Korea? Vietnam? Venezuela?
Where did you come up with this? Many corporations in the US block external mail sites - in fact, the one I work at does. Its quite simple - to keep proprietary and classified information from inadvertantly leaving the company. Its amazing what people think is information that can be publicly shared. Restricting webmail, and forcing everyone to use the company e-mail, cuts down on the number of leaks. Of course, you can still use your iPhone or Blackberry or Android in the office for personal stuff, the idea is that there is much less chance of someone copy and pasting, or attaching a file, that they aren't supposed to. Its not perfect, but it does have SOME effect.
Now, if private corporations are doing this, think about how much more sense it would make for a government to make this call. Quite frankly, I am surprised it took them this long to do it.
I probably have a dozen or so family members under the age of 13 on FB, and know quite a few friends whose kids are. How else are they going to play Farmville? I can't think of any of them who have posted a single picture or status update.
Thank you for stating this! I was shocked no one stated it earlier! The only way that you are saving power is if you actually have a DC generator, but that is not the case. Stupid stupid experiment - as others have said, they are just moving the conversion, and heat distribution, to another place.
Most religions do not "ban" polygamy, and some even encourage it. While I would not practice it personally, I have no issue with people who do. In fact, I am really unsure where the concept that "polygamy is bad" came from.
One thing Apple does do that many other companies don't is adapt new technologies sooner and as a result are more likely to get bit in the ass by something going wrong.
:COUGH:Blu-Ray!
Uh, The Microsoft Network was bundled with 95, and unless I am much mistaken, did not work on older versions, meaning it was released on August 24, 1995. Internet Explorer 1 was released on August 16, 1995, but was not originally included with Windows 95, although it was in the Plus pack that many OEMs shipped with their system.
Therefore, Microsoft had already licensed and released Internet Explorer before The Microsoft Network was released on the public. (Albeit only by a week)
ur cmmnt is 2 lng. Plz post utube vid.
Wait, did you just post Bing search results on a Microsoft-bashing site? If I had mod points....
What, you mean that 700,000 people with their iPhones can't access a single 802.11g connection hooked up to a DSL line? I thought wireless gave you 54Mbps of bandwidth!