I've been a NetBank Customer for almost three years now, and only problems I've ever had using it since I started using Mozilla (well since it had working encryption) were issues with Mozilla itself; almost all of which have been fixed.
Now if only the pages would actually be seen as finished loading. Not a big issue, but it bugs me.
Great bank though... wonderful support; not just their website, but all around. A bank where you can reach a human, on the phone, any time of the day, any day of the week. That just rocks. (I'm still under thirty, I can say that without sounding pathetic... really, I mean it. *grin*)
You're thinking of Majestic. It paused on Sept. 11, 01 for a while (a bad move in my opinion, but a lot of people thought otherwise), but then picked back up for a few months.
It did eventually fail, most likely because they ruined it from the start. EA tried to make the game accessable to a large cross section of people, and ended up making it unplayable to most. They had a lot of good ideas which they 'dumbed down' in order to make it possible for 'everyone' to figure out. What they managed to do was make the puzzles far too easy for the more savvy players, and still too hard for the 'average player'.
Should be interesting to see if this new attempt can get it right.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say 80%, I would have to agree that as a whole Windows isn't all that bad on the desktop, assuming a user that doesn't expect the system to just take care of itself.
I ran 95b on a mismatched mix of hardware (some of which was made before 95a was released) for a number of years, and only did a total of four installs. The first after switching the system from FreeBSD 2.8, the next after my sister got a hold of it for a month while I was off traveling, once more after a piece of software used the registry like it were a chew toy, and then lastly when swapping out the motherboard, and CPU. That system, with daily usage of 10+ hours, had a minimum uptime of two weeks, and would frequently go over one month.
That same machine then took on new life as a NT4 workstation, which it lived as for almost two years with the same install, and minimum one month uptimes, had hit 6 months, then had a power failure (have since put UPS units on all my hardware).
That machine went through a 2000 upgrade with no hassles, and has lived it's life as such now for closing on a year, and has only been rebooted (not counting a fight with a java applet, which I eventually gave in to) a total of three times, all of which do to hardware upgrades.
In contrast, my father's 95b system has gone through more reinstalls than I can count (and I'm the one that did them all), blue screens constantly, and unlike the machine I was running 95b on, it was all 'new' MS approved hardware. The man simply has no concept of maintenance. He, as most home users, expect the system to just work regardless of how much they mistreat it.
So, while I will most certainly agree that Windows leaves a lot to be desired in the way of stability (especially 9x/ME), it is MUCH more stable in the hands of someone that puts just a little effort into keeping it running. I'm not talking about hours of work a month, just simple preventative maintenance; like keeping up with, and removing unused software, checking that what you're about to install is meant to be installed on your particular setup, ect... the same sorts of things the average person would do (or have done) to their car, but can't be bothered to do to their computers.
hmmm, well I think I'm dangerously close to straying off my own topic, so I'll just let it be at that. My rant is over, for the moment.
(I must remember to never post after the end of an overnight shift.)
One of my first cats, Tabitha (she picked the name not I, and responded to it) understood English very well, and spoke a bit also. Her best word was my name... she'd wander about the house calling out Jody, which sounded more like jawwdy; then get extreamly pissed upon finding out I was just sitting around listening to her, and not have a thing to do with me for hours.
Was that post miss placed?
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure if your post was ment to be a reply to mine or not. If it was I must say I'm confused, for I didn't say anything sarcastic, or mean for that matter. Where as if it wasn't ment to be a reply to mine then for which post was it ment?
It's not just paranoia, it's life.
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 1
Subversive? It's down right evil! Or so says anyone in authority.
If you aren't part of the group they can't control you. Sort of like cult mentality on a global and socially acceptable scale.
A person distent is no less a person
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 1
Not fully a person? Perhaps to you, and I know others that feel that way; and it disgusts me to be completely honest. A person is a person weither they are across the room or across the planet. How I communicate with someone does not change how I view their existence. As for your question, it would be eaiser for me to break up in person. You likely won't believe me, but it is the truth. I prefer to be as 'close' to a person as possible. Unfortunitly face to face, or even over the phone isn't always (and in my life usually isn't) an option. My long time girlfriend and I broke up not too long ago. She is in NY and I stuck in VA. We talk daily via IRC, and the night that it happened I knew it was coming, I could feel it... and by my choice I called her. If it could have been possible I would have flew up to see her. Yes I would have taken a plane to NY to have been face to face with her when she told me that she cared about me, but at this point wanted to just be my friend, if I could have. Thanks to the fact we can communicate without being face to face she and I have been able to remain in contact with much less awkwardness than we would have otherwise had. I may have lost my girlfriend, but I retained the best friend I've ever had.
Re:I have net friends whom I've never physically s
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 1
There's lots to be said for physical contact, and if you can get it it's wonderful. Not all of us can; at least not in the way we would want. Though some of us can't at all.
Sure, I could go hang out at some bar or night club, but what would I really end up doing? Sitting by myself in a room full of people that I don't know who are taking part in an activity which not only do I not take part in, but dislike being around others when they do. That is drinking (alcohol). Why should I spend time somewhere I don't want to be, around people I don't want to be around, and in effect end up feeling very lonely and isolated when I could be at home in a place I feel comfortable, and 'spend time with' people I enjoy the company of. Sure they may be in another state or even another country, but I like them, and I enjoy my time communicating with them.
Re:Depends on the person.
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 1
Sorry to make what is actually the very first post I've ever made on/. a 'me too' post, but as others have said, I couldn't have worded this better myself.
Since my days in high school most all of my socialization was done via computer. BBSes were responsible for all of the conversations I had that were deeper than "how's the weather?". They also made available to me more information than any school text book. After high school I went to a technical collage to get my associates degree in CS, and was the youngest person there, period. Socializing with those I went to classes with was rather difficult because they usually went out to bars. Not that I would have drank if I could, but it did serve to alienate me even more. Again BBSes brought me together with other people who thought like I did. It also allowed me to actually spend time with these people in the same place (like 'normal people' do). Then I gained internet access when I went to work for an ISP, which resulted in my gaining a much wider base of friends, and afforded me the opportunity to travel across the US (and soon outside of it), and have people to hang out with when I got there.
While I may not be in the majority of net users (though again I may), I am obviously not the only one like myself. To look at the net as a source of alienation is short sighted and in my opinion nothing more than FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been a NetBank Customer for almost three years now, and only problems I've ever had using it since I started using Mozilla (well since it had working encryption) were issues with Mozilla itself; almost all of which have been fixed.
Now if only the pages would actually be seen as finished loading. Not a big issue, but it bugs me.
Great bank though... wonderful support; not just their website, but all around. A bank where you can reach a human, on the phone, any time of the day, any day of the week. That just rocks. (I'm still under thirty, I can say that without sounding pathetic... really, I mean it. *grin*)
You're thinking of Majestic. It paused on Sept. 11, 01 for a while (a bad move in my opinion, but a lot of people thought otherwise), but then picked back up for a few months.
It did eventually fail, most likely because they ruined it from the start. EA tried to make the game accessable to a large cross section of people, and ended up making it unplayable to most. They had a lot of good ideas which they 'dumbed down' in order to make it possible for 'everyone' to figure out. What they managed to do was make the puzzles far too easy for the more savvy players, and still too hard for the 'average player'.
Should be interesting to see if this new attempt can get it right.
Until now, that is. *smirk*
While I wouldn't go so far as to say 80%, I would have to agree that as a whole Windows isn't all that bad on the desktop, assuming a user that doesn't expect the system to just take care of itself.
I ran 95b on a mismatched mix of hardware (some of which was made before 95a was released) for a number of years, and only did a total of four installs. The first after switching the system from FreeBSD 2.8, the next after my sister got a hold of it for a month while I was off traveling, once more after a piece of software used the registry like it were a chew toy, and then lastly when swapping out the motherboard, and CPU. That system, with daily usage of 10+ hours, had a minimum uptime of two weeks, and would frequently go over one month.
That same machine then took on new life as a NT4 workstation, which it lived as for almost two years with the same install, and minimum one month uptimes, had hit 6 months, then had a power failure (have since put UPS units on all my hardware).
That machine went through a 2000 upgrade with no hassles, and has lived it's life as such now for closing on a year, and has only been rebooted (not counting a fight with a java applet, which I eventually gave in to) a total of three times, all of which do to hardware upgrades.
In contrast, my father's 95b system has gone through more reinstalls than I can count (and I'm the one that did them all), blue screens constantly, and unlike the machine I was running 95b on, it was all 'new' MS approved hardware. The man simply has no concept of maintenance. He, as most home users, expect the system to just work regardless of how much they mistreat it.
So, while I will most certainly agree that Windows leaves a lot to be desired in the way of stability (especially 9x/ME), it is MUCH more stable in the hands of someone that puts just a little effort into keeping it running. I'm not talking about hours of work a month, just simple preventative maintenance; like keeping up with, and removing unused software, checking that what you're about to install is meant to be installed on your particular setup, ect... the same sorts of things the average person would do (or have done) to their car, but can't be bothered to do to their computers.
hmmm, well I think I'm dangerously close to straying off my own topic, so I'll just let it be at that. My rant is over, for the moment.
(I must remember to never post after the end of an overnight shift.)
I've the misfortune of not getting it at all. Perhaps it will end up not being anything worth worrying over, but I'll never get to find out.
Perhaps we're all supposed to be 'quiet Eurotrash'?
I'm certainly quiet, and am often mistaken for being British... hmmm.
One of my first cats, Tabitha (she picked the name not I, and responded to it) understood English very well, and spoke a bit also. Her best word was my name... she'd wander about the house calling out Jody, which sounded more like jawwdy; then get extreamly pissed upon finding out I was just sitting around listening to her, and not have a thing to do with me for hours.
I'm not sure if your post was ment to be a reply to mine or not. If it was I must say I'm confused, for I didn't say anything sarcastic, or mean for that matter. Where as if it wasn't ment to be a reply to mine then for which post was it ment?
Subversive? It's down right evil! Or so says anyone in authority.
If you aren't part of the group they can't control you. Sort of like cult mentality on a global and socially acceptable scale.
Not fully a person? Perhaps to you, and I know others that feel that way; and it disgusts me to be completely honest. A person is a person weither they are across the room or across the planet. How I communicate with someone does not change how I view their existence. As for your question, it would be eaiser for me to break up in person. You likely won't believe me, but it is the truth. I prefer to be as 'close' to a person as possible. Unfortunitly face to face, or even over the phone isn't always (and in my life usually isn't) an option. My long time girlfriend and I broke up not too long ago. She is in NY and I stuck in VA. We talk daily via IRC, and the night that it happened I knew it was coming, I could feel it... and by my choice I called her. If it could have been possible I would have flew up to see her. Yes I would have taken a plane to NY to have been face to face with her when she told me that she cared about me, but at this point wanted to just be my friend, if I could have. Thanks to the fact we can communicate without being face to face she and I have been able to remain in contact with much less awkwardness than we would have otherwise had. I may have lost my girlfriend, but I retained the best friend I've ever had.
There's lots to be said for physical contact, and if you can get it it's wonderful. Not all of us can; at least not in the way we would want. Though some of us can't at all.
Sure, I could go hang out at some bar or night club, but what would I really end up doing? Sitting by myself in a room full of people that I don't know who are taking part in an activity which not only do I not take part in, but dislike being around others when they do. That is drinking (alcohol). Why should I spend time somewhere I don't want to be, around people I don't want to be around, and in effect end up feeling very lonely and isolated when I could be at home in a place I feel comfortable, and 'spend time with' people I enjoy the company of. Sure they may be in another state or even another country, but I like them, and I enjoy my time communicating with them.
Sorry to make what is actually the very first post I've ever made on /. a 'me too' post, but as others have said, I couldn't have worded this better myself.
Since my days in high school most all of my socialization was done via computer. BBSes were responsible for all of the conversations I had that were deeper than "how's the weather?". They also made available to me more information than any school text book. After high school I went to a technical collage to get my associates degree in CS, and was the youngest person there, period. Socializing with those I went to classes with was rather difficult because they usually went out to bars. Not that I would have drank if I could, but it did serve to alienate me even more. Again BBSes brought me together with other people who thought like I did. It also allowed me to actually spend time with these people in the same place (like 'normal people' do). Then I gained internet access when I went to work for an ISP, which resulted in my gaining a much wider base of friends, and afforded me the opportunity to travel across the US (and soon outside of it), and have people to hang out with when I got there.
While I may not be in the majority of net users (though again I may), I am obviously not the only one like myself. To look at the net as a source of alienation is short sighted and in my opinion nothing more than FUD.