One of the servers I play on frequently uses CSGuard, and I have not seen any problems with it at all. I think the steps that the Counter-Strike/Half-Life developers have taken lately, such as how now when a server starts up it connects to them and receives the latest cheat protection, etc. It's not perfect, but I've been playing on quite a few random servers lately and cheating seems to have gone down a bit.
I've found I have more fun playing on a server I know well, and usually there are admins around to keep things in check if some nutcase does get in there.
Where is the incentive to invest in infrastructure going to come from? Once you have a service that "works" and are facing no competition, why upgrade? Why waste your cash reserves on making life better for your captive audience when you could be working on expanding your audience.
This kind of reminds me of Ameritech's excuse for wanting to keep people out of the market in Indianapolis. They feel that other companies should have to invest in infrastructure and not be able to use what Ameritech already has in place. Of course, this creates a huge barrier to entry into the market, thus leaving Ameritech to continue with their poor services.
This past week there was an interesting protest by Ameritech employees during lunch hour that really screwed up traffic downtown. They drove around in their trucks and blocked traffic and people marches with signs; but they were protesting because they say that forcing them to open their networks to competition would: Raise prices to consumers by 40% (ha!), and result in some 5,000 people losing their jobs.
I don't quite understand how it is going to cost me 40% more if they have competition, and I believe said competition will need plenty of employees as well. If they lose 5,000 people it's because everyone will switch services when they realize how much Ameritech has been ripping them off. Like when they charge me $60 each time I move for 'setup' fees, and how they can take 4 weeks to set up anything.
They might call it a privilege, but it is pretty much treated as a right. It is VERY easy to obtain a driver's license in the US, especially when an irresponsible 16 year old can get a license, or a blind 70 year old can.
Also, many people drive unlicensed, and serious moving violations don't do much to keep people off roads (i.e. repeat drunk drivers)
I realize many 16 year olds are responsible, but I was once a crazy 16 year old who would frequently try to find out what the governor was set to on every car his family owned, and have racked up about $1000 worth of tickets in the past 4 years of driving (but no accidents!).
For some reason I see big cities as more likely targets than bridges. They've gotten along pretty well without the bridge thus far, knocking it out is only going to be a financial set back in terms of what it cost to build it and replace it.
Of course, the only solution to avoid building giant targets for people who hate you is to make everyone live and work in rural communities with at least a square mile in between everyone. Uhm yeah sure. Living in fear is not very desirable.
Appearance does not have to me how look. I think you just kind of misunderstood what I meant. Appearance, as in how others form their opinion of you, and how they 'view' you. I wasn't speaking necessarily visually. I'll try to be a little clearer next time. How you appear isn't always how you look. Make sense? Basically the same thing you said...
Don't forget the additional security afforded by professionalism.
Care to explain that one to me? Professionalism is an appearance, and has nothing to do with actual security. I would liken professionalism with obscurity, because you can hide something better from people. Just because you made it hard or difficult doesn't mean it is impossible or secure. Look at the XBox hack. I'm sure they were pretty convinced that was secure.
I bet George Lucas just can't sit still when goes to plays and actually has to use his brain to figure out what it really it would have looked like? Sets are backdrops that assist in telling stories and sometimes spark your imagination to complete them, etc. They shouldn't be the only thing that tells the story except maybe for a pretty IMAX movie.
It's funny how libraries are rarely attacked, because the industry probably knows that if they did that, there's no way they could get their agenda through. Libraries offer more than books, most offer videos, cds, dvds, magazines, etc. for to people to borrow for free.
I'm glad that libraries are more protected that most places; especially with that required censorship bill being shot down a few days ago. (Although it will probably show up in the Supreme Court).
Without libraries I would have never learned how to code or read 1/2 the books I read. Many of which I now own, because they were such good books I wanted to be able to read them again and share them with other people such as my family or kids someday.
Well, Microsoft probably has one of the best worker environments. I'm sure we've all heard how great it is, everyone gets their own office with a window, and put whatever they want to in it; not to mention everything else on their campus. I'm sure that works to their advantage. Just having your own office + window probably boosts productivity enough to be worth it.
'push them up' sounds like increase the allowed emissions, not decrease. Does any else understand what was really meant by that statement? If you read the article it is rather confusing.
Yeah, all the talked about at the truck plant I worked at was quality quality quality. I'm not sure who keeps track of the numbers, but even mistakes that are corrected before vehicles leave the factory are counted and considered part of 'quality' (Obviously they effect cost). Anyway, I agree, the electronics industry seems to be leaning towards producing as much as possible without QA. I think it noticed more, because individual people are buying more and more electronics, and therefore more likely to encounter a faulty product. Whereas, if all you ever bought was 1 tv and a microwave, the chances of them being defective are slim. When you've got tons of computers and other stuff, the chances you'll get a defective product go up; regardless of the actual percentage of defective products that shipped.
I think this is true with just about any product. Electrical devices are probably even more susceciptible to defects/damages during processing. For example: We had an iPaq at my place of employment that worked fine for about a week, and then the screen went dead. It would come on, then fade out and disappear, no matter what we did we couldn't fix it; ended up having to get it replaced under warranty.
The same is true with other products, such as vehicles. Any given vehicle may actually be repaired or have parts replaced, etc. many times before it leaves the assembly line, and even while it is out in the lot at the factory. The auto industry, or at least the factory where I worked seemed to have a much better way of dealing with this; and defects found after leaving manufacturing were at a minimum.
Maybe the electronics industry just needs to rehaul some manufacturing processes and defect detection and correction. I've had my share of bad motherboards, monitors, and other parts to deal with it. The cost to them in repairs must be pretty high. Although, it would be nice if they would pick up shipping costs at more places for warranty work. I don't have to pay anything at all except price in gas to get my car to the dealer to get it fixed; why should I pay to ship back a defective product to get it replaced?
More about your last statement: That seems to push towards a funny area. Should we outlaw people on welfare from having babies because that harms the rest of us, and costs us money? It's a tough issue because of how it affects. 'Society' doesn't necessarily pay for medical care if I get in a car accident. My insurance company will, which my employer provides, so it will probably cost my employer money, etc, etc. But then you have to think, maybe I saved you money by getting in that car accident and dying, instead of living a full life and contracting a serious disease that costs millions and millions to take care of instead?
I don't think there is any clear cut way to approach the issue, it's just that seatbelt laws are so rarely considered controversial that when someone mentions it people are like "duh, seatbelts save lives, so who cares if they make you wear it or not", to which I say, what comes next? Eating healthy saves lives. Will I get a tick for eating a snickers, or something with a little too much grease and fat? In each case I cause physical harm to myself, not to mention if I smoke or drink, etc. That physical harm, in turn ends up costing other people a lot of money. I think smoking should be the first to go; since it does directly cause physical harm to others. Anyway, it kinda opens an ugly can of worms.
Oh my you are silly. The point isn't to do what they want, you simply remove the environment that allowed for them to exist in the first place. That environment is a direct result of our involvement in conflicts in the Middle East and other such things. Pushing our agenda in other parts of the world that don't like it, tends to piss people off enough that they will do crazy things. It's not appeasement, it's doing the right thing in the first place.
Your statement also doesn't make sense, since what they "want" is all of us dead. I don't see many ways to go about that without killing people.
Your taxes are more likely to pay for healthcare for smokers than for people not wearing seatbelts. Since smokers are a little older, a lot of them on medicare, etc., they are quite a drain on tax dollars. There's also this thing called second hand smoke, which means it is harmful to many other people than yourself. A public smoking ban is much more justified than requiring me to wear my seatbelt. It is the government's job to protect us from each other, but not to protect us from ourselves. That's our job.
The larger burden from people not wearing seatbelts is probably on insurance than taxes; but that's a different story all together.
From the same site, you see here: http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christi anity that only 1 billion are catholic, about 400 million Protestant, 300 million other, 200 million orthodox, and 70 million anglican.
I think that seatbelt laws are better example than Marijuana, but it's all the same thing. The wrong thing is being attacked. Same goes for the "War on Terror". We're attacking the end result of some serious problems. 'Terrorists' would not exist if it wasn't for crappy foreign policy that pisses people off. Killing the terrorists (which is what the war on terror is) doesn't do anything but kill people and piss them off more.
Same goes for seatbelts, we write tickets to people for not wearing seatbelts, instead of convincing people at a young age that wearing seatbelts and protecting your own life is a good idea, but that because in this country (the United States), and many others, you are free to do as you wish as long as it doesn't harm OTHERS, then you don't have to wear your seatbelt if you don't want to, but it is a good idea.
it doesn't count attempted posts, at least not for me, just wait 2 minutes and resend the form data (hit refresh, then 'YES' or 'POST' or whatever your browser asks you.) If you're real desperate, you can keep hitting refresh-enter until it accepts your post. But the counter doesn't start over for me.
I had a serious rotator cuff injury a few years ago from swimming. Sucked majorly, but physical therapy feels good, especially when the person helping you looks so nice.
I'm not quite sure how bad such an injury would effect a soccer player, but obviously this is limited to soccer.
Then you become reliant on the connection to the Internet. If that connection is lost, and you need access to resources that are there, what do you do? You also have to trust the remote server with your data. You have to trust every person that has physical access to the place where your data is stored. I would much prefer keeping my data somewhere close by, preferrable right by my feet or in my closet.
The punishment is that voters should pay attention to what laws their representatives voted for and if they voted for dumb useless laws, then don't vote for that person. It seems re-election is the most important thing to many politicans, take that away and you've punished them plenty.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the servers I play on frequently uses CSGuard, and I have not seen any problems with it at all. I think the steps that the Counter-Strike/Half-Life developers have taken lately, such as how now when a server starts up it connects to them and receives the latest cheat protection, etc. It's not perfect, but I've been playing on quite a few random servers lately and cheating seems to have gone down a bit.
I've found I have more fun playing on a server I know well, and usually there are admins around to keep things in check if some nutcase does get in there.
Where is the incentive to invest in infrastructure going to come from? Once you have a service that "works" and are facing no competition, why upgrade? Why waste your cash reserves on making life better for your captive audience when you could be working on expanding your audience.
This kind of reminds me of Ameritech's excuse for wanting to keep people out of the market in Indianapolis. They feel that other companies should have to invest in infrastructure and not be able to use what Ameritech already has in place. Of course, this creates a huge barrier to entry into the market, thus leaving Ameritech to continue with their poor services.
This past week there was an interesting protest by Ameritech employees during lunch hour that really screwed up traffic downtown. They drove around in their trucks and blocked traffic and people marches with signs; but they were protesting because they say that forcing them to open their networks to competition would: Raise prices to consumers by 40% (ha!), and result in some 5,000 people losing their jobs.
I don't quite understand how it is going to cost me 40% more if they have competition, and I believe said competition will need plenty of employees as well. If they lose 5,000 people it's because everyone will switch services when they realize how much Ameritech has been ripping them off. Like when they charge me $60 each time I move for 'setup' fees, and how they can take 4 weeks to set up anything.
They might call it a privilege, but it is pretty much treated as a right. It is VERY easy to obtain a driver's license in the US, especially when an irresponsible 16 year old can get a license, or a blind 70 year old can.
Also, many people drive unlicensed, and serious moving violations don't do much to keep people off roads (i.e. repeat drunk drivers)
I realize many 16 year olds are responsible, but I was once a crazy 16 year old who would frequently try to find out what the governor was set to on every car his family owned, and have racked up about $1000 worth of tickets in the past 4 years of driving (but no accidents!).
Heh, same here. Then I realized it was 'sicilian' and had visions of a giant bridge made out of pizza. Go figure.
For some reason I see big cities as more likely targets than bridges. They've gotten along pretty well without the bridge thus far, knocking it out is only going to be a financial set back in terms of what it cost to build it and replace it.
Of course, the only solution to avoid building giant targets for people who hate you is to make everyone live and work in rural communities with at least a square mile in between everyone. Uhm yeah sure. Living in fear is not very desirable.
Making a cast of his hand would probably be the way to go. Accurate enough and the family probably won't object to it.
Appearance does not have to me how look. I think you just kind of misunderstood what I meant. Appearance, as in how others form their opinion of you, and how they 'view' you. I wasn't speaking necessarily visually. I'll try to be a little clearer next time. How you appear isn't always how you look. Make sense? Basically the same thing you said...
Don't forget the additional security afforded by professionalism.
Care to explain that one to me? Professionalism is an appearance, and has nothing to do with actual security. I would liken professionalism with obscurity, because you can hide something better from people. Just because you made it hard or difficult doesn't mean it is impossible or secure. Look at the XBox hack. I'm sure they were pretty convinced that was secure.
I bet George Lucas just can't sit still when goes to plays and actually has to use his brain to figure out what it really it would have looked like? Sets are backdrops that assist in telling stories and sometimes spark your imagination to complete them, etc. They shouldn't be the only thing that tells the story except maybe for a pretty IMAX movie.
I assume this is just the service in Texas, I have RoadRunner in Indianapolis, no cable TV, and pay nothing extra because of it or for anything else.
It's funny how libraries are rarely attacked, because the industry probably knows that if they did that, there's no way they could get their agenda through. Libraries offer more than books, most offer videos, cds, dvds, magazines, etc. for to people to borrow for free.
I'm glad that libraries are more protected that most places; especially with that required censorship bill being shot down a few days ago. (Although it will probably show up in the Supreme Court).
Without libraries I would have never learned how to code or read 1/2 the books I read. Many of which I now own, because they were such good books I wanted to be able to read them again and share them with other people such as my family or kids someday.
Well, Microsoft probably has one of the best worker environments. I'm sure we've all heard how great it is, everyone gets their own office with a window, and put whatever they want to in it; not to mention everything else on their campus. I'm sure that works to their advantage. Just having your own office + window probably boosts productivity enough to be worth it.
'push them up' sounds like increase the allowed emissions, not decrease. Does any else understand what was really meant by that statement? If you read the article it is rather confusing.
Yeah, all the talked about at the truck plant I worked at was quality quality quality. I'm not sure who keeps track of the numbers, but even mistakes that are corrected before vehicles leave the factory are counted and considered part of 'quality' (Obviously they effect cost). Anyway, I agree, the electronics industry seems to be leaning towards producing as much as possible without QA. I think it noticed more, because individual people are buying more and more electronics, and therefore more likely to encounter a faulty product. Whereas, if all you ever bought was 1 tv and a microwave, the chances of them being defective are slim. When you've got tons of computers and other stuff, the chances you'll get a defective product go up; regardless of the actual percentage of defective products that shipped.
I think this is true with just about any product. Electrical devices are probably even more susceciptible to defects/damages during processing. For example: We had an iPaq at my place of employment that worked fine for about a week, and then the screen went dead. It would come on, then fade out and disappear, no matter what we did we couldn't fix it; ended up having to get it replaced under warranty.
The same is true with other products, such as vehicles. Any given vehicle may actually be repaired or have parts replaced, etc. many times before it leaves the assembly line, and even while it is out in the lot at the factory. The auto industry, or at least the factory where I worked seemed to have a much better way of dealing with this; and defects found after leaving manufacturing were at a minimum.
Maybe the electronics industry just needs to rehaul some manufacturing processes and defect detection and correction. I've had my share of bad motherboards, monitors, and other parts to deal with it. The cost to them in repairs must be pretty high. Although, it would be nice if they would pick up shipping costs at more places for warranty work. I don't have to pay anything at all except price in gas to get my car to the dealer to get it fixed; why should I pay to ship back a defective product to get it replaced?
That's a 'ticket' for eating snickers, unless you're in a heavily wooded area, then you might get a tick.
More about your last statement: That seems to push towards a funny area. Should we outlaw people on welfare from having babies because that harms the rest of us, and costs us money? It's a tough issue because of how it affects. 'Society' doesn't necessarily pay for medical care if I get in a car accident. My insurance company will, which my employer provides, so it will probably cost my employer money, etc, etc. But then you have to think, maybe I saved you money by getting in that car accident and dying, instead of living a full life and contracting a serious disease that costs millions and millions to take care of instead?
I don't think there is any clear cut way to approach the issue, it's just that seatbelt laws are so rarely considered controversial that when someone mentions it people are like "duh, seatbelts save lives, so who cares if they make you wear it or not", to which I say, what comes next? Eating healthy saves lives. Will I get a tick for eating a snickers, or something with a little too much grease and fat? In each case I cause physical harm to myself, not to mention if I smoke or drink, etc. That physical harm, in turn ends up costing other people a lot of money. I think smoking should be the first to go; since it does directly cause physical harm to others. Anyway, it kinda opens an ugly can of worms.
Oh my you are silly. The point isn't to do what they want, you simply remove the environment that allowed for them to exist in the first place. That environment is a direct result of our involvement in conflicts in the Middle East and other such things. Pushing our agenda in other parts of the world that don't like it, tends to piss people off enough that they will do crazy things. It's not appeasement, it's doing the right thing in the first place.
Your statement also doesn't make sense, since what they "want" is all of us dead. I don't see many ways to go about that without killing people.
Your taxes are more likely to pay for healthcare for smokers than for people not wearing seatbelts. Since smokers are a little older, a lot of them on medicare, etc., they are quite a drain on tax dollars. There's also this thing called second hand smoke, which means it is harmful to many other people than yourself. A public smoking ban is much more justified than requiring me to wear my seatbelt. It is the government's job to protect us from each other, but not to protect us from ourselves. That's our job.
The larger burden from people not wearing seatbelts is probably on insurance than taxes; but that's a different story all together.
From the same site, you see here: http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christi anity that only 1 billion are catholic, about 400 million Protestant, 300 million other, 200 million orthodox, and 70 million anglican.
I think that seatbelt laws are better example than Marijuana, but it's all the same thing. The wrong thing is being attacked. Same goes for the "War on Terror". We're attacking the end result of some serious problems. 'Terrorists' would not exist if it wasn't for crappy foreign policy that pisses people off. Killing the terrorists (which is what the war on terror is) doesn't do anything but kill people and piss them off more.
Same goes for seatbelts, we write tickets to people for not wearing seatbelts, instead of convincing people at a young age that wearing seatbelts and protecting your own life is a good idea, but that because in this country (the United States), and many others, you are free to do as you wish as long as it doesn't harm OTHERS, then you don't have to wear your seatbelt if you don't want to, but it is a good idea.
I think I lost my train of thought.
it doesn't count attempted posts, at least not for me, just wait 2 minutes and resend the form data (hit refresh, then 'YES' or 'POST' or whatever your browser asks you.) If you're real desperate, you can keep hitting refresh-enter until it accepts your post. But the counter doesn't start over for me.
I had a serious rotator cuff injury a few years ago from swimming. Sucked majorly, but physical therapy feels good, especially when the person helping you looks so nice.
I'm not quite sure how bad such an injury would effect a soccer player, but obviously this is limited to soccer.
Then you become reliant on the connection to the Internet. If that connection is lost, and you need access to resources that are there, what do you do? You also have to trust the remote server with your data. You have to trust every person that has physical access to the place where your data is stored. I would much prefer keeping my data somewhere close by, preferrable right by my feet or in my closet.
The punishment is that voters should pay attention to what laws their representatives voted for and if they voted for dumb useless laws, then don't vote for that person. It seems re-election is the most important thing to many politicans, take that away and you've punished them plenty.