There's nothing wrong with it. It's simply not insightful, as it's merely an obvious logical next step. Explaining why it won't happen might possibly have been insightful, depending on the reasoning.
I assumed that the system was devised to prevent overloading - most commercial exchanges have some kind of limit on how many phones they can support. In the UK it's called "ringer equivalence number" and if you exceed it they don't guarantee that your phones will work. In practice it's the ringers that fail first.
Well I'm not a telecoms engineer (I'm a programmer), but I do seem to remember that in the UK the phone line supplies a 60V electrical potential. I would imagine that the practical upshot of exceeding the REN is that you may not have enough power to make the phones work, hence the limit.
Firefox 2 would pop up a dialogue box after a while telling you that a script was taking a long time to run, and giving you the option of killing it. Or at least it did for me; I've no idea if that was stock behaviour or one of my extensions.
I installed AVG on my laptop a week or so ago - if you do an "advanced" install you can elect not to install LinkScanner there, no need for arcane commands.
Well, that's assuming they haven't removed the option since I downloaded it, of course...
AVG pissed me off towards the end of last year when, on booting and logging in to my machine, it opened up Firefox and directed it to a page advertising a limited-time money off offer for AVG Professional.
I run anti-virus software in part to help avoid installing software that does that sort of thing; I do not expect the AV software itself to do it. I switched to Avast! pretty soon after that.
Or simply run the installer, select "Advanced" (it may be "Custom", I forget the exact wording) and uncheck the box next to LinkScanner.
Lord only knows why their FAQ makes it seem so hard to do - it's almost as though they're trying to scam people into installing it even if they don't want it...
"Does the AVG spider follow the robots.txt rules?" and "Do they try to hide/distribute their IP addresses?" If the answer to either of these questions is "Yes," then we have a problem--if not, however, we have only umbrage.
This isn't a spider though. Link Scanner plugs in to the user's browser and automatically follows every link on the first page of any search results they get.
There are no IP addresses to hide, the request comes from the user's PC. And no, of course they don't honour robots.txt - for this to be of any use at all it has to be indistinguishable from a real browser. If it isn't, then malicious sites can return a fake benign page to fool it.
Well I don't think that Link Scanner is slimy (just that it has unintended consequences that make it a bad idea), but towards the end of last year I had AVG 7 free version installed on my machine. For a while, on booting the machine and logging on, Firefox would be launched and directed to a page advertising a limited-time money off offer for AVG Professional.
I run AV software to help keep adware and other malware off my machine, not to act as adware itself.
Yes, of course they can, which is why sooner or later AVG is going to change the headers to perfectly match IE - they'll have to, or the scanner will be completely useless other than possibly to catch sites that have been hacked.
Yes, but AVG doesn't need to execute the javascript to determine whether or not it's suspicious, just like it doesn't execute a file to determine whether or not it's infected with a virus.
We seem to see them (I rtfa) orbiting around each other every couple of hours... If you were standing on that orbiting pulsar, how long do you think your watch would read?
It would read a couple of hours, as it too would be slowed down, as would your perception of time, etc. You wouldn't know that anything had changed until you left the pulsar, returned to your (stationary/slower moving) ship and noticed that your watch no longer agreed with the ship's clock.
There are very few scientific "laws", however. The gas laws are pretty much the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Newton's Laws, the Laws of Thermodynamics and Hooke's Law are three more (assuming you weren't thinking of thermodynamics when you said "gas laws", in which case I'll throw in Boyle's Law too).
The interstellar medium is essentially a gas. An extremely thin gas, but a gas all the same. As such, it does indeed transmit sound and so objects can be said to be moving supersonically and subsonically through it.
Supersonic and subsonic are used to denote the speed relative to the speed of sound in the medium in question, just as they are in any fluid.
Because they can use it to earn money, that's why. Google sell advertising; being able to tie your viewing habits on YouTube to your email and searches (and possibly even documents) will provide an incredible wealth of information with which to target ads at you.
Libraries had nothing to gain by keeping the information, Google does. We need Google et al to stop keeping this information, but Google's business model requires it.
Why would they keep it? Because Google are in the advertising business, and targeted ads cost more than "normal" ones.
Besides, this information doesn't show that they're "doing something in a grey area", there's absolutely no denying that people are posting copyrighted content on YouTube without the copyright holder's permission. All this does is go some way to enabling people to identify who's viewed it.
Providing the information will cost google a relatively small amount of money. Using the information for their own business purposes will potentially earn them billions. That is why they keep it, and why they want to keep it secret.
That's certainly what I'd be tempted to do, but I suspect that the outcome of that would a complaint from Viacom followed by an order from the judge to stop pissing about and give them the information in its current, electronic form.
Courts tend to get rather upset about people taking the piss, even if they are technically complying with their orders.
I work for a small web agency in the UK. We were sold by our erstwhile parent company a little over a year ago, but we still work on projects with them jointly. I've never been there, but from what I've been told that's exactly how their secure hosting facility works. It uses cards rather than badges, but the principle is the same - the inside ones never leave, and the outside ones are useless inside. The inside ones are coded to only open those doors that you need to open.
For a while I used to get upwards of several hundred failed delivery notifications and similar per day in response to mails sent with a forged From: header that faked an address at a domain I own. The mail server (hosted by a friend) is configured to accept any mail addressed to that domain. (That was on top of spam *to* forged addresses that had clearly been harvested by the recipients of the original spam, bringing my daily total to 2000-3000 mails)
I got a lot of "confirmation request" type mails, and ignored every single one of them. I would be extremely surprised if no-one has ever received one of your mails in error (as it were).
Actually, his BSD-licensed (or public domain or similar) code is free forever too. What is not guaranteed to be free is any modification that someone else makes to it, but that in no way restricts the OP's freedom to use the code he himself wrote.
Whether you consider that to be sufficiently free for your purposes is a matter for your own personal judgement of course.
They want us all trapped in their scientific dogma where once a theory takes hold, scientist be damned, can't be questioned.
Relativity and quantum mechanics both came about because people looked at Newton's Laws (not theories, Laws) and questioned them, despite them having been generally accepted for around 200 years.
Yes, some people - especially those who have dedicated their life to a particular research topic - can be slow to accept evidence demonstrating that they are wrong. That's human nature unfortunately. But to say that the whole of science is like that is at best disingenuous.
Slashdot Mirror
You choose to live in the country of your birth by choosing not to leave.
There's nothing wrong with it. It's simply not insightful, as it's merely an obvious logical next step. Explaining why it won't happen might possibly have been insightful, depending on the reasoning.
One is 1/350 odd millionth of the popular vote
Just to nit-pick, but that would be the case if the entire population of the US were eligible to vote, which of course they're not.
Also, even further off-topic - your sig is missing an "i" in "capitalism", I think...
I assumed that the system was devised to prevent overloading - most commercial exchanges have some kind of limit on how many phones they can support. In the UK it's called "ringer equivalence number" and if you exceed it they don't guarantee that your phones will work. In practice it's the ringers that fail first.
Well I'm not a telecoms engineer (I'm a programmer), but I do seem to remember that in the UK the phone line supplies a 60V electrical potential. I would imagine that the practical upshot of exceeding the REN is that you may not have enough power to make the phones work, hence the limit.
Firefox 2 would pop up a dialogue box after a while telling you that a script was taking a long time to run, and giving you the option of killing it. Or at least it did for me; I've no idea if that was stock behaviour or one of my extensions.
I installed AVG on my laptop a week or so ago - if you do an "advanced" install you can elect not to install LinkScanner there, no need for arcane commands.
Well, that's assuming they haven't removed the option since I downloaded it, of course...
AVG pissed me off towards the end of last year when, on booting and logging in to my machine, it opened up Firefox and directed it to a page advertising a limited-time money off offer for AVG Professional.
I run anti-virus software in part to help avoid installing software that does that sort of thing; I do not expect the AV software itself to do it. I switched to Avast! pretty soon after that.
Or simply run the installer, select "Advanced" (it may be "Custom", I forget the exact wording) and uncheck the box next to LinkScanner.
Lord only knows why their FAQ makes it seem so hard to do - it's almost as though they're trying to scam people into installing it even if they don't want it...
Well I don't, but then nor do I complain that Windows is hard to use because one particular piece of software available for it is a bit shit.
"Does the AVG spider follow the robots.txt rules?" and "Do they try to hide/distribute their IP addresses?" If the answer to either of these questions is "Yes," then we have a problem--if not, however, we have only umbrage.
This isn't a spider though. Link Scanner plugs in to the user's browser and automatically follows every link on the first page of any search results they get.
There are no IP addresses to hide, the request comes from the user's PC. And no, of course they don't honour robots.txt - for this to be of any use at all it has to be indistinguishable from a real browser. If it isn't, then malicious sites can return a fake benign page to fool it.
Well I don't think that Link Scanner is slimy (just that it has unintended consequences that make it a bad idea), but towards the end of last year I had AVG 7 free version installed on my machine. For a while, on booting the machine and logging on, Firefox would be launched and directed to a page advertising a limited-time money off offer for AVG Professional.
I run AV software to help keep adware and other malware off my machine, not to act as adware itself.
Yes, of course they can, which is why sooner or later AVG is going to change the headers to perfectly match IE - they'll have to, or the scanner will be completely useless other than possibly to catch sites that have been hacked.
Yes, but AVG doesn't need to execute the javascript to determine whether or not it's suspicious, just like it doesn't execute a file to determine whether or not it's infected with a virus.
We seem to see them (I rtfa) orbiting around each other every couple of hours... If you were standing on that orbiting pulsar, how long do you think your watch would read?
It would read a couple of hours, as it too would be slowed down, as would your perception of time, etc. You wouldn't know that anything had changed until you left the pulsar, returned to your (stationary/slower moving) ship and noticed that your watch no longer agreed with the ship's clock.
And possibly the cosmological constant, although that's not entirely fair - no matter how that one turns out he'll be both wrong and right...
There are very few scientific "laws", however. The gas laws are pretty much the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Newton's Laws, the Laws of Thermodynamics and Hooke's Law are three more (assuming you weren't thinking of thermodynamics when you said "gas laws", in which case I'll throw in Boyle's Law too).
He was wrong even back then - games have been taking advantage of multiple processors (CPU + GPU) since the mid- to late-90s...
The interstellar medium is essentially a gas. An extremely thin gas, but a gas all the same. As such, it does indeed transmit sound and so objects can be said to be moving supersonically and subsonically through it.
Supersonic and subsonic are used to denote the speed relative to the speed of sound in the medium in question, just as they are in any fluid.
Because they can use it to earn money, that's why. Google sell advertising; being able to tie your viewing habits on YouTube to your email and searches (and possibly even documents) will provide an incredible wealth of information with which to target ads at you.
Libraries had nothing to gain by keeping the information, Google does. We need Google et al to stop keeping this information, but Google's business model requires it.
Why would they keep it? Because Google are in the advertising business, and targeted ads cost more than "normal" ones.
Besides, this information doesn't show that they're "doing something in a grey area", there's absolutely no denying that people are posting copyrighted content on YouTube without the copyright holder's permission. All this does is go some way to enabling people to identify who's viewed it.
Providing the information will cost google a relatively small amount of money. Using the information for their own business purposes will potentially earn them billions. That is why they keep it, and why they want to keep it secret.
That's certainly what I'd be tempted to do, but I suspect that the outcome of that would a complaint from Viacom followed by an order from the judge to stop pissing about and give them the information in its current, electronic form.
Courts tend to get rather upset about people taking the piss, even if they are technically complying with their orders.
I work for a small web agency in the UK. We were sold by our erstwhile parent company a little over a year ago, but we still work on projects with them jointly. I've never been there, but from what I've been told that's exactly how their secure hosting facility works. It uses cards rather than badges, but the principle is the same - the inside ones never leave, and the outside ones are useless inside. The inside ones are coded to only open those doors that you need to open.
For a while I used to get upwards of several hundred failed delivery notifications and similar per day in response to mails sent with a forged From: header that faked an address at a domain I own. The mail server (hosted by a friend) is configured to accept any mail addressed to that domain. (That was on top of spam *to* forged addresses that had clearly been harvested by the recipients of the original spam, bringing my daily total to 2000-3000 mails)
I got a lot of "confirmation request" type mails, and ignored every single one of them. I would be extremely surprised if no-one has ever received one of your mails in error (as it were).
You are free today, GNU is free forever.
Actually, his BSD-licensed (or public domain or similar) code is free forever too. What is not guaranteed to be free is any modification that someone else makes to it, but that in no way restricts the OP's freedom to use the code he himself wrote.
Whether you consider that to be sufficiently free for your purposes is a matter for your own personal judgement of course.
They want us all trapped in their scientific dogma where once a theory takes hold, scientist be damned, can't be questioned.
Relativity and quantum mechanics both came about because people looked at Newton's Laws (not theories, Laws) and questioned them, despite them having been generally accepted for around 200 years.
Yes, some people - especially those who have dedicated their life to a particular research topic - can be slow to accept evidence demonstrating that they are wrong. That's human nature unfortunately. But to say that the whole of science is like that is at best disingenuous.