I'm 25 now, I still play video games, and I played the original Duke Nukem 3D...
Which, according to Wikipedia, came out 12 years ago and the sequel was announced 11 years ago. So you were 13 or 14 when you were playing. In that 12 years, you've (I presume) graduated high school and (probably) college, gotten into a nice job, and will soon be married. And in that same time, 3DR has been unable to release DNF. I wonder how many people work there who have aged from 22 to 33 and are now thinking "I've spent a third of my life on this?!?"
I remember playing DN3D in late 1996, a year and change after graduating from college. (I also remember downloading the many-MB demo over 28.8.) That year I started working at the company where I am still employed. In that time, my salary has roughly doubled, I got married, had a baby, and own a house.
I'm not sure how you drastically misunderstood what I said, since you quoted the relevant portion. Let me try to clarify a bit:
"Maybe we'll see another browser?... I'd be happy with [a browser] that just stripped out all CSS."
Isn't that more or less what you suggested? (Other than that I'm content to wish; I've got more than enough projects to keep me busy already.) Of course such a feature would be optional, and not once did I suggest that Safari should do that by default. SInce I'm not requiring a CSS-less browser should be shoved down anyone's throat, I think the ADA and you would be OK with that. It's all about choice, right?
Besides, it's not CSS that makes pages accessible, it's the application of CSS to a properly-coded page. The whole point of CSS (well, one of the big ones, anyway) is that you can strip the STYLE information completely out of a page and what you're left with is a nice, semantically-marked-up page that can be understood by a human, machine, browser, or any number of accessibility aids. So to say that CSS is a great aid to making pages accessible is not quite correct.
CSS is great. Separating style from content is a Good Thing, and one of the things it does really well is make accessibility easy. (easier) I never, ever said people should stop using CSS. What I did say (more or less) is that I'd like to have a browser that (optionally) ignores it. Rather than looking at a page with text in a needlessly narrow column and having to zoom in and then scroll, I'd rather see text at the full width of the page to begin with. This is for two reasons: 1) zooming in is an extra step 2) once you're zoomed in, when scrolling up and down, it's easy to accidentally scroll side to side a bit, and then it's hard to get the text exactly centered again.
I didn't RTFA, but is he really thinking of switching to one full-time? I think it's a great device, but I can't imagine typing on one for any amount of time. And I'm sure he types a lot. I hear he kinda likes Emacs.
And for those of us who run multiple browsers,/etc/hosts FTW. There are a couple of ads near the bottom but nothing obnoxious at all. I'm always amazed at how much advertising there is on sites I visit daily when I happen to look at them on someone else's machine.
Now all I want is to be able to use that file on my iPhone. Nothing worse than downloading ads over EDGE. Ugh. Unfortunately, I don't think the SDK will allow quite that much access. Maybe we'll see another browser? Safari really isn't that much to write home about. I'd be happy with one that just stripped out all CSS.
OK, am I offtopic enough now? I htink I'm about 3 levels removed from whatever the hell this thread is actually about.:-) Oh, what, typosquatting? Yeah, sucks.
If they work as well as this one, then I, for one, will not be welcoming my new robot overlords.
PS: my truck (1993 Toyota pickup) requires an actual key to open the flap. (A bit of a pain compared the the little lever under the driver's seat of most cars (plus the cap is on the passenger side) but hey, at least I've never locked my keys inside at the gas station!) I'm not sure how these robots will deal with that. Maybe the first one will slice off the flap with an acetylene torch?
Each "YOU GUYS ARE FASCIST NAZI LICKING THUGS!" message cancels out the positive effects of any five or ten polite & firm, well reasoned messages describing weaknesses and suggesting positive change.
There are already plenty of high-level, high-profile, already-accepted-as-smart people saying how completely fucked up TSA is, and TSA isn't listening to them, so why would they listen to us no matter how polite we are? Maybe it would be a good thing for them to hear how much every man-in-the-street hates them too. A lot of things come down to popularity, and an unpopular agency might have some serious problems staying around. And what will gain more press: a blog with a few well-reasoned comments or one packed with vitriol? Remember, there has never been a story on the news that said "3 million people in enjoyed a nice quiet night at home yesterday." I would love to see a story on the 11:00 news that say "Agency posts blog; 99% of comments all say what assholes they are." That would just make more people aware of how fucked up TSA is and maybe eventually lead to some change.
So yeah, go ahead and post some choice Bruce Schneier quotes if you want. But if you don't want to do that, FLAME ON!
So what? It was still interesting enough that an editor approved it. This isn't just like free, unrestricted advertising. Tell me: if you write a post on your low-traffic blog, what are the odds that someone else will come along and find it post-worthy? If you think it's suitable for Slashdot. go ahead and post it and see if it gets approved. What's the problem here?
Slashdot itself is one of the original blogs. It would be a very boring place if they did nothing but link to CNet stories and press releases. There are lots of interesting people out there that you've never heard of (and otherwise wouldn't hear of) and they are doing lots of interesting things. So can we kill the 'pimpmyblog' tags already? If you don't like reading blog stories, go start your own news aggregator/discussion forum. Maybe with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the site...
And I want to move back to the SF Bay Area, but houses there are too expensive. BUT--almost every house in the area that is owned is being lived in. I'm fine with that. If it's the best place to live in the country and that's why it's so expensive, that's fine. I'll deal with that. I'll learn to love Montana or Alaska.* But if 999 out of 1000 houses were owned by speculators, and all that perfectly gorgeous land were going to waste, that would be a shame. If aspectratio.org and aspectratio.info were both being used--even to the extent that the.com and.net are--you wouldn't hear a peep out of me. I hate waste, and I don't like seeing assholes taking unfair advantage of a system either. It's as simple as that.
If the government gave away land with the idea that people could live their lives there, but instead someone came along, signed up for every parcel, and put them on the market at exorbitant rates, that would also be wrong. Does everything have to be a zero-sum game, a fight to the death, might-makes-right, winner-takes-all, pure-capitalism-roar-har? If someone is just being nice--offering a reasonable service at a reasonable price--is it really OK for someone else to come along, buy it all, and resell it for as much as the market will bear? Should every single transaction be based on who has the advantage? If so, I hope you're up for a miserable existence, 'cause that's where that path leads. How much would you be willing to pay for your next meal? And the one after that? What if your landlord or mortgage company jacked up your rent or interest rate 10% every month?
* and if I can't have aspect ratios or carbonated milk I'll learn to love caffeinated bacon or baconated grapefruit. You're not the only Futurama fan here.:-)
>> Thanks, but not everyone is interested in creating a memorable brand.
> Yes you are, just because you're not selling something doesn't mean you're > not "branding" your site. Otherwise you could save yourself some money > and just use your IP address.
Even so, shouldn't I at least have the ability to choose a generic name if I want? What is so wrong with having some general informatin about aspect ratios on a site called 'aspectratio.org' or 'aspectratio.info'? Why must I use some crappy name like 'aspect-ratio.org' (oh, how I LOVE saying 'dash' or 'hyphen' out loud when I'm talking to a human) or asprat.org (just sounds bad... almost like 'ass' plus 'brat')? Just because the name contains some of the original letters DOES NOT MAKE IT MORE MEMORABLE! Again, this is ALL ABOUT COMMUNICATING WITH HUMANS. "Hmm... was it asra.org? aspra.org? asprat.org? Asp + rat... snake and vermin... yeah, that just screams 'aspect ratio.'
> If you expect people to find your site by typing what they are looking > for into the address box of their browser and adding.com or.org > to the end, you are not going to get many visitors.
Again, we've got different goals here. I really don't give a shit if not one single person on this planet that I don't know personally ever sees this site or not. What I DO want is the absolutely easiest-to-remember domain. WordWordWord.(com|org|maybe info) is ideal. I'm not going to go into detail about who I am, what I do, and how I like to work, but the fact is it would make my life easier if I could TELL people--not email them, not give them specific terms to search for--an easy-to-remember domain name. But no... someone who has NO USE AT ALL for aspectratio.org is sitting on it... and to get it, I have to pay $59.99 plus whatever the owner wants plus a 10% commission to get it.
You're missing the forest for the trees here. The whole point is that domain-squatting is bad enough, but bulk domain squatting based on insider information is just evil. Trading stocks based on inside information is illegal. And how would you feel if this happened to you: You've got two jobs. There was an emergency at your day job and you had to skip lunch and work overtime. Now you're in a rush to get to your night job. You casually mention this to the nice person at the counter who says "Oh, you're extra-hungry and pressed for time? OK, that's $26.50 for your burger and fries then."
If you don't like generic names, don't use them. Don't buy them for yourself, hell, you can even quit visiting sites that use them if you want. But if I want one and have a legitimate need for it, why should I be unable to? This is more than just a matter of taste, of what you do or don't like. It's about what's right and what's wrong.
If you have a good idea for a website, pick a unique, memorable name, not an obvious one.
Thanks, but not everyone is interested in creating a memorable brand. 'ebay' and 'amazon' are only memorable because they're famous. (More on this below.)
Nothing, it doesn't matter, most people are going to find your website through Google anyway rather than typing in a URL.
Have you actually tried that? Search google for 'auction' and auction.com comes up first, ebay second. Searching Google for 'books' leads to Google Book search, Barnes & Noble, the NY Times book reviews, fucking SALON.COM's books area (and by the way, salon.com has nothing to do with Salons, thankyouverymuch) and then Amazon. And then, ironically, books.ebay.com.
I would love to make a site with aspect ratio info. Rather than burying it in my own vaguely-related-to-imaging site, I'd like to go ahead and set up a domain just for that because it comes up a lot and I've got my own idea of how much information should be presented and organized, and just sending people to wikipedia or widescreen.org isn't as good. Aspectratio.com and.net are owned by the same company and are mostly blank. No problem, I'd rather have a.org because it's a free info site or hey, maybe even an.info. But noooo, both of those names are squatted. So, what--am I supposed to register something unique and memorable like carbonatedmilk.com (oops, taken) and use that for aspect ratio and just hope that I become famous enough that people start to equate carbonated milk with aspect ratio information?
There are two reasons to have sites: 1) You are a business and you want people to find you. This is where Google and the rest help. But an obvious, accurate domain name also helps here. 2) You have a site which you want to tell people about. The domain name should be memorable, yes, but being RELEVANT is a big help. Again, "name" being equal to "what it's about" is good.
The GP said he had a good idea for a SITE, not a BUSINESS. The Internet CAN be about information, you know. We're not all just whores.
So really, your advice is only useful in one of those two cases, and even then, only half the time.
And finally, it really comes down to the quality of your site. Are you suggesting that Amazon and eBay would not be successful if their URLs were book/books.com and auction/auctions.com?
So yeah, domain squatters in general suck ass, and registrars who take advantage of tasting are even more despicable. Just like corrupt cops--even more than plain citizens who are OK if they're mostly harmless, they're supposed to be part of the SOLUTION, not part of the PROBLEM.
In related news, just last night I moved four domains names from two different registrars based on stories about tasting that I read last week. (Plus one was up for renewal.) Sorry, assholes--too little, too late.
3 years running AVG: $0 3 years running Ad-aware, Spybot, and CCleaner: $0
Ah, how the worm has turned. I guess the saying now should be "Windows is only cheaper if your time has no value." Or maybe "Windows is only cheaper if you love trying to explain the concepts behind ZoneAlarm to your mom every week." Or maybe "Windows is only cheaper if you love using Google to find out how to get rid of things that Ad-Aware and Spybot missed." (Yes, there are some.) Or "Windows is only cheaper if you have friends you trust who can tell you which anti-spyware programs are trustworthy in the first place."
Tempest, Galaga, Pac-Man, Space Invaders, Robotron, and other simple games are ideal for children.
Maybe I should have started earlier. I couldn't meaningfully move the two sticks (move and fire) in different directions if my (real) life depended on it.:-)
You've paid ((2008-1996)*12*3) $432 to "save" you if someone jacks you at the ATM... which typically has a limit of $300 per transaction. And you're paying for a service that is technically trivial to implement and should be given out for free in the first place. Nice.
Until the issue's fixed (they want me to upgrade the firmware), they've been stalking me to track the ticket. E-mails and voicemail messages ("Did you get a chance to upgrade that firmware yet?") more often than you'd get from a real-life stalker.
Maybe they've just got a lot of free time these days.;-)
So, it's an open-source tool that evaluates how open-source open-source software is? Wow. If ever there was an app that demanded a recursive acronym, this is it. Any suggestions?
The funniest thing is, people started saying (once dual-booting was mentioned) that Windows would be the new "Classic" mode in OS X. (In a sense.) Now, not only do we have that, we have things like Parallels' "coherence" mode which makes Windows behave exactly like Classic apps did--an other-OS window floating among all your OS X windows.
So basically, Apple (a third party, relative to Microsoft) and Parallels (a third party, relative to Apple) have done exactly what Vista should have done. If that were running on Windows, you literally wouldn't even know what was running in "classic" mode and what wasn't. Once again, the competition, working with orders of magnitude less resources than MS, is literally years ahead of Redmond. Un-effing-real.
Another neat thing is that the performance of a virtual machine is very close to the performance of an old OS on hardware from the same era: on my MacBook, Windows 2000 feels just as peppy as it does running natively on my 1 GHz PIII desktop. Running XP in full-screen mode, you'd need a stopwatch to know that you weren't working on my dad's HP laptop.
Do you want to add a single tag that all other browsers will ignore...
I'd be OK with that--one extra line in my 'head.inc'--but that this is MS we're talking about here. The tag they pick that other browsers "should" ignore will probably cause IE/6 to crash.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm 25 now, I still play video games, and I played the original Duke Nukem 3D...
Which, according to Wikipedia, came out 12 years ago and the sequel was announced 11 years ago. So you were 13 or 14 when you were playing. In that 12 years, you've (I presume) graduated high school and (probably) college, gotten into a nice job, and will soon be married. And in that same time, 3DR has been unable to release DNF. I wonder how many people work there who have aged from 22 to 33 and are now thinking "I've spent a third of my life on this?!?"
I remember playing DN3D in late 1996, a year and change after graduating from college. (I also remember downloading the many-MB demo over 28.8.) That year I started working at the company where I am still employed. In that time, my salary has roughly doubled, I got married, had a baby, and own a house.
I was trying to come up with a funny reply but the only number I stumbled upon that was more accurate was 31,415,926,536/10,000,000,000.
I'm not sure how you drastically misunderstood what I said, since you quoted the relevant portion. Let me try to clarify a bit:
... I'd be happy with [a browser] that just stripped out all CSS."
"Maybe we'll see another browser?
Isn't that more or less what you suggested? (Other than that I'm content to wish; I've got more than enough projects to keep me busy already.) Of course such a feature would be optional, and not once did I suggest that Safari should do that by default. SInce I'm not requiring a CSS-less browser should be shoved down anyone's throat, I think the ADA and you would be OK with that. It's all about choice, right?
Besides, it's not CSS that makes pages accessible, it's the application of CSS to a properly-coded page. The whole point of CSS (well, one of the big ones, anyway) is that you can strip the STYLE information completely out of a page and what you're left with is a nice, semantically-marked-up page that can be understood by a human, machine, browser, or any number of accessibility aids. So to say that CSS is a great aid to making pages accessible is not quite correct.
CSS is great. Separating style from content is a Good Thing, and one of the things it does really well is make accessibility easy. (easier) I never, ever said people should stop using CSS. What I did say (more or less) is that I'd like to have a browser that (optionally) ignores it. Rather than looking at a page with text in a needlessly narrow column and having to zoom in and then scroll, I'd rather see text at the full width of the page to begin with. This is for two reasons: 1) zooming in is an extra step 2) once you're zoomed in, when scrolling up and down, it's easy to accidentally scroll side to side a bit, and then it's hard to get the text exactly centered again.
I didn't RTFA, but is he really thinking of switching to one full-time? I think it's a great device, but I can't imagine typing on one for any amount of time. And I'm sure he types a lot. I hear he kinda likes Emacs.
Hmmmm, three iPhones/iPods or one mortgage payment? Oh the tough decisions.
:-)
Answer: ONE iPhone/iPod and pay the mortgage late. Duh.
Wow, what a URL. I wonder if heydellpleasesendmeabatterymineblewupkthxbye.com is taken.
:-)
OTOH, I guess they didn't want a big red "Click here for information about exploding Dell batteries" link on the homepage.
Though they could have just buried it a bit: Products -> Home and Home Office -> Parts and Accessories -> Batteries -> Exploding *click*
And for those of us who run multiple browsers, /etc/hosts FTW. There are a couple of ads near the bottom but nothing obnoxious at all. I'm always amazed at how much advertising there is on sites I visit daily when I happen to look at them on someone else's machine.
:-) Oh, what, typosquatting? Yeah, sucks.
Now all I want is to be able to use that file on my iPhone. Nothing worse than downloading ads over EDGE. Ugh. Unfortunately, I don't think the SDK will allow quite that much access. Maybe we'll see another browser? Safari really isn't that much to write home about. I'd be happy with one that just stripped out all CSS.
OK, am I offtopic enough now? I htink I'm about 3 levels removed from whatever the hell this thread is actually about.
If they work as well as this one, then I, for one, will not be welcoming my new robot overlords.
PS: my truck (1993 Toyota pickup) requires an actual key to open the flap. (A bit of a pain compared the the little lever under the driver's seat of most cars (plus the cap is on the passenger side) but hey, at least I've never locked my keys inside at the gas station!) I'm not sure how these robots will deal with that. Maybe the first one will slice off the flap with an acetylene torch?
The league bans public exhibitions of its games on TV sets or screens larger than 55 inches because smaller sets limit the audience size.
Solution: borrow a few 42" sets! I'm sure some of the dozes of parishioners they were expecting have got some good sets.
PS: No one fucks with the Jesus.
You're right. Jesus is f'in metal.
Each "YOU GUYS ARE FASCIST NAZI LICKING THUGS!" message cancels out the positive effects of any five or ten polite & firm, well reasoned messages describing weaknesses and suggesting positive change.
There are already plenty of high-level, high-profile, already-accepted-as-smart people saying how completely fucked up TSA is, and TSA isn't listening to them, so why would they listen to us no matter how polite we are? Maybe it would be a good thing for them to hear how much every man-in-the-street hates them too. A lot of things come down to popularity, and an unpopular agency might have some serious problems staying around. And what will gain more press: a blog with a few well-reasoned comments or one packed with vitriol? Remember, there has never been a story on the news that said "3 million people in enjoyed a nice quiet night at home yesterday." I would love to see a story on the 11:00 news that say "Agency posts blog; 99% of comments all say what assholes they are." That would just make more people aware of how fucked up TSA is and maybe eventually lead to some change.
So yeah, go ahead and post some choice Bruce Schneier quotes if you want. But if you don't want to do that, FLAME ON!
So what? It was still interesting enough that an editor approved it. This isn't just like free, unrestricted advertising. Tell me: if you write a post on your low-traffic blog, what are the odds that someone else will come along and find it post-worthy? If you think it's suitable for Slashdot. go ahead and post it and see if it gets approved. What's the problem here?
Slashdot itself is one of the original blogs. It would be a very boring place if they did nothing but link to CNet stories and press releases. There are lots of interesting people out there that you've never heard of (and otherwise wouldn't hear of) and they are doing lots of interesting things. So can we kill the 'pimpmyblog' tags already? If you don't like reading blog stories, go start your own news aggregator/discussion forum. Maybe with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the site...
And I want to move back to the SF Bay Area, but houses there are too expensive. BUT--almost every house in the area that is owned is being lived in. I'm fine with that. If it's the best place to live in the country and that's why it's so expensive, that's fine. I'll deal with that. I'll learn to love Montana or Alaska.* But if 999 out of 1000 houses were owned by speculators, and all that perfectly gorgeous land were going to waste, that would be a shame. If aspectratio.org and aspectratio.info were both being used--even to the extent that the .com and .net are--you wouldn't hear a peep out of me. I hate waste, and I don't like seeing assholes taking unfair advantage of a system either. It's as simple as that.
:-)
If the government gave away land with the idea that people could live their lives there, but instead someone came along, signed up for every parcel, and put them on the market at exorbitant rates, that would also be wrong. Does everything have to be a zero-sum game, a fight to the death, might-makes-right, winner-takes-all, pure-capitalism-roar-har? If someone is just being nice--offering a reasonable service at a reasonable price--is it really OK for someone else to come along, buy it all, and resell it for as much as the market will bear? Should every single transaction be based on who has the advantage? If so, I hope you're up for a miserable existence, 'cause that's where that path leads. How much would you be willing to pay for your next meal? And the one after that? What if your landlord or mortgage company jacked up your rent or interest rate 10% every month?
* and if I can't have aspect ratios or carbonated milk I'll learn to love caffeinated bacon or baconated grapefruit. You're not the only Futurama fan here.
>> Thanks, but not everyone is interested in creating a memorable brand.
.com or .org
> Yes you are, just because you're not selling something doesn't mean you're
> not "branding" your site. Otherwise you could save yourself some money
> and just use your IP address.
Even so, shouldn't I at least have the ability to choose a generic name if I want? What is so wrong with having some general informatin about aspect ratios on a site called 'aspectratio.org' or 'aspectratio.info'? Why must I use some crappy name like 'aspect-ratio.org' (oh, how I LOVE saying 'dash' or 'hyphen' out loud when I'm talking to a human) or asprat.org (just sounds bad... almost like 'ass' plus 'brat')? Just because the name contains some of the original letters DOES NOT MAKE IT MORE MEMORABLE! Again, this is ALL ABOUT COMMUNICATING WITH HUMANS. "Hmm... was it asra.org? aspra.org? asprat.org? Asp + rat... snake and vermin... yeah, that just screams 'aspect ratio.'
> If you expect people to find your site by typing what they are looking
> for into the address box of their browser and adding
> to the end, you are not going to get many visitors.
Again, we've got different goals here. I really don't give a shit if not one single person on this planet that I don't know personally ever sees this site or not. What I DO want is the absolutely easiest-to-remember domain. WordWordWord.(com|org|maybe info) is ideal. I'm not going to go into detail about who I am, what I do, and how I like to work, but the fact is it would make my life easier if I could TELL people--not email them, not give them specific terms to search for--an easy-to-remember domain name. But no... someone who has NO USE AT ALL for aspectratio.org is sitting on it... and to get it, I have to pay $59.99 plus whatever the owner wants plus a 10% commission to get it.
You're missing the forest for the trees here. The whole point is that domain-squatting is bad enough, but bulk domain squatting based on insider information is just evil. Trading stocks based on inside information is illegal. And how would you feel if this happened to you: You've got two jobs. There was an emergency at your day job and you had to skip lunch and work overtime. Now you're in a rush to get to your night job. You casually mention this to the nice person at the counter who says "Oh, you're extra-hungry and pressed for time? OK, that's $26.50 for your burger and fries then."
If you don't like generic names, don't use them. Don't buy them for yourself, hell, you can even quit visiting sites that use them if you want. But if I want one and have a legitimate need for it, why should I be unable to? This is more than just a matter of taste, of what you do or don't like. It's about what's right and what's wrong.
If you have a good idea for a website, pick a unique, memorable name, not an obvious one.
.net are owned by the same company and are mostly blank. No problem, I'd rather have a .org because it's a free info site or hey, maybe even an .info. But noooo, both of those names are squatted. So, what--am I supposed to register something unique and memorable like carbonatedmilk.com (oops, taken) and use that for aspect ratio and just hope that I become famous enough that people start to equate carbonated milk with aspect ratio information?
Thanks, but not everyone is interested in creating a memorable brand. 'ebay' and 'amazon' are only memorable because they're famous. (More on this below.)
Nothing, it doesn't matter, most people are going to find your website through Google anyway rather than typing in a URL.
Have you actually tried that? Search google for 'auction' and auction.com comes up first, ebay second. Searching Google for 'books' leads to Google Book search, Barnes & Noble, the NY Times book reviews, fucking SALON.COM's books area (and by the way, salon.com has nothing to do with Salons, thankyouverymuch) and then Amazon. And then, ironically, books.ebay.com.
I would love to make a site with aspect ratio info. Rather than burying it in my own vaguely-related-to-imaging site, I'd like to go ahead and set up a domain just for that because it comes up a lot and I've got my own idea of how much information should be presented and organized, and just sending people to wikipedia or widescreen.org isn't as good. Aspectratio.com and
There are two reasons to have sites:
1) You are a business and you want people to find you. This is where Google and the rest help. But an obvious, accurate domain name also helps here.
2) You have a site which you want to tell people about. The domain name should be memorable, yes, but being RELEVANT is a big help. Again, "name" being equal to "what it's about" is good.
The GP said he had a good idea for a SITE, not a BUSINESS. The Internet CAN be about information, you know. We're not all just whores.
So really, your advice is only useful in one of those two cases, and even then, only half the time.
And finally, it really comes down to the quality of your site. Are you suggesting that Amazon and eBay would not be successful if their URLs were book/books.com and auction/auctions.com?
So yeah, domain squatters in general suck ass, and registrars who take advantage of tasting are even more despicable. Just like corrupt cops--even more than plain citizens who are OK if they're mostly harmless, they're supposed to be part of the SOLUTION, not part of the PROBLEM.
In related news, just last night I moved four domains names from two different registrars based on stories about tasting that I read last week. (Plus one was up for renewal.) Sorry, assholes--too little, too late.
3 years running AVG: $0
3 years running Ad-aware, Spybot, and CCleaner: $0
Ah, how the worm has turned. I guess the saying now should be "Windows is only cheaper if your time has no value." Or maybe "Windows is only cheaper if you love trying to explain the concepts behind ZoneAlarm to your mom every week." Or maybe "Windows is only cheaper if you love using Google to find out how to get rid of things that Ad-Aware and Spybot missed." (Yes, there are some.) Or "Windows is only cheaper if you have friends you trust who can tell you which anti-spyware programs are trustworthy in the first place."
Tempest, Galaga, Pac-Man, Space Invaders, Robotron, and other simple games are ideal for children.
:-)
Maybe I should have started earlier. I couldn't meaningfully move the two sticks (move and fire) in different directions if my (real) life depended on it.
I'm a believer in The Universal Torque Specification: Tighten it 'till it strips, then back off a quarter.
Similarly, when raising kids: raise them however you want, and if it turns out they're bad, do something else.
See also Better Off Dead: "Go that way... fast. If something gets in your way, turn."
(Note for the humor-impaired: please don't take any of the above advice seriously.)
You've paid ((2008-1996)*12*3) $432 to "save" you if someone jacks you at the ATM... which typically has a limit of $300 per transaction. And you're paying for a service that is technically trivial to implement and should be given out for free in the first place. Nice.
Two words: tired arms.
One word: exoskeletons.
Until the issue's fixed (they want me to upgrade the firmware), they've been stalking me to track the ticket. E-mails and voicemail messages ("Did you get a chance to upgrade that firmware yet?") more often than you'd get from a real-life stalker.
;-)
Maybe they've just got a lot of free time these days.
So, it's an open-source tool that evaluates how open-source open-source software is? Wow. If ever there was an app that demanded a recursive acronym, this is it. Any suggestions?
The funniest thing is, people started saying (once dual-booting was mentioned) that Windows would be the new "Classic" mode in OS X. (In a sense.) Now, not only do we have that, we have things like Parallels' "coherence" mode which makes Windows behave exactly like Classic apps did--an other-OS window floating among all your OS X windows.
So basically, Apple (a third party, relative to Microsoft) and Parallels (a third party, relative to Apple) have done exactly what Vista should have done. If that were running on Windows, you literally wouldn't even know what was running in "classic" mode and what wasn't. Once again, the competition, working with orders of magnitude less resources than MS, is literally years ahead of Redmond. Un-effing-real.
Another neat thing is that the performance of a virtual machine is very close to the performance of an old OS on hardware from the same era: on my MacBook, Windows 2000 feels just as peppy as it does running natively on my 1 GHz PIII desktop. Running XP in full-screen mode, you'd need a stopwatch to know that you weren't working on my dad's HP laptop.
Do you want to add a single tag that all other browsers will ignore...
:-)
I'd be OK with that--one extra line in my 'head.inc'--but that this is MS we're talking about here. The tag they pick that other browsers "should" ignore will probably cause IE/6 to crash.
(Seriously, that has happened.)
Do what Apple did all those years ago: put the whole current OS in a Classic-like environment and do something worthwhile with the rest.
Also, ship all those things that were cut from Vista.