Where I live, the city takes photos of each neighborhood from a plane every spring, and also sends out squadrons of seasonal employees to photograph and compare each house. Why do they do that? To find out who has made an addition to their home without getting a permit, thus "robbing" the city of property taxes.
I've worked with distributors who simply *will not* carry an AMD processor, because they would lose their special pricing from Intel if they did. Whether Intel is handing out kickbacks or just giving lower prices up front, I don't see much of a difference apart from semantics. Either way, they're using a market pressure to keep AMD out of as many shops as they can.
Whether that is *bad* or not is an entirely different matter, and one that will never be agreed upon by the various parties.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for being green. But it would seem that instead of putting all of that effort, design time, and eventual costs in equipment in order to save a very small number of watts on the ethernet chips at each end of the link, a slightly larger effort directed into power supply losses, CPU power usage, or GPU power usage would yield 10x the benefits.
Realistically, I know that they can't just walk over to Intel, AMD, and NVidia, and say "Alright, guys, we're here to tell you how to use less power." They're just doing what they can, and they deserve applause for it.
She *was* told politely about the policies that were in force... it was the first correspondence from them that they quoted. From there, she just got repetitive and pushy. When she kept it up, the guy got more direct and blunt. I don't blame the guy one bit.
It's still free to her. It's just being subsidized by paying customers. Either way, she wants someone else to cover the bill to recover her data, even though it was her fault in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate the idea of trying to get what you can... but there's a point where you're just being a free-loading parasite, and if *I* had acted the way she admits to acting, I'd feel like I had crossed that line.
I also suspect that she wasn't entirely forthcoming with *her* side of the story... I wouldn't be surprised to find that she was even more obnoxious than she admitted to, but we'll probably never have a complete transcript of both sides, so I can only go on what she says.
I thought that you meant *my* actions, but I see that you meant the actions of the Lycos guy. Still, the same thing applies, nothing he did in any meets the definition of "harassment". In fact, if you had to pick which of the two was closer to harassment (and I'm going from *her* account of the story), it would be her.
If it says that they may be deleted, then they may be deleted. Whether other companies offer a grace period is irrelevant, and in spite of the fact that an entire industry has sprung up around rescuing people from their delete key, there really is no reason to think that "delete" doesn't mean "irrevocably".
"May" or "shall", it doesn't matter. Their service and attitude weren't exactly the helpful, perky type that is sometimes offered (and appreciated), it doesn't mean that she has any right to whine when Lycos *doesn't* bend over backwards to help her...
If it sounds like harassment to you, feel free to pursue it if you want. You'll find that my actions in no way constitute harassment, and probably that you miss one of the critical parts of the definition of the word "harassment".
I think that what you think doesn't really matter. Poor, little, picked-on Whitney was the only one of the two parties which didn't hold up her end of the agreement. She can whine/complain/state/whatever all day long, but she is still the one in the wrong, and it's just too bad that the world won't bend over backwards just to accomodate her free-loading ways.
The only thing that changes behavior is accountability. Facing the consequences of your decisions is always painful. Some people learn from the mistake, some people try to weasel out of it. It's fairly obvious which type of person she is, and I wouldn't be surprised if you, too, fell into the same category.
It always amazes me just how much people will whine when *free* services don't meet their expectations...
She used a free service. The terms of service said that her mail may be deleted, and that it would not be restored. She had to agree to those terms.
When she failed to live up to her part of the agreement, they deleted her email in accordance with the terms of service, and refused to restore it, in accordance with the terms of service.
She whines. They tell her "no". She whines some more. Just a classic luser. As for him being harsh, I worked customer service many years ago, and trust me: There are people out there (like Whitney) who simply refuse to take "no" for an answer, even when *they* are clearly the party at fault. They will simply keep pestering and pestering in hopes of getting a "break", and you have no option than to just come out and say "No, it's not going to happen."
I really can't see anything out of the ordinary, or even remotely newsworthy about that story.
For every 100 "I'm going to sue you" lines, I would be surprised if three resulted in an actual lawsuit. It seems to be the first thing that oh-so-many people say, but when the reality of (a) having to pay a lawyer, (b) having to invest their time, and (c) having to prove an actual case kicks in, they tend to just sort of go back to their regular lives.
The initial offer was $5k. I forwarded it on to the "powers that be", and got word that the final arrangements were for $6500.
Since we do have plans for nearly all of the domains, it's not often that we actually sell one. When I get an offer, I discard it if it's less than $1k, because it's just not worth our time. Of those that I forward on, I think that we only sell about one in ten. It's not something we're really interested in, but if it were, I imagine that it could be quite profitable.
At my company, we have a couple of hundred domain names that we don't currently use. We're not cyber-squatting, we are going to use them at some point in the future - but development time is always in short supply.
In any event, without even trying to sell them, we occasionally have people offer us money for a domain that we have. Sometimes it's a few hundred bucks, sometimes it's more. Just this week we agreed to sell one for $6500. If we were to make a full-time business out of it, I'm sure we could make a good bit of money.
Used properly, a person is more or less isolated, to try and prevent the spread of infection. While the enzyme itself may only kill 90% (Actually, I think it was 99%) of the virii, the idea is that the person's body will take care of the remaining (cod-enzyme-resistant) virii.
For being "cultural", all human cultures sure must share an awful lot with all of the other primate cultures...
You might think they're cultural, but they are, indeed, biological in nature. Guys don't like women in high heels because their culture has told them so, they like them because it emphasizes both parts of a woman's body and patterns in movement that tickle reproductive desires that are evolutionary and biological in nature. The culture around high-heels sprang up as a result of the biology, not the other way around.
Women and social networks? Nope, it's biological. Again, culture has sprung up as a result of the biological underpinnings. Violent trends in males? Same thing.
It would be very comforting to think that these things were merely societal norms that were pushed onto us, and that we really had more ability to change the differences between men and women... but the evidence is pretty strongly against it. In fact, once you look at the behavior patterns of primates compared to other groups of mammals, you start to realize that a truly mind-boggling amount of human behavior is nothing more than classic primate bahavior, the same behavior patterns that come from genetic makeups... not societal or cultural pressures.
Yes, pink was a poor choice. The one about males and violent crime was spot-on. Still, women and men are different, and there isn't much you can do about it, and still have women and men as seperate genders... and still mammals.
I could come up with twenty or thirty valid "You might as well ask why women..." lines, but in the end, people who aren't familiar with the biological underpinnings of the difference between male and female behavior will still argue that it's just not true, whether it's because they can't deal with the fact that people are *different* (and especially that not all people are equal in every way), or because their religion teaches them that biology has no constraints upon their behavior or choices, but that their spirit is in complete control.
"Have women also evolved to carry purses, wear high heeled shoes, watch soap operas, and braid their hair? Tell me, how did natural selection work that one out?"
Yes. They have, at least to some of those things. If you look into *why* women wear high-heeled shoes (more to the point, why men like it when women wear high-heeled shoes), you end up with evolutionary desires towards certain features for reproduction in primates.
Soap operas? You bet. How does a woman make it? Through social networking. That's from evolution. Soap operas give women a chance to become involved in social ties, at least in their mind. Studies have been done that show that women who watch a lot of soap operas *think* they have more friends than they actually do.
If you don't think that a great deal of the differences between men and women are genetic differences that have come about from a lot of evolution, then maybe you should look more into the biological differences between men and women. Not just hormonal differences, but the anatomical differences in the brain. You'll find that the structures responsible for "classic" female behaviors are much larger and better-wired in women than in men, and the same for male behaviors. You'll also find that even across societal norms, those differences still exist. There's a whole lot more of a genetic basis than you realize, and just because the eugenecists (who had a lot of things right, but took their ideas to extreme lengths) went along those lines doesn't make it false.
As non-politically-correct as it is to pretend that any two people might be different - or even more shocking, not equal - it's just true. When one race, gender, or any other section of humanity shows a particular bias to something that isn't a *touchy* subject, nobody seems to get their knickers in a knot, but when the subject is an emotional one, then suddenly people will argue it to the death.
... why more wearers of pink clothing are women, or why more violent crimes are committed by men.
Men and women are different. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. And those who think that men and women need to be exactly equal in every area of life need to get over it, and stop trying: There's a few hundred thousand years of evolution working against you, and you're going to lose.
We had a person apply for a programming position, and on his resume, he listed polyglotism as one of his areas of interest. One of the other interviewers said "That's terrific! All of us here speak another language - let's see - Portugese, Spanish, Spanish, and Japanese. Which languages do you speak?"
The poor guy sunk about six inches into his chair as he confessed "Well... none, really."
When your batteries dip below about 60%, you start to cut into their lifetime much more significantly. While hydrogen is a very "expensive" energy source (in terms of what goes into processing it), it's a nice backup to help you on longer trips without having to sacrifice battery lifetime.
... one of the main reasons that BTX went down the tubes is because manufacturers had to pay royalties to Intel. That is not the case with the new DTX.
Personally, I would rather have seen something more substantially different from MicroATX, but I still think that there is a good chance of this catching on.
Slashdot Mirror
Where I live, the city takes photos of each neighborhood from a plane every spring, and also sends out squadrons of seasonal employees to photograph and compare each house. Why do they do that? To find out who has made an addition to their home without getting a permit, thus "robbing" the city of property taxes.
steve
I've worked with distributors who simply *will not* carry an AMD processor, because they would lose their special pricing from Intel if they did. Whether Intel is handing out kickbacks or just giving lower prices up front, I don't see much of a difference apart from semantics. Either way, they're using a market pressure to keep AMD out of as many shops as they can.
Whether that is *bad* or not is an entirely different matter, and one that will never be agreed upon by the various parties.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for being green. But it would seem that instead of putting all of that effort, design time, and eventual costs in equipment in order to save a very small number of watts on the ethernet chips at each end of the link, a slightly larger effort directed into power supply losses, CPU power usage, or GPU power usage would yield 10x the benefits.
Realistically, I know that they can't just walk over to Intel, AMD, and NVidia, and say "Alright, guys, we're here to tell you how to use less power." They're just doing what they can, and they deserve applause for it.
She *was* told politely about the policies that were in force... it was the first correspondence from them that they quoted. From there, she just got repetitive and pushy. When she kept it up, the guy got more direct and blunt. I don't blame the guy one bit.
It's still free to her. It's just being subsidized by paying customers. Either way, she wants someone else to cover the bill to recover her data, even though it was her fault in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate the idea of trying to get what you can... but there's a point where you're just being a free-loading parasite, and if *I* had acted the way she admits to acting, I'd feel like I had crossed that line.
I also suspect that she wasn't entirely forthcoming with *her* side of the story... I wouldn't be surprised to find that she was even more obnoxious than she admitted to, but we'll probably never have a complete transcript of both sides, so I can only go on what she says.
I thought that you meant *my* actions, but I see that you meant the actions of the Lycos guy. Still, the same thing applies, nothing he did in any meets the definition of "harassment". In fact, if you had to pick which of the two was closer to harassment (and I'm going from *her* account of the story), it would be her.
If it says that they may be deleted, then they may be deleted. Whether other companies offer a grace period is irrelevant, and in spite of the fact that an entire industry has sprung up around rescuing people from their delete key, there really is no reason to think that "delete" doesn't mean "irrevocably".
"May" or "shall", it doesn't matter. Their service and attitude weren't exactly the helpful, perky type that is sometimes offered (and appreciated), it doesn't mean that she has any right to whine when Lycos *doesn't* bend over backwards to help her...
If it sounds like harassment to you, feel free to pursue it if you want. You'll find that my actions in no way constitute harassment, and probably that you miss one of the critical parts of the definition of the word "harassment".
I think that what you think doesn't really matter. Poor, little, picked-on Whitney was the only one of the two parties which didn't hold up her end of the agreement. She can whine/complain/state/whatever all day long, but she is still the one in the wrong, and it's just too bad that the world won't bend over backwards just to accomodate her free-loading ways.
The only thing that changes behavior is accountability. Facing the consequences of your decisions is always painful. Some people learn from the mistake, some people try to weasel out of it. It's fairly obvious which type of person she is, and I wouldn't be surprised if you, too, fell into the same category.
It always amazes me just how much people will whine when *free* services don't meet their expectations...
... and then they whine more.
She used a free service. The terms of service said that her mail may be deleted, and that it would not be restored. She had to agree to those terms.
When she failed to live up to her part of the agreement, they deleted her email in accordance with the terms of service, and refused to restore it, in accordance with the terms of service.
She whines. They tell her "no". She whines some more. Just a classic luser. As for him being harsh, I worked customer service many years ago, and trust me: There are people out there (like Whitney) who simply refuse to take "no" for an answer, even when *they* are clearly the party at fault. They will simply keep pestering and pestering in hopes of getting a "break", and you have no option than to just come out and say "No, it's not going to happen."
I really can't see anything out of the ordinary, or even remotely newsworthy about that story.
For every 100 "I'm going to sue you" lines, I would be surprised if three resulted in an actual lawsuit. It seems to be the first thing that oh-so-many people say, but when the reality of (a) having to pay a lawyer, (b) having to invest their time, and (c) having to prove an actual case kicks in, they tend to just sort of go back to their regular lives.
steve
Nuclear's *only* disadvantage is a high setup cost? That's priceless. Brings a tear to my eye. *sniff*
Yeah, because hydro, solar, wind, geothermal... those are all just wacky-heads talking.
The initial offer was $5k. I forwarded it on to the "powers that be", and got word that the final arrangements were for $6500.
Since we do have plans for nearly all of the domains, it's not often that we actually sell one. When I get an offer, I discard it if it's less than $1k, because it's just not worth our time. Of those that I forward on, I think that we only sell about one in ten. It's not something we're really interested in, but if it were, I imagine that it could be quite profitable.
steve
At my company, we have a couple of hundred domain names that we don't currently use. We're not cyber-squatting, we are going to use them at some point in the future - but development time is always in short supply.
In any event, without even trying to sell them, we occasionally have people offer us money for a domain that we have. Sometimes it's a few hundred bucks, sometimes it's more. Just this week we agreed to sell one for $6500. If we were to make a full-time business out of it, I'm sure we could make a good bit of money.
Only if it's used improperly.
Used properly, a person is more or less isolated, to try and prevent the spread of infection. While the enzyme itself may only kill 90% (Actually, I think it was 99%) of the virii, the idea is that the person's body will take care of the remaining (cod-enzyme-resistant) virii.
steve
For being "cultural", all human cultures sure must share an awful lot with all of the other primate cultures...
You might think they're cultural, but they are, indeed, biological in nature. Guys don't like women in high heels because their culture has told them so, they like them because it emphasizes both parts of a woman's body and patterns in movement that tickle reproductive desires that are evolutionary and biological in nature. The culture around high-heels sprang up as a result of the biology, not the other way around.
Women and social networks? Nope, it's biological. Again, culture has sprung up as a result of the biological underpinnings. Violent trends in males? Same thing.
It would be very comforting to think that these things were merely societal norms that were pushed onto us, and that we really had more ability to change the differences between men and women... but the evidence is pretty strongly against it. In fact, once you look at the behavior patterns of primates compared to other groups of mammals, you start to realize that a truly mind-boggling amount of human behavior is nothing more than classic primate bahavior, the same behavior patterns that come from genetic makeups... not societal or cultural pressures.
steve
Yes, pink was a poor choice. The one about males and violent crime was spot-on. Still, women and men are different, and there isn't much you can do about it, and still have women and men as seperate genders... and still mammals.
I could come up with twenty or thirty valid "You might as well ask why women..." lines, but in the end, people who aren't familiar with the biological underpinnings of the difference between male and female behavior will still argue that it's just not true, whether it's because they can't deal with the fact that people are *different* (and especially that not all people are equal in every way), or because their religion teaches them that biology has no constraints upon their behavior or choices, but that their spirit is in complete control.
steve
"Have women also evolved to carry purses, wear high heeled shoes, watch soap operas, and braid their hair? Tell me, how did natural selection work that one out?"
Yes. They have, at least to some of those things. If you look into *why* women wear high-heeled shoes (more to the point, why men like it when women wear high-heeled shoes), you end up with evolutionary desires towards certain features for reproduction in primates.
Soap operas? You bet. How does a woman make it? Through social networking. That's from evolution. Soap operas give women a chance to become involved in social ties, at least in their mind. Studies have been done that show that women who watch a lot of soap operas *think* they have more friends than they actually do.
If you don't think that a great deal of the differences between men and women are genetic differences that have come about from a lot of evolution, then maybe you should look more into the biological differences between men and women. Not just hormonal differences, but the anatomical differences in the brain. You'll find that the structures responsible for "classic" female behaviors are much larger and better-wired in women than in men, and the same for male behaviors. You'll also find that even across societal norms, those differences still exist. There's a whole lot more of a genetic basis than you realize, and just because the eugenecists (who had a lot of things right, but took their ideas to extreme lengths) went along those lines doesn't make it false.
As non-politically-correct as it is to pretend that any two people might be different - or even more shocking, not equal - it's just true. When one race, gender, or any other section of humanity shows a particular bias to something that isn't a *touchy* subject, nobody seems to get their knickers in a knot, but when the subject is an emotional one, then suddenly people will argue it to the death.
steve
Men and women are different. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. And those who think that men and women need to be exactly equal in every area of life need to get over it, and stop trying: There's a few hundred thousand years of evolution working against you, and you're going to lose.
steve
We had a person apply for a programming position, and on his resume, he listed polyglotism as one of his areas of interest. One of the other interviewers said "That's terrific! All of us here speak another language - let's see - Portugese, Spanish, Spanish, and Japanese. Which languages do you speak?"
The poor guy sunk about six inches into his chair as he confessed "Well... none, really."
When your batteries dip below about 60%, you start to cut into their lifetime much more significantly. While hydrogen is a very "expensive" energy source (in terms of what goes into processing it), it's a nice backup to help you on longer trips without having to sacrifice battery lifetime.
Personally, I would rather have seen something more substantially different from MicroATX, but I still think that there is a good chance of this catching on.
Bill Gates: "I didn't get rich by writing checks!!!"