Thanks for the info Choco, I'll see how far I get with that.
It really bugs me when organisations like th TPS make big claims and then not only fial to deliver, but can't be bothered to even reply to letters.
Yes, I'm sure I am complaining about companies phoning me up to sell me things - companies with whom I have never dealt before.
As I said, given the TPS's refusal to lift a fingetr to do their job, I found another way to prevent myself from being deluged by cold sales calls (through NTL all "number withheld" calls just do not get to me at all - sheer bliss!), so I'm not that bothered anymore, although it does p!ss me off that I had to do that because the TPS are too lazy to do their job or even reply to a complaint:-(
Who is the DPR? I think I shall follow your suggestion and complain to them - I don't see why the TPS should get away with not doing their job.
(1) Yes, the correc t niumber and fuyll dialling code.
(2) Private line
(3) Yes, each time I complained it was in WRITING.
(4) Yes, they confirmed registration, but completely ignore all complaints.
(5) Well, I registered twice (second time to give them anothe chance in case it was just One Of Those Things).
They have done fsck all both times in terms of responding to complaints.
Ergo, I have no option but to conclude that, in my experience, the TPS is a complete waste of time, space and effort and anyone wishing to rid themselves of cold sales calls should not waste their time trying to get the TPS to help:-(
(OTOH I have found the MPS to be the opposite - I reg'd with them and the amount of junk mail I get has decreased to a small trickle).
Well, my experience is the TPS is worse than useless.
Signed up over a year ago.
Seen no noticeable drop in sales calls (in fact, the number was rising).
Complained about several to TPS.
Hears sweet F.A. back from TPS even after several months.
So, in my experience, the TPS is a complete waste of time and effort.
However, I have since managed to reduce the amount of sakes calkls I get - via NTL I simply have all calls with number-withheld ignored - an amazing drop in sales calls overnight!:)
Simple, easy, effective. Completely unlike the useless TPS
What is the point of a Katz filter if it doesn't freaking work?
Mind you, reading this "review" reminded me why I chose to filter out Katz's
crap in the first place - full of factual errors which are so elementary it
makes one wonder whether Katz ever watched the film or even did ANY research
before writing.
I mean, come on Katz - you get the name of the director wrong; you get the
name of the comic wrong; you get the circumstances under which "Silent" Bob
speaks in his other films wrong; you get the residence of the REAL director
wrong;
Please, slashdot-team, fix the Katz filter so we don't have to put up with
this lameass ill-thoughtout un-researched rubbish again.
"10 years ago, multiprocessor was only a mainframe buzzword."
Whereas 10 years ago the Amiga had been using multiprocessing for 6 years
(CPU, seperate Display processor).
"10 years ago, GUI on a PC was a joke"
Whereas 10 years ago the Amiga had been using a proper built-in GUI for 6
years (Macs had for the same time or possibly longer, as had other
systems)
"10 years ago, 256 colors was luxury"
Funny that, I was using 4,096 colours as standard on my Amiga 10 years ago
"10 years ago, internet wasn't something 99.99% of the people knew
about"
And that was supposed to be a Bad Thing?!?! See AOL...
"10 years ago you would get 40megs for the price you get 100gigs
today."
Yeah, and 10 years ago you only needed 40M of disk space where you need 100G
today!
Erm, no, it can't happen because I do not use my phoneline to connect to my ISP therefore I cannot possibly use my phoneline to comit any of those violations.
If you are going to foam and froth at the mouth, at least make the effort to think up a VALID example, please!
Oh, and btw, I was not commenting upon the rights or wrongs of the situation.
I was merely commenting upon the perceived "need" that some people associate with what is actually very trivial in the great scheme of life.
So, AssByte, if you truely feel that you are dependant upon your net access, then perhaps you really ought to take a deep breath, log off and step outside for a while...
Cars are not designed with the express purpose of breaking the law.
His software WAS designed PURELY to do something illegal.
That's quite a difference there, but hey - don't let logic get in the way of your kneejerk rant, eh?
Oh, and I *loved* your wholly irrelevant referrence to "text-to-speech for the blind" - they are ALREADY catered for, fully legally, by the existing products.
Oh dear - 2 out of 2 wrong for you there, meldroc. Never mind, I'm sure I'll be modded down sdo you won't have to read views which contradting the slashdot mentality...
"if they know the person is "fake", they can't possibly get emotionally
involved with their story"
Sounds to me like your friends are more interested in looking at the movie
rather than the plot - you know, the kind who spend endless hours trying to
find the one scene where someone's button doesn't match a previous scene...
Whether a character is "played" by CGI or a human makes little difference in
the end - I confess to having a little tear in my eye during Shrek for
example.
And if people cannot get emotionally involved with a CGI character then how
do you explain the large numbers of slashdot posts re Jar-Jar, hmm?
So you are whinging because Britannica, arguably THE best encyclopaewdic resource in the world, would like to offer an ad-free full web access service to its encyclopaedia for under US$0.14 per day?!?!
Just out of curiosity, I tried some searches on Britannica and Nupedia (given the claims that an open source encyclodaedia is as good as anything else around).
First up, Internal Combustion Engine. Nupedia - <a href="http://www.nupedia.org/n_search.fcgi?request =internal+combustion+engine">no articles</a>. Britannica - <a href="http://www.britannica.com/search?query=inter nal%20combustion%20engine&ct=">several relevant entries found</a>.
GUI? Same story, Nupedia <a href="http://www.nupedia.org/n_search.fcgi?request =GUI">no matches</a>, Britannica <a href="http://www.britannica.com/search?query=GUI&a mp;ct=">perfect match</a>.
5 diverse yet realistic searches. Britannica covers all 5, Nupedia has NONE of them.
BTW, I found all 5 on Britannica and got definitions and information WITHOUT having to pay - the 14c/day subscription is to ADDITIONAL indepth information on topics, so if you just have a light curiosity, then the free engine will suffice for you anyway.
"doctor", I suggest YOU do some research before you type!
You do realise that the RIP goes a hell of a lot further than you claim.
It is a HELL of a lot more than just "requesting IP addresses from ISPs".
It most certainly DOEs mean they can monitor any and all internet traffic.
You do realise that the RIP Act gives the police the power to demand you hand over your encryption/decryption keys, and if you don't you go to jail, even if you NO LONGER HAVE the keys (you try proving you do NOt have them then, go on).
Oh, and you do realise that whilst this is happening, under the RIP Act you are not allowed to tell ANYONE that your keys have been grabbed, nor that you are being asked for the keys - mention it to anyone and you are liable to instant imprisonment.
Learn something about a subject before typing next time, "doctor".
Oh, and I speak as a UK citizen who has studied the bill for quite some time - I know what I am talking about here.
Slashdot Mirror
OT, but here we go.
(1) The deathtoll is around one THIRD of your inflated figure.
(2) Please are NOt "dropping like flies" from Anthrax - the number of fatalities you could count on the fingers of one hand.
(3) If you are not interested in the stuff mentioned on slashdot, then why waste your time reading it?
Perhaps 'tis you who ought to "get some perspective", maybe?
Thanks for the info Choco, I'll see how far I get with that.
It really bugs me when organisations like th TPS make big claims and then not only fial to deliver, but can't be bothered to even reply to letters.
Cheers!
(Sorry for the delay - was on holiday for a week)
Yes, I'm sure I am complaining about companies phoning me up to sell me things - companies with whom I have never dealt before.
:-(
As I said, given the TPS's refusal to lift a fingetr to do their job, I found another way to prevent myself from being deluged by cold sales calls (through NTL all "number withheld" calls just do not get to me at all - sheer bliss!), so I'm not that bothered anymore, although it does p!ss me off that I had to do that because the TPS are too lazy to do their job or even reply to a complaint
Who is the DPR? I think I shall follow your suggestion and complain to them - I don't see why the TPS should get away with not doing their job.
Cheers!
(1) Yes, the correc t niumber and fuyll dialling code.
:-(
(2) Private line
(3) Yes, each time I complained it was in WRITING.
(4) Yes, they confirmed registration, but completely ignore all complaints.
(5) Well, I registered twice (second time to give them anothe chance in case it was just One Of Those Things).
They have done fsck all both times in terms of responding to complaints.
Ergo, I have no option but to conclude that, in my experience, the TPS is a complete waste of time, space and effort and anyone wishing to rid themselves of cold sales calls should not waste their time trying to get the TPS to help
(OTOH I have found the MPS to be the opposite - I reg'd with them and the amount of junk mail I get has decreased to a small trickle).
As I mentioned before, I registered a year or so ago and saw no niticeable drop in calls (the reverse infact).
Complained to TPS several times, heard feck all back.
TPS *IDS* worse than useless in my experience I'm afraid.
Well, my experience is the TPS is worse than useless.
:)
Signed up over a year ago.
Seen no noticeable drop in sales calls (in fact, the number was rising).
Complained about several to TPS.
Hears sweet F.A. back from TPS even after several months.
So, in my experience, the TPS is a complete waste of time and effort.
However, I have since managed to reduce the amount of sakes calkls I get - via NTL I simply have all calls with number-withheld ignored - an amazing drop in sales calls overnight!
Simple, easy, effective. Completely unlike the useless TPS
The TPS is next to useless.
:-(
It is only used by those companies who wish to use it - it is not compulsory to use.
Many companies claim, when told my details are on the TPS, "Oh, wre have not had the latest update yet".
It is a complete waste of time and money, I'm afraid
Erm, why would Alan Turing, one of the guys who CRACKED the Enigma, be concerned about your hypothetical demands for a back door to be fitted?!
Methinks you need to get your history straight before you try making any more historical jokes...
All very nice, and all very IRRELEVANT to the question, namely why would a class *require* NET access?
Reckon you might want to read before replying next time, eh?
*groan*
I agree completely.
What is the point of a Katz filter if it doesn't freaking work?
Mind you, reading this "review" reminded me why I chose to filter out Katz's
crap in the first place - full of factual errors which are so elementary it
makes one wonder whether Katz ever watched the film or even did ANY research
before writing.
I mean, come on Katz - you get the name of the director wrong; you get the
name of the comic wrong; you get the circumstances under which "Silent" Bob
speaks in his other films wrong; you get the residence of the REAL director
wrong;
Please, slashdot-team, fix the Katz filter so we don't have to put up with
this lameass ill-thoughtout un-researched rubbish again.
Please?
Whereas 10 years ago the Amiga had been using multiprocessing for 6 years (CPU, seperate Display processor).
"10 years ago, GUI on a PC was a joke"
Whereas 10 years ago the Amiga had been using a proper built-in GUI for 6 years (Macs had for the same time or possibly longer, as had other systems)
"10 years ago, 256 colors was luxury"
Funny that, I was using 4,096 colours as standard on my Amiga 10 years ago
"10 years ago, internet wasn't something 99.99% of the people knew about"
And that was supposed to be a Bad Thing?!?! See AOL...
"10 years ago you would get 40megs for the price you get 100gigs today."
Yeah, and 10 years ago you only needed 40M of disk space where you need 100G today!
--
Erm, no, it can't happen because I do not use my phoneline to connect to my ISP therefore I cannot possibly use my phoneline to comit any of those violations.
If you are going to foam and froth at the mouth, at least make the effort to think up a VALID example, please!
Oh, and btw, I was not commenting upon the rights or wrongs of the situation.
I was merely commenting upon the perceived "need" that some people associate with what is actually very trivial in the great scheme of life.
So, AssByte, if you truely feel that you are dependant upon your net access, then perhaps you really ought to take a deep breath, log off and step outside for a while...
Well, let's see.
I depend on air.
I depend on water.
I depend on food.
I am fairly dependant on warmth and shelter too.
But my net access? Nope. You can remove that and I will still live.
Actually, I have an RS/6000 at home. Seriously.
Erm, this might be informative if it weren't for the fact that, like many many people, swordboy misunderstands and misinterprets Moore's Law.
Moore's Law says absolutely NOTHING about performance (let alone "double speed in 18 months".
All Moore's Law states is that chip COMPLEXITY (*NOT* performance) doubles every 18-24 months.
Easy answer.
Write your own!
Seriously, if you feel that strongly about it, get together with some like-minded folk and create your own game and release it.
You mean like Microsoft itself (infected at hotmail and at Redmond) ? :-)
Nice try, but wrong.
Cars are not designed with the express purpose of breaking the law.
His software WAS designed PURELY to do something illegal.
That's quite a difference there, but hey - don't let logic get in the way of your kneejerk rant, eh?
Oh, and I *loved* your wholly irrelevant referrence to "text-to-speech for the blind" - they are ALREADY catered for, fully legally, by the existing products.
Oh dear - 2 out of 2 wrong for you there, meldroc. Never mind, I'm sure I'll be modded down sdo you won't have to read views which contradting the slashdot mentality...
With HEAVY emphasis on your use of the word "presumably"...
(and what's this slashdot bollocks about having to wait 20 seconds from hitting "reply" before submitting your response?! LAME!).
The point, my friend, is that he wrote a program to enable other people to use something they hadn't paid for.
He broke the law AND he profited from it by selling the software making it easier for people to steal.
Get a grip, folks!
involved with their story"
Sounds to me like your friends are more interested in looking at the movie
rather than the plot - you know, the kind who spend endless hours trying to
find the one scene where someone's button doesn't match a previous scene...
Whether a character is "played" by CGI or a human makes little difference in
the end - I confess to having a little tear in my eye during Shrek for
example.
And if people cannot get emotionally involved with a CGI character then how
do you explain the large numbers of slashdot posts re Jar-Jar, hmm?
--
So you are whinging because Britannica, arguably THE best encyclopaewdic resource in the world, would like to offer an ad-free full web access service to its encyclopaedia for under US$0.14 per day?!?!
t =internal+combustion+engine">no articles</a>. Britannica - <a href="http://www.britannica.com/search?query=inter nal%20combustion%20engine&ct=">several relevant entries found</a>.
t =Tamil+Tigers">no articles</a>. Britannica - <a href="http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Tamil %20Tigers&ct=">several relevant articles</a>.
t =superstring+theory">no articles</a>. Britannica - <a href="http://www.britannica.com/search?query=super string%20theory&ct=">yup, succesful matches again</a>.
t =Difference+Engine&button=Search">No articles</a>. Britannica? <a href="http://www.britannica.com/search?query=diffe rence%20engine&ct=">yup, it's there, nestling amongst other non-related engine links, but definitly there</a>.
t =GUI">no matches</a>, Britannica <a href="http://www.britannica.com/search?query=GUI&a mp;ct=">perfect match</a>.
Just out of curiosity, I tried some searches on Britannica and Nupedia (given the claims that an open source encyclodaedia is as good as anything else around).
First up, Internal Combustion Engine. Nupedia - <a href="http://www.nupedia.org/n_search.fcgi?reques
Oh well, let's try something topical - Tamil Tigers. Nupedia <a href="http://www.nupedia.org/n_search.fcgi?reques
Hmm. OK, let's try something technical. Superstring theory. Nupedia - <a href="http://www.nupedia.org/n_search.fcgi?reques
Oh well. Something computing-related perhaps. "Difference Engine". Nupedia - <a href="http://www.nupedia.org/n_search.fcgi?reques
GUI? Same story, Nupedia <a href="http://www.nupedia.org/n_search.fcgi?reques
5 diverse yet realistic searches. Britannica covers all 5, Nupedia has NONE of them.
BTW, I found all 5 on Britannica and got definitions and information WITHOUT having to pay - the 14c/day subscription is to ADDITIONAL indepth information on topics, so if you just have a light curiosity, then the free engine will suffice for you anyway.
--
"doctor", I suggest YOU do some research before you type!
You do realise that the RIP goes a hell of a lot further than you claim.
It is a HELL of a lot more than just "requesting IP addresses from ISPs".
It most certainly DOEs mean they can monitor any and all internet traffic.
You do realise that the RIP Act gives the police the power to demand you hand over your encryption/decryption keys, and if you don't you go to jail, even if you NO LONGER HAVE the keys (you try proving you do NOt have them then, go on).
Oh, and you do realise that whilst this is happening, under the RIP Act you are not allowed to tell ANYONE that your keys have been grabbed, nor that you are being asked for the keys - mention it to anyone and you are liable to instant imprisonment.
Learn something about a subject before typing next time, "doctor".
Oh, and I speak as a UK citizen who has studied the bill for quite some time - I know what I am talking about here.
--
Correct.
In the first case, that would not be entrapment as they were in no way encouraging youto break the law.
In the second, however, it would be entrapment.