Where I live, in the second-largest city in the state, I have to pay $50/month for 320k DSL. I live 4.5 miles (following the roads) from the second-largest university in the state, as well. 1 mile, as the crow flies. Cable is not an option, they simply don't provide it where I'm at. That means I have *one* option for bandwidth, and a shitty over-priced one at that. I called the ISP and told them, "Fine. I'll pay the ungodly $70/month if you'll upgrade me to 1Mbit." An hour later, I got a call back saying, "We can't do that in your area." WTF?
Oh, and don't forget: these prices are *with* the year-long commitment. If you don't want that, you end up paying about half again as much per month. If I want to pay less, I'm back on a 56k modem.
What on earth for? I can't imagine anything shy of nickel having any effect, given today's prices...at least Verizon hasn't disabled *that* as well. Although I'm sure they'd love to...
Back in the day, I used to play on a certain MUD (Eternal Twilight, ROM 2.4, I believe)...there was a command, if I recall, called something like "moron." When applied to a user, each time they used a command, said command would be disabled for further use, causing the player to slowly dwindle to non-functional oblivion. Ah, those were the days. Go Vista!
If only viewing selected portions of a web page is theft, mightn't the web page using up my valuable bandwidth with un-wanted ads also be considered theft?
If sites are blocking users for using Firefox because of ad-blocking capabilities, big deal. Go ahead and do it. Here's why: if your site is so dependent on ad-based revenue to stay afloat, it probably isn't offering any service I'm terribly interested in. That is to say, the value of your website must be less than the value of the ads you are serving. Therefore, your site exists primarily to serve ads. This is not a service I have an interest in, and I thank you for recognizing that and redirecting me elsewhere. On the other hand, if the value of your website is inherently greater than the ads you serve, there is no need to get upset about me not viewing your ads.
What about free websites that don't generate revenue on their own, such as Joe-Blow's blog? (I guess there probably is a Joe-Blow's blog somewhere...oh well.) There are ways to generate support-funds besides banner ads. I know this may seem insane, but it's possible. People have done it before (there was a time before the internet, you know.) If the content on your website is actually valuable, *someone* is willing to pay for it, or at the very least, sponsor it, so that you can provide it for free. What's that, you say? Nobody finds your content worthwhile enough? Then perhaps it's not, and you should consider finding a new hobby besides posting pictures of your friend's cat to your blog, or posting videos of you (*so* uncomfortably) hamming it up for the camera in your new MacBook.
Long story short: if your content is so bad that it's not worth the ads that support it, I don't want to see it, and you can go ahead and block me. Else, if your content is so worthwhile that the ads are not necessary to keep it available, suck it up and accept the overhead.
-G
P.S. Almost forgot: I usually use Safari.:P P.P.S. I may get flamed from each side on this one. No, I did not make a complete and logical argument up there. I'm at work, so you can only expect so much.:)
That's awesome...I'd never seen that Walkability thing before. My house scored a big fat ZERO. And I'm pretty sure it's accurate, too. Nothing closer than a mile and a half, and that's just a gas station convenience store. Well, I guess they missed a bar/restaurant, but that's further away than the aforementioned gas station. I love living in the woods.:D
1993 Yamaha Virago. V-Twin, 750cc. I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that more cylinders == worse mileage, at least in an overly simplified manner. So, your 4-cylinder is practically a car. If you want super amazing mileage, drive a go-cart that runs on a lawn-mower engine, perhaps. You'll go slow as hell, but save tons of gas.
I know a few people who have newer cruiser-style bikes that reliably get 80mpg. I guess a lot of it also depends on the bore size, as well, since that changes where you get your power...either taking off, or cruising. But again, I really don't know that much about it.:)
Hybrids? Bah! Intelligent cars? Bah! Drive a motorcycle. I have an early 90's model Yamaha that easily gets 70mpg. On some of the newer bikes, you can get 80 or 90. Some may have broken 100. Plus, you still get to race to the next light, stop, idle, and take off again like you do in your car! Now, imagine the mileage of an intelligent hybrid motorcycle.
Alternate solution: don't ever leave the house. Perfect mileage! Let the pizza delivery guy worry about mileage.:P
Just fyi. You have to parse the entire url, not just the apparent domain. Most users have no idea what the @ symbol means in a URL like that. I was thinking that you used to be able to use ?'s in the username as well, which would allow a big long list of fake CGI parameters to be a part of the username, which could effectively be used to push the actual domain all the way out of the URL box in most browsers. That doesn't appear to work now, but I could be doing something wrong. I don't remember exactly how they had set up the example I was looking at some time ago, but it was fairly convincing at first glance, which means it was utterly convincing to the average user.
[Fake edit] I have no idea why it's inserting a space into that URL. It's actually not the character...it's that index in the string. I can move text around the space, but that character is always a space. That is, if I delete the "m/g" in ".com/get" so that it reads "coet", I get ".coe t"...wtf, mate?
[Another fake edit] Also, I had to wrap the URL in a blockquote because Slashdot removes the username, which effectively counters my phishing method. Damn you, Slashdot! However, most email clients that I am aware of do not perform such an action.
Alternately, for $2000 I could buy a shiny new MacBook Pro. Well, using a student discount anyhow. Add in Bootcamp +/- Parallels...why would the Flippamajigger ever replace my laptop, again? Yeah, it's smaller, but why would anyone willingly subject themselves to typing on a bloated blackberry keypad?
Last I recall, laywers are not under oath. Therefore, they are not required to be "truthful." They must respect the legal process, yes, but that does not mean being "truthful." If you've ever been on a jury trial, they instruct you to explicitly recognize the fact that anything the lawyers say is *not* to be considered evidence. The lawyers are just there to bring the evidence together, to help you see the evidence in the right way, such that you understand it. Their job is to make sure you aren't confused by the evidence. Or are at the very least confused "correctly," such their side "wins." This is why you often get objections during closing statements, because the lawyer giving said statement is trying to present his/her own words as evidence.
I assume the same holds true in a non-jury case.
Additionally, I do not believe they are "officers of the court." Jesters, perhaps, but not officers.
Hmm...perhaps disregard my comment above. It makes sense that the information irrelevant to the case would have been redacted before releasing the document into the wild. Either way, the whole damn thing is flimsy.:)
I think the intent here was that there are two cells in this table: the left cell, and the right cell. The left cell contains the date/time/ip address, and the right cell contains the user. It's a bad format for such a long list of dates/times/ip addresses, but it works. Like so: (pardon my ascii diagram)
item 1 belongs to: |\ item 2 belongs to: |-\ item 3 belongs to: |--}Bob Bobson item 4 belongs to: |-/ item 5 belongs to: |/
As someone who was born in Alaska, raised in Alaska, got a degree in Alaska, and is now a professional in Alaska, I want to apologize on behalf of the state. Also, I'm sorry we vote Republican. There just aren't enough dense population centers to cause people to pull their heads out of their cousins' asses.:)
I'm not sure if it's supposed to appear that way, but has anyone even *tried* viewing the first entry (Michael Johnson's) Safari? OS flame-wars aside, there *are* Slashdot readers using this browser, and some of us even subscribe...if the design ended up like that, I'd stop reading Slashdot. Again, maybe it's supposed to look like that, but at least for me, it all renders in one mile-long column, with the articles not even showing up until 6 full pages down. That makes it pretty much useless to me, since I have to scroll past all of the sidebar menus, the list of "older stuff", and even the poll before I get to any (relatively) real content.
This is not an insult to the designer, of course, but seriously, try to make it useable in alternate browsers? Something about failing gracefully...
Boot Camp is really just a plan to get Windows users to convert to OS X.
Holy crap! Revelation of the year! I can't imagine this being true!
Seriously, how is this possibly a new idea? Of course that's what it's for. And switching because of "limitations" in the other OS makes you a lemming? No, I'm afraid not. That makes you "smart." See, when people decide to stop hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, and instead opt for hitting themselves in the head with, say, a a soft piece of fruit, or an old ham, we call that "learning one's lesson."
The author here needs to get over his own case of being a lemming, and try something new. Pod-people? The whole article stinks of the exact same thralldom the author envisions anyone who switches being caught in.
Yes, I own a mac. Oh, but guess what, I also own a Windows box, and a Linux box! I'm not going to say which one I prefer, because doing so would, at least according to this article, make me a lemming.
In regards to the sister replies to my original statement:
Yes, I made an oversite. What amuses me is that *all but one of you* failed to see that *someone else had already corrected me*. To the first of you: yes, you are correct, I did not consider that. I was assuming they were testing the top *software* sites. Fair enough, point noted. To the rest of you: you're too late. You're no more brilliant than I, at this point, having failed to see the obvious.:)
How can they be testing the top 1000000 web sites, if they're only downloading 100000 programs? That would leave a lot of sites untouched. It seems that in order to test 1000000 web sites, they would have to download at *least* 1000000 programs. Unless, of course, they grabbed programs from *some* of the top 1000000 web sites, in which case they would have programs from, say, site #1, #10, #20, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what you consider a decent connection.
Where I live, in the second-largest city in the state, I have to pay $50/month for 320k DSL. I live 4.5 miles (following the roads) from the second-largest university in the state, as well. 1 mile, as the crow flies. Cable is not an option, they simply don't provide it where I'm at. That means I have *one* option for bandwidth, and a shitty over-priced one at that. I called the ISP and told them, "Fine. I'll pay the ungodly $70/month if you'll upgrade me to 1Mbit." An hour later, I got a call back saying, "We can't do that in your area." WTF?
Oh, and don't forget: these prices are *with* the year-long commitment. If you don't want that, you end up paying about half again as much per month. If I want to pay less, I'm back on a 56k modem.
-G
What on earth for? I can't imagine anything shy of nickel having any effect, given today's prices...at least Verizon hasn't disabled *that* as well. Although I'm sure they'd love to...
Best. Comment. Ever.
:(
Damnit, I just ran out of mod points, too.
-G
Back in the day, I used to play on a certain MUD (Eternal Twilight, ROM 2.4, I believe)...there was a command, if I recall, called something like "moron." When applied to a user, each time they used a command, said command would be disabled for further use, causing the player to slowly dwindle to non-functional oblivion. Ah, those were the days. Go Vista!
-G
If only viewing selected portions of a web page is theft, mightn't the web page using up my valuable bandwidth with un-wanted ads also be considered theft?
:P :)
If sites are blocking users for using Firefox because of ad-blocking capabilities, big deal. Go ahead and do it. Here's why: if your site is so dependent on ad-based revenue to stay afloat, it probably isn't offering any service I'm terribly interested in. That is to say, the value of your website must be less than the value of the ads you are serving. Therefore, your site exists primarily to serve ads. This is not a service I have an interest in, and I thank you for recognizing that and redirecting me elsewhere. On the other hand, if the value of your website is inherently greater than the ads you serve, there is no need to get upset about me not viewing your ads.
What about free websites that don't generate revenue on their own, such as Joe-Blow's blog? (I guess there probably is a Joe-Blow's blog somewhere...oh well.) There are ways to generate support-funds besides banner ads. I know this may seem insane, but it's possible. People have done it before (there was a time before the internet, you know.) If the content on your website is actually valuable, *someone* is willing to pay for it, or at the very least, sponsor it, so that you can provide it for free. What's that, you say? Nobody finds your content worthwhile enough? Then perhaps it's not, and you should consider finding a new hobby besides posting pictures of your friend's cat to your blog, or posting videos of you (*so* uncomfortably) hamming it up for the camera in your new MacBook.
Long story short: if your content is so bad that it's not worth the ads that support it, I don't want to see it, and you can go ahead and block me. Else, if your content is so worthwhile that the ads are not necessary to keep it available, suck it up and accept the overhead.
-G
P.S. Almost forgot: I usually use Safari.
P.P.S. I may get flamed from each side on this one. No, I did not make a complete and logical argument up there. I'm at work, so you can only expect so much.
Everyone knows collect() implicitly exits, returning to the system the amount not owed for federal, state, and local taxes.
That's awesome...I'd never seen that Walkability thing before. My house scored a big fat ZERO. And I'm pretty sure it's accurate, too. Nothing closer than a mile and a half, and that's just a gas station convenience store. Well, I guess they missed a bar/restaurant, but that's further away than the aforementioned gas station. I love living in the woods. :D
-G
1993 Yamaha Virago. V-Twin, 750cc. I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that more cylinders == worse mileage, at least in an overly simplified manner. So, your 4-cylinder is practically a car. If you want super amazing mileage, drive a go-cart that runs on a lawn-mower engine, perhaps. You'll go slow as hell, but save tons of gas.
:)
I know a few people who have newer cruiser-style bikes that reliably get 80mpg. I guess a lot of it also depends on the bore size, as well, since that changes where you get your power...either taking off, or cruising. But again, I really don't know that much about it.
-G
Hybrids? Bah! Intelligent cars? Bah! Drive a motorcycle. I have an early 90's model Yamaha that easily gets 70mpg. On some of the newer bikes, you can get 80 or 90. Some may have broken 100. Plus, you still get to race to the next light, stop, idle, and take off again like you do in your car! Now, imagine the mileage of an intelligent hybrid motorcycle.
:P
Alternate solution: don't ever leave the house. Perfect mileage! Let the pizza delivery guy worry about mileage.
-G
[Fake edit] I have no idea why it's inserting a space into that URL. It's actually not the character...it's that index in the string. I can move text around the space, but that character is always a space. That is, if I delete the "m/g" in ".com/get" so that it reads "coet", I get ".coe t"...wtf, mate?
[Another fake edit] Also, I had to wrap the URL in a blockquote because Slashdot removes the username, which effectively counters my phishing method. Damn you, Slashdot! However, most email clients that I am aware of do not perform such an action.
-G
So, wait..one kills fruits, the other makes them? Hmm...
Alternately, for $2000 I could buy a shiny new MacBook Pro. Well, using a student discount anyhow. Add in Bootcamp +/- Parallels...why would the Flippamajigger ever replace my laptop, again? Yeah, it's smaller, but why would anyone willingly subject themselves to typing on a bloated blackberry keypad?
What kind of dope would declare, "we will never need any other disk than this"?
:P
Just sayin'.
The term is "insensitive clod," you illiterate clod! :P
Last I recall, laywers are not under oath. Therefore, they are not required to be "truthful." They must respect the legal process, yes, but that does not mean being "truthful." If you've ever been on a jury trial, they instruct you to explicitly recognize the fact that anything the lawyers say is *not* to be considered evidence. The lawyers are just there to bring the evidence together, to help you see the evidence in the right way, such that you understand it. Their job is to make sure you aren't confused by the evidence. Or are at the very least confused "correctly," such their side "wins." This is why you often get objections during closing statements, because the lawyer giving said statement is trying to present his/her own words as evidence.
I assume the same holds true in a non-jury case.
Additionally, I do not believe they are "officers of the court." Jesters, perhaps, but not officers.
IANAL.
Hmm...perhaps disregard my comment above. It makes sense that the information irrelevant to the case would have been redacted before releasing the document into the wild. Either way, the whole damn thing is flimsy. :)
P.S. Sorry, Bob Bobson, whoever/wherever you are...I didn't mean to bring you into this. :P
As someone who was born in Alaska, raised in Alaska, got a degree in Alaska, and is now a professional in Alaska, I want to apologize on behalf of the state. Also, I'm sorry we vote Republican. There just aren't enough dense population centers to cause people to pull their heads out of their cousins' asses. :)
I'm not sure if it's supposed to appear that way, but has anyone even *tried* viewing the first entry (Michael Johnson's) Safari? OS flame-wars aside, there *are* Slashdot readers using this browser, and some of us even subscribe...if the design ended up like that, I'd stop reading Slashdot. Again, maybe it's supposed to look like that, but at least for me, it all renders in one mile-long column, with the articles not even showing up until 6 full pages down. That makes it pretty much useless to me, since I have to scroll past all of the sidebar menus, the list of "older stuff", and even the poll before I get to any (relatively) real content.
This is not an insult to the designer, of course, but seriously, try to make it useable in alternate browsers? Something about failing gracefully...
Boot Camp is really just a plan to get Windows users to convert to OS X.
Holy crap! Revelation of the year! I can't imagine this being true!
Seriously, how is this possibly a new idea? Of course that's what it's for. And switching because of "limitations" in the other OS makes you a lemming? No, I'm afraid not. That makes you "smart." See, when people decide to stop hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, and instead opt for hitting themselves in the head with, say, a a soft piece of fruit, or an old ham, we call that "learning one's lesson."
The author here needs to get over his own case of being a lemming, and try something new. Pod-people? The whole article stinks of the exact same thralldom the author envisions anyone who switches being caught in.
Yes, I own a mac. Oh, but guess what, I also own a Windows box, and a Linux box! I'm not going to say which one I prefer, because doing so would, at least according to this article, make me a lemming.
"...let's hope this doesn't mean radical changes in the games we see at the championships."
There will only be one tiny little change. It will now be called the World XBox Games. But honest, it'll still be the WCG you know and love.
In regards to the sister replies to my original statement:
:)
Yes, I made an oversite. What amuses me is that *all but one of you* failed to see that *someone else had already corrected me*. To the first of you: yes, you are correct, I did not consider that. I was assuming they were testing the top *software* sites. Fair enough, point noted. To the rest of you: you're too late. You're no more brilliant than I, at this point, having failed to see the obvious.
How can they be testing the top 1000000 web sites, if they're only downloading 100000 programs? That would leave a lot of sites untouched. It seems that in order to test 1000000 web sites, they would have to download at *least* 1000000 programs. Unless, of course, they grabbed programs from *some* of the top 1000000 web sites, in which case they would have programs from, say, site #1, #10, #20, etc.
Wow! I had no idea that 9000% of the world's population (give or take) lived in Europe!