Mine too. In many cases it doesn't cost Google very much for this, maybe even less than sending in the US. Look here: http://www.voipcheap.com/en/sms-rates.html to get a broad sense of relative market rates.
With Verizon, if your phone doesn't ring because it's off or out of service and someone doesn't leave you a voicemail, that person may as well have never called you. Niether the phone, the network, nor the voicemail system has anything or indicate otherwise.
With my carrier, I can optionally activate (and I have done so) "missed call notification", wherein I receive an SMS notifying me about any calls that I happened to miss because the phone was off or I was out of range. It's completely free, including the SMSes.
On the other hand, I have deactivated voicemail because I think it is the most heinously evil thing known to phonekind. Anyone who is so selfish they would make me spend 3 minutes listening to a voicemail rather than 10 seconds reading an SMS is out of luck.
I use it outside the US. It's the first service I've found that can give me free incoming SMSes. I have them processed by my mail server to perform certain actions, as well as being forwarded to my non-US phone.
This is a fascinating distinction for people halfway around the planet to debate about in online forums.
For the people in Iraq who just want to live their lives in peace, it's not really that salient on a day-to-day basis. What matters to them is that their existence is orders of magnitude more perilous post-invasion than it was in the Saddam days.
Maybe they are referring to the lives of the soldiers who are to be using this software. But obviously their lives don't count as they are just soldiers aren't they.
It's quite obvious that's who they are referring to. But effective soldiers kill a lot more people on the other side. Lives are not, in the balance, being saved -- unless the device somehow brings the conflict to a very rapid close. It may or may not be a good thing, but it's a fact.
I think Iraqis enjoy quite a bit more freedom today than they did under Saddam.
Having visited Iraq now and then during the war and "post" war period, I disagree. People almost invariably say they lost more than they gained. They used to have limited political freedom. Now they can't leave the house without worrying about getting shot.
One proposal was to put them in charge of the root name servers. It wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen.
It probably would be. Within a few years, you could say goodbye to any domain name connected to content that offended anyone or facilitated end-user VoIP. Domain-name registration would cost $1000 and would require thumbprints and photocopies of your passport.
This folks is one of the two UN organisations (both older than the UN) who could run the WWW better than ICANN
1. ICANN doesn't run the www.
2. ITU is incredibly internet-hostile. The ITU's vision of the internet is a closed network run by national telco monopolies where everything is charged for. If they had their way you'd be paying $10,000 for copies of each IETF document.
I have a WRT54GL that travels with me for work, typically it sees a couple dozen countries annually. I have an aftermarket switching power supply for it that takes 100-240V - cooler and more reliable in weird AC situations.
I have it on good authority from a decorated ichthyologist that you say "fish" when you are referring to a bunch of individual fish animals, but when you are specifically referring to multiple species of them (as opposed to the animals themselves), you say "fishes".
A bunch of goldfish: "fish"
All the goldfish and clownfish in your aquarium: "fish"
The species of goldfish and clownfish, collectively: "fishes"
I also bought a (cheap) UPS, because a lot of people say it's power surges that tend to cause routers to lock up. Well, I still have to reboot the router fairly frequently.
FWIW, I have a WRT54GL which happens to use the same-rated power supply as my DSL modem (polarity, voltage, current).
After we had a baby and I and my gear were evicted from my study, the router started crashing constantly. I reflashed the firmware, did all kinds of experiments with different sorts of traffic, but the crashes were random and relentless.
Finally out of desperation I swapped the power supplies and presto, no more crashes, back to multi-month uptimes. Turns out I had connected the modem's power supply to the router after just checking the numbers on the case.
requiring a visa to change planes-and that was pre 9/11
JFK-london-BUD
With an American passport? No. You only required a UK entry stamp. I doubt they'd even have been willing to give you a visa in that circumstance.
I do not think you understand the hoops that passengers transiting in the US must go through. If they are not from a visa-waiver country (of which there are only a couple dozen), then weeks before the trip, they have to go to the US embassy in their country, pay an application fee which could be $100 or more, submit to a humiliating interview in front of all the other people who are also applying, and then hope it will be granted.
It's a monumental bother and it's why there aren't many transit flights through the US these days. Central American and Caribbean nations have picked up that business.
Now that everyone and their dog can sneak in without much resistance or having to learn english, they just startup little versions of their origin nation. Little Mexico's, little China's, little Vietnam's, little Japan's.
Which in my opinion is one of the best things about American cities - you can get real ethnic food, experience real cultures, and hear languages really being spoken. No other country has the diversity of strong, vibrant little-XYZs that the USA enjoys. Without them, the USA would be almost intolerably dull.
(preemptive disclaimer: I've lived & worked in London, Paris, Sydney, etc.; they don't come close to New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco)
And I can tell you that in 1988 getting into Japan definitely didn't involve fingerprinting or any of the other annoying shit that the US border patrol pulls.
I can really agree that it is probably the safest border in the US, or maybe even in North America. But how would it compare with e.g. the Sweden-Norway border? Or any intra-EU border?
On a per-km basis? The claim probably stands. On a per-border basis? Surely not.
As far as I can remember, the same roughly applies to the rest of western Europe.
Border formalities have been dismantled for almost all of continental western Europe (excepting Gibraltar, where you still have to show your passport, and Switzerland, where they almost always wave you through and are often out to "lunch"). The German-Danish border you visited many years ago is now just a signpost, with nobody to even wave your passport at.
How open are the borders generally though. That's a very, very large border. I presume it would be pretty easy to just hike across somewhere and travel round the USA that way? What about driving? Is every road really guarded or are there just not that many roads?
Have a look at Google Maps, up in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. There are many villages that straddle the border and which have no formal checkpoints except on the larger highways at the edge of town.
I expect locals interested in preserving their hassle-free borderlessness are probably extra-vigilant about suspicious outsiders though.
I've crossed in some of those places on bicycle. However, I did then proceed to the immigration office where you're suppose to sign in before continuing further into the country.
I would recommend finding a multi-purpose printer. Something that can print/scan/photo-copy etc, with duplex capabilities and a paper feeder.
I lean the other way. With a dedicated scanner and dedicated printer you get less interdependence, better quality of each, and the ability to selectively upgrade.
On my scanner I can just hit the "copy" button and stuff comes out of the printer a few seconds later, as long as my computer is on. That's good enough for my purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh man, could I have fun with that.
Mine too. In many cases it doesn't cost Google very much for this, maybe even less than sending in the US. Look here: http://www.voipcheap.com/en/sms-rates.html to get a broad sense of relative market rates.
With my carrier, I can optionally activate (and I have done so) "missed call notification", wherein I receive an SMS notifying me about any calls that I happened to miss because the phone was off or I was out of range. It's completely free, including the SMSes.
On the other hand, I have deactivated voicemail because I think it is the most heinously evil thing known to phonekind. Anyone who is so selfish they would make me spend 3 minutes listening to a voicemail rather than 10 seconds reading an SMS is out of luck.
I use it outside the US. It's the first service I've found that can give me free incoming SMSes. I have them processed by my mail server to perform certain actions, as well as being forwarded to my non-US phone.
The USA is more theocracy than Saddam Hussein's vehemently secular Iraq was.
This is a fascinating distinction for people halfway around the planet to debate about in online forums.
For the people in Iraq who just want to live their lives in peace, it's not really that salient on a day-to-day basis. What matters to them is that their existence is orders of magnitude more perilous post-invasion than it was in the Saddam days.
It's quite obvious that's who they are referring to. But effective soldiers kill a lot more people on the other side. Lives are not, in the balance, being saved -- unless the device somehow brings the conflict to a very rapid close. It may or may not be a good thing, but it's a fact.
Having visited Iraq now and then during the war and "post" war period, I disagree. People almost invariably say they lost more than they gained. They used to have limited political freedom. Now they can't leave the house without worrying about getting shot.
It probably would be. Within a few years, you could say goodbye to any domain name connected to content that offended anyone or facilitated end-user VoIP. Domain-name registration would cost $1000 and would require thumbprints and photocopies of your passport.
1. ICANN doesn't run the www.
2. ITU is incredibly internet-hostile. The ITU's vision of the internet is a closed network run by national telco monopolies where everything is charged for. If they had their way you'd be paying $10,000 for copies of each IETF document.
Why do breathless writers always say "saving lives" when they refer to military applications? They're about taking lives. Just taking different ones.
I have a WRT54GL that travels with me for work, typically it sees a couple dozen countries annually. I have an aftermarket switching power supply for it that takes 100-240V - cooler and more reliable in weird AC situations.
Dammit, I left off the whole point of my posting:
So perhaps the same applies to firmware. Any postdoc firmwarologists in the house?
I have it on good authority from a decorated ichthyologist that you say "fish" when you are referring to a bunch of individual fish animals, but when you are specifically referring to multiple species of them (as opposed to the animals themselves), you say "fishes".
A bunch of goldfish: "fish"
All the goldfish and clownfish in your aquarium: "fish"
The species of goldfish and clownfish, collectively: "fishes"
You'd find a way to get it to keep printing even after the $50 ink cartridge was 1/2 empty, something the bundled software doesn't allow.
FWIW, I have a WRT54GL which happens to use the same-rated power supply as my DSL modem (polarity, voltage, current).
After we had a baby and I and my gear were evicted from my study, the router started crashing constantly. I reflashed the firmware, did all kinds of experiments with different sorts of traffic, but the crashes were random and relentless.
Finally out of desperation I swapped the power supplies and presto, no more crashes, back to multi-month uptimes. Turns out I had connected the modem's power supply to the router after just checking the numbers on the case.
So yeah, they are picky about power.
Curious; I was not printed in Egypt, Israel, or Austria this year or at any time in the past. Did you require an advance visa for those countries?
With an American passport? No. You only required a UK entry stamp. I doubt they'd even have been willing to give you a visa in that circumstance.
I do not think you understand the hoops that passengers transiting in the US must go through. If they are not from a visa-waiver country (of which there are only a couple dozen), then weeks before the trip, they have to go to the US embassy in their country, pay an application fee which could be $100 or more, submit to a humiliating interview in front of all the other people who are also applying, and then hope it will be granted.
It's a monumental bother and it's why there aren't many transit flights through the US these days. Central American and Caribbean nations have picked up that business.
Which in my opinion is one of the best things about American cities - you can get real ethnic food, experience real cultures, and hear languages really being spoken. No other country has the diversity of strong, vibrant little-XYZs that the USA enjoys. Without them, the USA would be almost intolerably dull.
(preemptive disclaimer: I've lived & worked in London, Paris, Sydney, etc.; they don't come close to New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco)
Phlegms was a leading proposal, but eventually it was determined that nothing would be more cruelly accurate than simply calling them Belgians.
And I can tell you that in 1988 getting into Japan definitely didn't involve fingerprinting or any of the other annoying shit that the US border patrol pulls.
On a per-km basis? The claim probably stands. On a per-border basis? Surely not.
Border formalities have been dismantled for almost all of continental western Europe (excepting Gibraltar, where you still have to show your passport, and Switzerland, where they almost always wave you through and are often out to "lunch"). The German-Danish border you visited many years ago is now just a signpost, with nobody to even wave your passport at.
Have a look at Google Maps, up in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. There are many villages that straddle the border and which have no formal checkpoints except on the larger highways at the edge of town.
I expect locals interested in preserving their hassle-free borderlessness are probably extra-vigilant about suspicious outsiders though.
I've crossed in some of those places on bicycle. However, I did then proceed to the immigration office where you're suppose to sign in before continuing further into the country.
I lean the other way. With a dedicated scanner and dedicated printer you get less interdependence, better quality of each, and the ability to selectively upgrade.
On my scanner I can just hit the "copy" button and stuff comes out of the printer a few seconds later, as long as my computer is on. That's good enough for my purposes.