Except that it's not actually an auction. I made the same mistake (hey, it's EBay), but there's no place to enter a bid and if you look down at the bottom it says:
"This listing is an advertisement. There is no bidding! If you are interested in this property, you may contact the seller/agent to request additional information."
Which is probably smart. If it were an auction, it'd have eleventy-million fake bids by now.
It also tends to indicate that this is a real property. If it was just someone goofing around, it'd be an auction. That's not strong evidence, but it's certainly an indication.
According to the 1999 article, the original asking price was $300,000. The guy who bought it is asking $3,500,000. That's a bit of a markup, there.
It makes sense if he put a lot of money and time into renovating it; that's probably the case if there's someone currently occupying the property. (Which the auction hints at.)
Some places, chat will be better; some places, phone will be better. It all depends on where the company puts its resources and its best people.
In general, bear in mind that phone support is more expensive; many companies will be trying to move away from phone support and towards chat/email support. It's easier for a single support person to handle multiple concurrent incidents that way, plus you can outsource without worrying about accents and so on. You also don't have to make sure your support people have decent phone voices.
Also, phone support costs more money. You have to get the call center hardware and software in, you need a bunch of phone lines, and so on. Chat support is relatively inexpensive, infrastructure-wise.
So I'd expect that as time goes by, chat support will be better. It's just more cost-effective and it makes sense for a company to focus on the cheaper, more efficient method of supporting people. Right now, though? It still depends on the company.
Basically, a Tennessee postal inspector brought charges against a BBS in San Jose in a Tennessee court, and managed to get the BBS shut down because it violated Tennessee community standards. This, despite the fact that the BBS was located on the other side of the country. There was a lot of outrage at the time, for obvious reasons -- you don't want to hold an Internet site to the most restrictive standards found anywhere in the world.
It seems to me that this AOL thing is just about the same. Indict the spammers in their home state; that's where they're located. It would be nice to hold them to the most restrictive standards possible, but it would also be kind of unfair.
Quite a few upcoming MMORPGs are using instances, including Everquest II. In fact, the technology exists in Lost Dungeons of Norrath, the latest EQ expansion. Despite popular rumors, Microsoft doesn't sue everyone.
"Introduction" is probably the wrong word; "announcement" would be a better way to put it. Apple, not unusually, often announces products prior to the actual ship date. Sometimes we Apple fanatics (read: frothing fanbois, but we mean well) use "introduction" as synonymous with "announcement."
You may recall a number of colorful Apple products sold several years ago: do the iBook and the iMac ring a bell? Jobs is well known for worrying about brand consistency; that doesn't mean he's not willing to rebrand products as necessary.
He's basically saying that since there was one widely-reported Mac security hole, Macs are as insecure as Windows? Odd comparison.
Mind you, I'm not too overwhelmed with his research; if he'd been paying attention, he'd have caught the SSH vulnerability the other month. It's not like Macs have been immune, and nobody with any clue claims they are.
What you can claim accurately is that Apple fixes holes promptly and fairly quickly, and that the MacOS X architecture does not have flaws which result in two or three active IE holes in the wild right now.
Apple isn't perfect, they're just pretty good. Microsoft isn't evil, they're just not as good as they should be. It's perfectly reasonable to use those two facts in making one's security decisions.
Both Will Smith and Alanis have 26 singles listed on Yahoo Shopping. I'm sure their attorney will see to this problem at once. Sigh.
But we shouldn't pick on the other artists for the artistic integrity stuff, because it's only the one attorney for those two musicians who made the claim. If we want to criticize them, it's gonna have to be for wanting more money.
Which is sort of ironic. (Doncha think?) Since one oft-used justification for online music was "the bands don't get enough money! evil labels! more money to bands!" Are we really in a position to criticize bands for trying to make (urk) more money?
"The gameplay will be limited as the potential for havock will be constrained to what's possible in a 2D isometric game."
See... visuals aren't gameplay, they're visuals. For me, gameplay is strategy, tactics, the necessity to think ahead, resource management, and so on. I think you're confusing gameplay with special effects, here.
How in the world can you tell what the gameplay is like from just looking at a few screenshots? You don't know what the AI is like, you don't know what the math is... that just seems like a kind of weird thing to say.
The letter is a masterpiece of implication. The lawyer never ever claims that Mr. McFedries is breaking the law, but he does imply that he can "make sure" people don't use google to refer to Internet searching in general. Heck, since it's not a legal matter -- since Google is just asking for a favor -- why'd they have a lawyer send the letter in the first place? What impression are they trying to give Mr. McFedries?
When someone asks me for a favor, I don't want them to pretend that I/have/ to do them the favor. I want them to acknowledge up front that it's a favor. Google didn't do that. Google wrote a letter so ambiguous that half of slashdot believed it was a C&D even though it wasn't.
I bet LotR's victory grates more -- AotC is about 20 million under LotR. And another 20 million would put AotC into the top ten movies of all time list... saving it from being the first SW movie not to make the top ten.
Re:The whole premise of the movie is flawed
on
Review: Panic Room
·
· Score: 1
I'm pretty sure that if I'm a rich, old millionaire in New York City I do not suddenly wake up one morning and decide to build my very own panic room with my very own tools.
You might notice, if you take the time to look, that the links you get to Xenu.net are all from DMOZ. What makes you so sure that Google's index has Xenu.net back? It's possible that they're just returning the Xenu results out of the Open Directory and not indexing Xenu themselves.
Katz maybe ought to spend some time in East LA before he characterizes the movie as racist.
Actually, what I found really interesting was that in the Training Day I just saw, not all the black and Hispanic characters were "packing heat." In fact, in one particular climatic scene, there was a distinct lack of firearms.
One aspect of racism is seeing only what you expect. (Remember geek profiling? Didn't Katz do a couple of articles about that?) Apparently, Katz expects to see guns on black people in the projects.
It's limited. The advantage of this is that you/know/ your hardware is going to work. One of the big hidden gotchas of linux servers is trying to get the right combination of drivers and hardware, and praying you don't crash smack dab into the bug nobody fixed yet. If you go Solaris x86, you have to choose hardware from a smaller list but you can stop worrying about whether or not that RAID card will really work right.
And if by some chance it doesn't, you can get support for it. You will not get caught in the ugly "well, talk to Red Hat well talk to the server vendor well talk to the card vendor" loop.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that it's not actually an auction. I made the same mistake (hey, it's EBay), but there's no place to enter a bid and if you look down at the bottom it says:
"This listing is an advertisement. There is no bidding! If you are interested in this property, you may contact the seller/agent to request additional information."
Which is probably smart. If it were an auction, it'd have eleventy-million fake bids by now.
It also tends to indicate that this is a real property. If it was just someone goofing around, it'd be an auction. That's not strong evidence, but it's certainly an indication.
According to the 1999 article, the original asking price was $300,000. The guy who bought it is asking $3,500,000. That's a bit of a markup, there.
It makes sense if he put a lot of money and time into renovating it; that's probably the case if there's someone currently occupying the property. (Which the auction hints at.)
Some places, chat will be better; some places, phone will be better. It all depends on where the company puts its resources and its best people.
In general, bear in mind that phone support is more expensive; many companies will be trying to move away from phone support and towards chat/email support. It's easier for a single support person to handle multiple concurrent incidents that way, plus you can outsource without worrying about accents and so on. You also don't have to make sure your support people have decent phone voices.
Also, phone support costs more money. You have to get the call center hardware and software in, you need a bunch of phone lines, and so on. Chat support is relatively inexpensive, infrastructure-wise.
So I'd expect that as time goes by, chat support will be better. It's just more cost-effective and it makes sense for a company to focus on the cheaper, more efficient method of supporting people. Right now, though? It still depends on the company.
Ahem. "In a shorter version, here." sorry about that.
The real scoop can be found here, from the San Jose Astronomical Association (or in a shorter version .
You can't rely on "seeking out" as a legal precedent. Am I seeking out goatse if I click on someone's clever redirection link by accident?
If you don't, refresh your memory here. OK? Good.
Basically, a Tennessee postal inspector brought charges against a BBS in San Jose in a Tennessee court, and managed to get the BBS shut down because it violated Tennessee community standards. This, despite the fact that the BBS was located on the other side of the country. There was a lot of outrage at the time, for obvious reasons -- you don't want to hold an Internet site to the most restrictive standards found anywhere in the world.
It seems to me that this AOL thing is just about the same. Indict the spammers in their home state; that's where they're located. It would be nice to hold them to the most restrictive standards possible, but it would also be kind of unfair.
It uses a Sony.com redirect to send you to goatse.
Quite a few upcoming MMORPGs are using instances, including Everquest II. In fact, the technology exists in Lost Dungeons of Norrath, the latest EQ expansion. Despite popular rumors, Microsoft doesn't sue everyone.
"Introduction" is probably the wrong word; "announcement" would be a better way to put it. Apple, not unusually, often announces products prior to the actual ship date. Sometimes we Apple fanatics (read: frothing fanbois, but we mean well) use "introduction" as synonymous with "announcement."
You may recall a number of colorful Apple products sold several years ago: do the iBook and the iMac ring a bell? Jobs is well known for worrying about brand consistency; that doesn't mean he's not willing to rebrand products as necessary.
Well, default choices can be security holes, even if they're well considered. Remember what the default Sun root password was, once upon a time.
He's basically saying that since there was one widely-reported Mac security hole, Macs are as insecure as Windows? Odd comparison.
Mind you, I'm not too overwhelmed with his research; if he'd been paying attention, he'd have caught the SSH vulnerability the other month. It's not like Macs have been immune, and nobody with any clue claims they are.
What you can claim accurately is that Apple fixes holes promptly and fairly quickly, and that the MacOS X architecture does not have flaws which result in two or three active IE holes in the wild right now.
Apple isn't perfect, they're just pretty good. Microsoft isn't evil, they're just not as good as they should be. It's perfectly reasonable to use those two facts in making one's security decisions.
CDbaby.com will front you to iTunes (and other digital music services).
Both Will Smith and Alanis have 26 singles listed on Yahoo Shopping. I'm sure their attorney will see to this problem at once. Sigh.
But we shouldn't pick on the other artists for the artistic integrity stuff, because it's only the one attorney for those two musicians who made the claim. If we want to criticize them, it's gonna have to be for wanting more money.
Which is sort of ironic. (Doncha think?) Since one oft-used justification for online music was "the bands don't get enough money! evil labels! more money to bands!" Are we really in a position to criticize bands for trying to make (urk) more money?
"The gameplay will be limited as the potential for havock will be constrained to what's possible in a 2D isometric game."
See... visuals aren't gameplay, they're visuals. For me, gameplay is strategy, tactics, the necessity to think ahead, resource management, and so on. I think you're confusing gameplay with special effects, here.
How in the world can you tell what the gameplay is like from just looking at a few screenshots? You don't know what the AI is like, you don't know what the math is... that just seems like a kind of weird thing to say.
The letter is a masterpiece of implication. The lawyer never ever claims that Mr. McFedries is breaking the law, but he does imply that he can "make sure" people don't use google to refer to Internet searching in general. Heck, since it's not a legal matter -- since Google is just asking for a favor -- why'd they have a lawyer send the letter in the first place? What impression are they trying to give Mr. McFedries?
/have/ to do them the favor. I want them to acknowledge up front that it's a favor. Google didn't do that. Google wrote a letter so ambiguous that half of slashdot believed it was a C&D even though it wasn't.
When someone asks me for a favor, I don't want them to pretend that I
I say that's kinda shady tactics.
Note the fine difference between "made" and "remain in."
Return and Empire both made top ten when they were released. I.e., they made the top ten although they do not remain there.
I bet LotR's victory grates more -- AotC is about 20 million under LotR. And another 20 million would put AotC into the top ten movies of all time list... saving it from being the first SW movie not to make the top ten.
I'm pretty sure that if I'm a rich, old millionaire in New York City I do not suddenly wake up one morning and decide to build my very own panic room with my very own tools.
You might notice, if you take the time to look, that the links you get to Xenu.net are all from DMOZ. What makes you so sure that Google's index has Xenu.net back? It's possible that they're just returning the Xenu results out of the Open Directory and not indexing Xenu themselves.
Katz maybe ought to spend some time in East LA before he characterizes the movie as racist.
Actually, what I found really interesting was that in the Training Day I just saw, not all the black and Hispanic characters were "packing heat." In fact, in one particular climatic scene, there was a distinct lack of firearms.
One aspect of racism is seeing only what you expect. (Remember geek profiling? Didn't Katz do a couple of articles about that?) Apparently, Katz expects to see guns on black people in the projects.
It's limited. The advantage of this is that you /know/ your hardware is going to work. One of the big hidden gotchas of linux servers is trying to get the right combination of drivers and hardware, and praying you don't crash smack dab into the bug nobody fixed yet. If you go Solaris x86, you have to choose hardware from a smaller list but you can stop worrying about whether or not that RAID card will really work right.
And if by some chance it doesn't, you can get support for it. You will not get caught in the ugly "well, talk to Red Hat well talk to the server vendor well talk to the card vendor" loop.