"I tell ya, back in my day, when you linked to a picture gallery from the Slashdot homepage then you went down hard, you stayed down hard, and you damn well liked it. Nowadays, these servers just take it on the chin like it means nothing to them. That's just not proper or respectful. It reminds me of the time when..."
Seriously though, kudos to the guys at lik-sang.com for having not folded like a house of cards in a hurricane as soon as this story was posted here. I always wonder when people take apart these toys if they ever manage to put them back together in anything like working order.
I hate censorship as much as anyone else here on Slashdot but what I'm not talking about censorship, I'm talking about respect for other people.
Would you walk up to some random guy in the street and call him "nigger" or "jew"? If you were playing pool against some guy you'd just met in a bar and you totally outclassed him would you tell him that you've just "raped" him? No? Why not? Is it perhaps because such language would be offensive and inappropriate?
The fact that he's two foot away from you and could easily take a swing at your head factors into the equation just a little bit too, doesn't it? It's a lot riskier situation than doing the same thing online when you're hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet, isn't it?
Come on, be fair, in the modern usage of the word what springs to mind? And ask 100 or 1,000 people to define it, what do you think they'll be describing?
So where did this alternative meaning of "rape" come from? It came from people actually using violent sexual behaviour - the traditional meaning of the word "rape" - to describe how they beat someone. It's not "a good word to show that something was done forcefully", it's using violent language to project violent imagery.
There are a hundred better ways to describe beating someone in a game - "total domination", "whooping someone's ass", etc - and a fair proportion of those wouldn't be to everyone's liking but "rape" is hardly a word that's a readily acceptable alternative to 99 percent of the population, and definitely not to 50 percent.
Is it any wonder that gamers get easily stereotyped as mal-adjusted geeks with poor social skills when language as colourful as "rape" is considered a harmless part of their lexicon? Come on, would you use it to describe to your girlfriend, wife, mother or grandmother how effectively you won a game? I don't think so, and I think you know why.
I'm sorry but I disagree. I find it offensive when I see people using labels like "jew" or "nigger", or language such as "rape" online. It's not because I'm black, jewish or a rape victim, it's because this sort of language just isn't necessary.
And it's not about being labelled anything because I get just as offended when I see other people being targeted, it's because that displaying that level of idiocy and bigotry isn't something that 99 percent of the perpetrators would have the balls to do in real life. As the Penny Arcade "shitcock" strip illustrated, the anonymity of a public server just seems to draw a certain amount of sheer stupidity and bring out the moron in otherwise rational people.
I swear, if half these idiots had the faintest idea of what it's like to be sexually assaulted then they'd never use the word rape in jest. If they have the slightest idea of what real violence felt like then they wouldn't think of threatening to track someone down, rape their family in front of their eyes, kill them and then start on you (as one less than well-adjusted young man once did to me) just for besting them in a 1v1 matchup.
Seriously, there are some gamers who are clueless imbeciles when it comes to what they say and do, and it seems to me that the proportion of gamers who you'll come across like that online is far greater than the proportion of people who you'll come across like that in real life.
Frankly, I don't need it: I play games to enjoy myself not to encounter racial hatred. And online gaming doesn't need it either: it's this sort of anti-social behaviour that gets gaming a really bad name.
I was contracting for a major services company and popped into another department of the building to visit an old friend who worked their full-time in the IT department. He boasted about how he'd drilled security in the heads of all his users, how they all had secure passwords and how they all locked down their PCs when they stepped away from their desks, etc. So I bet him lunch that I could get into his network in less than five minutes, to which he replied that if I could then he'd be buying lunch all week.
It took me less than sixty seconds to get in. I just walked up to a nearby desk that had a passworded screensaver running, turned to the guy sat at the next desk and said "Hey, I'm from IT and I need to do something on this PC, can you tell me what this guy's password is so I can get it done?", and it was mission accomplished. I wasn't wearing any ID and the guy certainly didn't ask for any either. And that wasn't an average user I was dealing with, that was a security consultant: if those guys can be that sloppy, anyone can.
1. The old adage "you get what you pay for" seems to apply here. AOL isn't a F/OSS endeavour, it's a for-profit corporation, so it's understandable why they would think that providing tech support (which costs them money to supply) to non-paying users isn't high on their list of priorities.
No offense, but you really should have had that information backed up somewhere - it's not AOL's fault that you didn't.
2. Given that you were given a way to recover your AIM account - sign up for AOL and then cancel after a short period - I can't believe that you didn't take that option. After all, you could probably have got what you needed to get done within a month's free trial, and even if you didn't it wouldn't have cost you that much to recover the information. Just how much is all that data - "at least a couple hundred contacts (personal and professional)" - worth to you anyway?
Not taking this option seems ridiculous to me, especially as it would have cost you very little if anything at all. Seems like you really cut off your nose to spite your face by not even trying that route. "Of course, why would I want AOL?!", you asked. Seems to me that you'd want it (albeit for a very short while) so you could get your vital data back.
3. Just what did you expect AOL to do? Did you expect free tech support for life as well as a free instant messaging service from them? And do you really blame them for your decision not to back up your data? It might seem harsh, but if you go through life looking for altruism and miracles all the time then you're destined to live a life of disappointment.
Sorry, but I find it hard to be sympathetic: you did everything that you shouldn't have and somehow you have the impression that none of the blame is yours. It's like someone setting out on a drive across a desert without checking their oil level, breaking down because of it, then eschewing the help offered by the one garage that can help you get out of the mess because it would cost you a few bucks, and then blaming the car manufacturer and the garage owner because you didn't get to your destination on time.
I have one piece of valuable advice to you: learn from this mistake and next time, if you've got so much at stake, take the help that's offered to you.
Yeah, right. It's not as if there are ever any references to the US in TV news coverage anywhere else in the world, right?
Of course non-Americans know more about American culture than vice versa because of their exposure to American television and films. But to say that "practically every country in the world gets everything they know about the US from fictional TV programs" is, frankly, a load of bullshit.
Tell me, how is it I know about everything from Christopher Columbus to George W Bush recent election victory? That I know about topics as diverse as the Mayflower, US War of Independence, the Gold Rush, the Alamo, the US Civil War, the Black Sox, prohibition, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbour, World War Two (which, by the way, began way before Pearl Harbour), the Manhattan Project, McCarthyism, the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the assassination of JFK, the Apollo landings, Vietnam, Watergate, the Iran hostage crisis, Mount St Helens erupting, the Iran-Contra affair, the Gulf War, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Columbine, the Oklahoma City bombing, September 11th, Enron, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?
How is it I know who people as diverse as Peter Stuyvesant, Adam Smith, Brigham Young, Davy Crockett, General Custer, John Wilkes Booth, the Gipper, Babe Ruth, Al Capone, Jackie Robinson, Jimmy Hoffa, Vince Lombardi, Rosa Parks, David Koresh, the Unabomber, Cal Ripken Jr are? How is it I know about the Thanksgiving, Labour Day or Veterans' Day holidays? That the Mason-Dixon line seperated Pennsylvania and Maryland? The significance of 40 acres and a mule? That it was Lou Gehrig's streak that Ripken broke? That Colorado is the state where most of the US's nuclear material comes from? That the state capital of California is Sacramento? That Peyton Manning is on course to smash Dan Marino's most passing TDs in a single season record?
Did I get all of that - that broad spectrum of knowledge, from New World to Brave New World - from watching Cops and The Batchelor? I don't think so but thanks for the completely inaccurate generalisms. You can keep them.
Just because your newspapers and TV news have next to no coverage of the world beyond your own borders, and just because your own history lessons covered nothing beyond your own heritage, don't assume that that's the case for everyone else around the world.
We don't think that the US is a brutal police state but we do know who Rodney King is. Similarly, we know that China's guilty of human rights abuses but, frankly, show me a country that isn't: wasn't it just a few days ago that I read about FBI agents who reported that they saw prisoners being mistreated and tortured at Camp X-Ray? No one's got bloodless hands when it comes to human rights, not China, not my own nation and certainly not the US, but at least the Chinese aren't hypocritical about these things.
What you're seeing right now are teething troubles. Nothing more, nothing less. The bandwidth and consumption experienced right now will be laughed off a couple of years from now as miniscule.
Take the BBC News website for example. On September 11th 2001 its traffic was way beyond anything it had experienced to that point. Within a year or so, it was comfortably serving more requests and seeing more traffic every day. Proof if it was needed that capacity isn't the issue when it comes to Internet growth, and won't be for the foreseeable future.
RSS is in its infancy. Just because people didn't anticipate it being adopted as fast as it has been that doesn't make it "doomed". By that rationale, the Internet itself, DVDs, digital photography, etc are all "doomed" too.
In a work environment, people might be "simply using what's in front of them" but that's not the case when it comes to their home PCs, is it? Whether they bought a PC with Windows pre-installed or a retail copy of Windows off the shelf then that's a conscious decision. Surely you're not disputing that the number of retail sales of Windows runs into the millions? Or don't they count?
Two points, both of which will no doubt get me flamed to hell and back:
1. If 10,000 flies can't be wrong, what does that say about the millions that buy Microsoft products? From the viewpoint of the majority of the readers here, aren't those Microsoft customers wrong? Quantity never implies quality, my friend.
2. It might not be open source, but Opera perhaps meets your description of "the most reasonably standards compliant, light weight, cross platform web browser ever made" more than Firefox does. Opera is available for more platforms, is smaller in size (even with a greater feature set that includes an email client, etc), better integrated and more polished.
Yes, there are some very, very minor incompatibility issues but the Opera development team has always done a good job of ironing out any wrinkles that do appear. And, as you've alluded to yourself, there's no such thing as problem-free browsing (at least on any non-Microsoft browser) nowadays.
Other than that, well done to everyone who's contributed to the development of Firefox, no matter how great or small their contribution.
It's a basic rule of marketing on the internet nowadays: don't just register the domain name that reflects your company name but also register any domain name that people are likely to mistakenly enter when they want to find your website.
For example, Gillette have registered gilette.com (one "l") as well as the gillette.com (two "l"s). Although, strangely in Gillette's case, rather than redirect gilette.com to gillette.com, they have the former effectively mirroring the latter.
This is simple brand protection: remember, Gillette doesn't have a trademark on every possible misspelling of its name so there's nothing to prevent a rival from registering domain names based on those and redirecting them to its own site, so Gillette registering and using these sites themselves is the best way to cover itself. Same thing here with Lenovo/Levono.
Wow, nice backtracking - I guess you can read after all. It was precisely because the original AC made such wild leaps of logic that I posted anything at all: India has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the points he mentioned and if he (Was the AC you, perhaps?) did want to say that you shouldn't trade with India because of tech jobs going there, well, then he should have said so.
How about I talk about World War II and the horrors of the gas chambers in one breath and then talk about how Germany and the US committed terrible crimes in that war in the next breath, thus leaving the implication that the US ran gas chambers too? Still think it's OK to leave things to the reader to work out? Not feeling the temptation to point out that the US was one of the good guys? Yeah, right.
Also, as I've said previously, blaming Indian workers for taking jobs that are offered to them is stupid. If you want to blame someone for the moving of jobs overseas, how about blaming the employers that do it in the first place? When GM moves a car plant from Michigan to, say, Oregon, do are the people of Oregon to blame for the jobs lost in Michigan? Or is it perhaps the employer who's looking to shave every penny he can off of his costs simply to make a bit more profit?
Lastly, recognise that it's a global economy and that you benefited from cheaper Asian goods more than you realise for all your life. Those T-shirts that cost next to nothing that you buy at Gap or wherever, or even just the cotton used to make clothes supposedly made in the US have passed through the hands of someone getting paid next to nothing somewhere on the other side of the world.
The next time you're buying a pair of sneakers, think about how the store selling them to you makes more from that one sale than the young sweatshop labourer who made them makes in a quarter. Then think about how much those shoes would cost if she and everyone else in the labour chain was paid a fair wage.
You've got some cajones calling someone a fool after you start ranting nonsensically about things that aren't true.
Such as? Just what exactly are these things that you're referring to? Care to elaborate, oh wise one? Oh, and by the way, it looks like you forgot to use the "Post Anonymously" option this time.
No, he just gave a list of reasons why you shouldn't trade with China, most prominently its occupation of Tibet and its poor treatment of the Tibetan people, then proceeded to say that those were reasons not to trade with China and India.
That's like me making a list of reasons why you shouldn't buy, say, Cuban goods and then concluding that those are good reasons not to buy from Cuba or from the US.
Now, if he had mentioned any reasons why trading with India was bad, such as the loss of tech jobs there (as if that's not the fault of greedy US employers rather than the fault of skilled Indian technicians), then perhaps you might have a point. But he didn't give a single such reason and just tarred India with the broad brush that he'd used to tar China with. And, as I've pointed out, India isn't China and it isn't guilty of brutalising Tibet or any of the other things that the AC did deign to mention, so mentioning India in the same breath as China was entirely inappropriate.
Boy, I bet that the irony of you mentioning Indian worker and environment protections in the same week as the 20th anniversary of Union Carbide's Bhophal disaster, which it still hasn't cleaned up or properly compensated the victims of, just passes over your head.
I'll go one further: The Dali Lama, Tibet's spiritual leader, fled to India when the Chinese invaded and it was in India that he set up his government-in-exile. And China has invaded India in the past too.
Sorry, but it's this sort of ignorance of the highest magnitude - not realising that China, the world's largest communist country, and India, the world's largest democracy, are two seperate countries - that has people who aren't American rolling their eyes and dismissing Americans as stupid. I mean, have you ever heard of anyone anywhere who assumes that the US and Cuba are the same country? Because that's the closest analogy I can come up with to thinking that China and India are one and the same.
To the original poster who made this dumb assumption I have this advice: it's better to say nothing and have people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Oh, and read a book too every now and then. Believe me, right now people like you are giving your country a very bad name the world over.
God, I didn't want to get into a damn argument about semantics at almost 5am. You know and I know that when I said reception I was saying "what-the-other-party-is-receiving" just not in so many words, so let's not play silly little games about nothing, OK?
If you had read more than a handful of posts on the forum then you'd know that the issue isn't with the party at the end of the line but that, nevertheless, that's where the problem manifests itself. So, technically, it is a reception problem, just not reception as it's traditionally defined in mobile telephony.
This, the recent stem cell/paralysis breakthrough, living to 1,000 all coming a few weeks after Christopher Reeves dies? Wow, talk about quitting playing just before your lottery numbers come up.
If I didn't know better, I'd say that these guys were all lining up to announce the moment he died. Either that or that whole "curse of Superman" shit is more powerful than anyone first thought. Quick, let's all take out life insurance policies on Brandon Routh.
Slashdot Mirror
"I tell ya, back in my day, when you linked to a picture gallery from the Slashdot homepage then you went down hard, you stayed down hard, and you damn well liked it. Nowadays, these servers just take it on the chin like it means nothing to them. That's just not proper or respectful. It reminds me of the time when..."
Seriously though, kudos to the guys at lik-sang.com for having not folded like a house of cards in a hurricane as soon as this story was posted here. I always wonder when people take apart these toys if they ever manage to put them back together in anything like working order.
I hate censorship as much as anyone else here on Slashdot but what I'm not talking about censorship, I'm talking about respect for other people.
Would you walk up to some random guy in the street and call him "nigger" or "jew"? If you were playing pool against some guy you'd just met in a bar and you totally outclassed him would you tell him that you've just "raped" him? No? Why not? Is it perhaps because such language would be offensive and inappropriate?
The fact that he's two foot away from you and could easily take a swing at your head factors into the equation just a little bit too, doesn't it? It's a lot riskier situation than doing the same thing online when you're hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet, isn't it?
Come on, be fair, in the modern usage of the word what springs to mind? And ask 100 or 1,000 people to define it, what do you think they'll be describing?
So where did this alternative meaning of "rape" come from? It came from people actually using violent sexual behaviour - the traditional meaning of the word "rape" - to describe how they beat someone. It's not "a good word to show that something was done forcefully", it's using violent language to project violent imagery.
There are a hundred better ways to describe beating someone in a game - "total domination", "whooping someone's ass", etc - and a fair proportion of those wouldn't be to everyone's liking but "rape" is hardly a word that's a readily acceptable alternative to 99 percent of the population, and definitely not to 50 percent.
Is it any wonder that gamers get easily stereotyped as mal-adjusted geeks with poor social skills when language as colourful as "rape" is considered a harmless part of their lexicon? Come on, would you use it to describe to your girlfriend, wife, mother or grandmother how effectively you won a game? I don't think so, and I think you know why.
I'm sorry but I disagree. I find it offensive when I see people using labels like "jew" or "nigger", or language such as "rape" online. It's not because I'm black, jewish or a rape victim, it's because this sort of language just isn't necessary.
And it's not about being labelled anything because I get just as offended when I see other people being targeted, it's because that displaying that level of idiocy and bigotry isn't something that 99 percent of the perpetrators would have the balls to do in real life. As the Penny Arcade "shitcock" strip illustrated, the anonymity of a public server just seems to draw a certain amount of sheer stupidity and bring out the moron in otherwise rational people.
I swear, if half these idiots had the faintest idea of what it's like to be sexually assaulted then they'd never use the word rape in jest. If they have the slightest idea of what real violence felt like then they wouldn't think of threatening to track someone down, rape their family in front of their eyes, kill them and then start on you (as one less than well-adjusted young man once did to me) just for besting them in a 1v1 matchup.
Seriously, there are some gamers who are clueless imbeciles when it comes to what they say and do, and it seems to me that the proportion of gamers who you'll come across like that online is far greater than the proportion of people who you'll come across like that in real life.
Frankly, I don't need it: I play games to enjoy myself not to encounter racial hatred. And online gaming doesn't need it either: it's this sort of anti-social behaviour that gets gaming a really bad name.
I was contracting for a major services company and popped into another department of the building to visit an old friend who worked their full-time in the IT department. He boasted about how he'd drilled security in the heads of all his users, how they all had secure passwords and how they all locked down their PCs when they stepped away from their desks, etc. So I bet him lunch that I could get into his network in less than five minutes, to which he replied that if I could then he'd be buying lunch all week.
It took me less than sixty seconds to get in. I just walked up to a nearby desk that had a passworded screensaver running, turned to the guy sat at the next desk and said "Hey, I'm from IT and I need to do something on this PC, can you tell me what this guy's password is so I can get it done?", and it was mission accomplished. I wasn't wearing any ID and the guy certainly didn't ask for any either. And that wasn't an average user I was dealing with, that was a security consultant: if those guys can be that sloppy, anyone can.
This coming from a guy who corrects the jokes that teenagers tell? LMFAO, and not at any jokes.
Duh. It blew up, didn't it?
Ah well, I've got karma to burn...
Q. What's the official drink of the Space Shuttle?
A. 7-Up.
That one was doing the rounds at school the day after Challenger went up.
1. The old adage "you get what you pay for" seems to apply here. AOL isn't a F/OSS endeavour, it's a for-profit corporation, so it's understandable why they would think that providing tech support (which costs them money to supply) to non-paying users isn't high on their list of priorities.
No offense, but you really should have had that information backed up somewhere - it's not AOL's fault that you didn't.
2. Given that you were given a way to recover your AIM account - sign up for AOL and then cancel after a short period - I can't believe that you didn't take that option. After all, you could probably have got what you needed to get done within a month's free trial, and even if you didn't it wouldn't have cost you that much to recover the information. Just how much is all that data - "at least a couple hundred contacts (personal and professional)" - worth to you anyway?
Not taking this option seems ridiculous to me, especially as it would have cost you very little if anything at all. Seems like you really cut off your nose to spite your face by not even trying that route. "Of course, why would I want AOL?!", you asked. Seems to me that you'd want it (albeit for a very short while) so you could get your vital data back.
3. Just what did you expect AOL to do? Did you expect free tech support for life as well as a free instant messaging service from them? And do you really blame them for your decision not to back up your data? It might seem harsh, but if you go through life looking for altruism and miracles all the time then you're destined to live a life of disappointment.
Sorry, but I find it hard to be sympathetic: you did everything that you shouldn't have and somehow you have the impression that none of the blame is yours. It's like someone setting out on a drive across a desert without checking their oil level, breaking down because of it, then eschewing the help offered by the one garage that can help you get out of the mess because it would cost you a few bucks, and then blaming the car manufacturer and the garage owner because you didn't get to your destination on time.
I have one piece of valuable advice to you: learn from this mistake and next time, if you've got so much at stake, take the help that's offered to you.
What if the page refreshes itself? Doesn't that put you in the same hole?
If so, then it's not "jumping through hoops", which makes Safari as vulnerable as any other browser.
Yeah, right. It's not as if there are ever any references to the US in TV news coverage anywhere else in the world, right?
Of course non-Americans know more about American culture than vice versa because of their exposure to American television and films. But to say that "practically every country in the world gets everything they know about the US from fictional TV programs" is, frankly, a load of bullshit.
Tell me, how is it I know about everything from Christopher Columbus to George W Bush recent election victory? That I know about topics as diverse as the Mayflower, US War of Independence, the Gold Rush, the Alamo, the US Civil War, the Black Sox, prohibition, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbour, World War Two (which, by the way, began way before Pearl Harbour), the Manhattan Project, McCarthyism, the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the assassination of JFK, the Apollo landings, Vietnam, Watergate, the Iran hostage crisis, Mount St Helens erupting, the Iran-Contra affair, the Gulf War, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Columbine, the Oklahoma City bombing, September 11th, Enron, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?
How is it I know who people as diverse as Peter Stuyvesant, Adam Smith, Brigham Young, Davy Crockett, General Custer, John Wilkes Booth, the Gipper, Babe Ruth, Al Capone, Jackie Robinson, Jimmy Hoffa, Vince Lombardi, Rosa Parks, David Koresh, the Unabomber, Cal Ripken Jr are? How is it I know about the Thanksgiving, Labour Day or Veterans' Day holidays? That the Mason-Dixon line seperated Pennsylvania and Maryland? The significance of 40 acres and a mule? That it was Lou Gehrig's streak that Ripken broke? That Colorado is the state where most of the US's nuclear material comes from? That the state capital of California is Sacramento? That Peyton Manning is on course to smash Dan Marino's most passing TDs in a single season record?
Did I get all of that - that broad spectrum of knowledge, from New World to Brave New World - from watching Cops and The Batchelor? I don't think so but thanks for the completely inaccurate generalisms. You can keep them.
Just because your newspapers and TV news have next to no coverage of the world beyond your own borders, and just because your own history lessons covered nothing beyond your own heritage, don't assume that that's the case for everyone else around the world.
We don't think that the US is a brutal police state but we do know who Rodney King is. Similarly, we know that China's guilty of human rights abuses but, frankly, show me a country that isn't: wasn't it just a few days ago that I read about FBI agents who reported that they saw prisoners being mistreated and tortured at Camp X-Ray? No one's got bloodless hands when it comes to human rights, not China, not my own nation and certainly not the US, but at least the Chinese aren't hypocritical about these things.
What you're seeing right now are teething troubles. Nothing more, nothing less. The bandwidth and consumption experienced right now will be laughed off a couple of years from now as miniscule.
Take the BBC News website for example. On September 11th 2001 its traffic was way beyond anything it had experienced to that point. Within a year or so, it was comfortably serving more requests and seeing more traffic every day. Proof if it was needed that capacity isn't the issue when it comes to Internet growth, and won't be for the foreseeable future.
RSS is in its infancy. Just because people didn't anticipate it being adopted as fast as it has been that doesn't make it "doomed". By that rationale, the Internet itself, DVDs, digital photography, etc are all "doomed" too.
In a work environment, people might be "simply using what's in front of them" but that's not the case when it comes to their home PCs, is it? Whether they bought a PC with Windows pre-installed or a retail copy of Windows off the shelf then that's a conscious decision. Surely you're not disputing that the number of retail sales of Windows runs into the millions? Or don't they count?
Two points, both of which will no doubt get me flamed to hell and back:
1. If 10,000 flies can't be wrong, what does that say about the millions that buy Microsoft products? From the viewpoint of the majority of the readers here, aren't those Microsoft customers wrong? Quantity never implies quality, my friend.
2. It might not be open source, but Opera perhaps meets your description of "the most reasonably standards compliant, light weight, cross platform web browser ever made" more than Firefox does. Opera is available for more platforms, is smaller in size (even with a greater feature set that includes an email client, etc), better integrated and more polished.
Yes, there are some very, very minor incompatibility issues but the Opera development team has always done a good job of ironing out any wrinkles that do appear. And, as you've alluded to yourself, there's no such thing as problem-free browsing (at least on any non-Microsoft browser) nowadays.
Other than that, well done to everyone who's contributed to the development of Firefox, no matter how great or small their contribution.
It's a basic rule of marketing on the internet nowadays: don't just register the domain name that reflects your company name but also register any domain name that people are likely to mistakenly enter when they want to find your website.
For example, Gillette have registered gilette.com (one "l") as well as the gillette.com (two "l"s). Although, strangely in Gillette's case, rather than redirect gilette.com to gillette.com, they have the former effectively mirroring the latter.
This is simple brand protection: remember, Gillette doesn't have a trademark on every possible misspelling of its name so there's nothing to prevent a rival from registering domain names based on those and redirecting them to its own site, so Gillette registering and using these sites themselves is the best way to cover itself. Same thing here with Lenovo/Levono.
His post very much implied that they were one and the same, and I wasn't the only person who noticed it. Perhaps you didn't spot that?
Wow, nice backtracking - I guess you can read after all. It was precisely because the original AC made such wild leaps of logic that I posted anything at all: India has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the points he mentioned and if he (Was the AC you, perhaps?) did want to say that you shouldn't trade with India because of tech jobs going there, well, then he should have said so.
How about I talk about World War II and the horrors of the gas chambers in one breath and then talk about how Germany and the US committed terrible crimes in that war in the next breath, thus leaving the implication that the US ran gas chambers too? Still think it's OK to leave things to the reader to work out? Not feeling the temptation to point out that the US was one of the good guys? Yeah, right.
Also, as I've said previously, blaming Indian workers for taking jobs that are offered to them is stupid. If you want to blame someone for the moving of jobs overseas, how about blaming the employers that do it in the first place? When GM moves a car plant from Michigan to, say, Oregon, do are the people of Oregon to blame for the jobs lost in Michigan? Or is it perhaps the employer who's looking to shave every penny he can off of his costs simply to make a bit more profit?
Lastly, recognise that it's a global economy and that you benefited from cheaper Asian goods more than you realise for all your life. Those T-shirts that cost next to nothing that you buy at Gap or wherever, or even just the cotton used to make clothes supposedly made in the US have passed through the hands of someone getting paid next to nothing somewhere on the other side of the world.
The next time you're buying a pair of sneakers, think about how the store selling them to you makes more from that one sale than the young sweatshop labourer who made them makes in a quarter. Then think about how much those shoes would cost if she and everyone else in the labour chain was paid a fair wage.
You've got some cajones calling someone a fool after you start ranting nonsensically about things that aren't true.
Such as? Just what exactly are these things that you're referring to? Care to elaborate, oh wise one? Oh, and by the way, it looks like you forgot to use the "Post Anonymously" option this time.
I'm as Indian as you are. But I'm not as stupid as you are. Fool.
Pah, Gore might have "invented" the Internet, but Dubya invented lots of Internets! Internets on the house for everyone!
No, he just gave a list of reasons why you shouldn't trade with China, most prominently its occupation of Tibet and its poor treatment of the Tibetan people, then proceeded to say that those were reasons not to trade with China and India.
That's like me making a list of reasons why you shouldn't buy, say, Cuban goods and then concluding that those are good reasons not to buy from Cuba or from the US.
Now, if he had mentioned any reasons why trading with India was bad, such as the loss of tech jobs there (as if that's not the fault of greedy US employers rather than the fault of skilled Indian technicians), then perhaps you might have a point. But he didn't give a single such reason and just tarred India with the broad brush that he'd used to tar China with. And, as I've pointed out, India isn't China and it isn't guilty of brutalising Tibet or any of the other things that the AC did deign to mention, so mentioning India in the same breath as China was entirely inappropriate.
Boy, I bet that the irony of you mentioning Indian worker and environment protections in the same week as the 20th anniversary of Union Carbide's Bhophal disaster, which it still hasn't cleaned up or properly compensated the victims of, just passes over your head.
I'll go one further: The Dali Lama, Tibet's spiritual leader, fled to India when the Chinese invaded and it was in India that he set up his government-in-exile. And China has invaded India in the past too.
Sorry, but it's this sort of ignorance of the highest magnitude - not realising that China, the world's largest communist country, and India, the world's largest democracy, are two seperate countries - that has people who aren't American rolling their eyes and dismissing Americans as stupid. I mean, have you ever heard of anyone anywhere who assumes that the US and Cuba are the same country? Because that's the closest analogy I can come up with to thinking that China and India are one and the same.
To the original poster who made this dumb assumption I have this advice: it's better to say nothing and have people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Oh, and read a book too every now and then. Believe me, right now people like you are giving your country a very bad name the world over.
God, I didn't want to get into a damn argument about semantics at almost 5am. You know and I know that when I said reception I was saying "what-the-other-party-is-receiving" just not in so many words, so let's not play silly little games about nothing, OK?
If you had read more than a handful of posts on the forum then you'd know that the issue isn't with the party at the end of the line but that, nevertheless, that's where the problem manifests itself. So, technically, it is a reception problem, just not reception as it's traditionally defined in mobile telephony.
This, the recent stem cell/paralysis breakthrough, living to 1,000 all coming a few weeks after Christopher Reeves dies? Wow, talk about quitting playing just before your lottery numbers come up.
If I didn't know better, I'd say that these guys were all lining up to announce the moment he died. Either that or that whole "curse of Superman" shit is more powerful than anyone first thought. Quick, let's all take out life insurance policies on Brandon Routh.