I checked that site -- what a whiner! Exactly what is it that Hamibi believes he has a "right" to force onto Intel's privately owned machines at their expense?
If the law allowed for brutal public execution of spammers and people who knowingly contract spam run, I suspect that your spam load would drop significantly.
I did a word search to see if you'd used any terms mentioning the 16:9 ratio of the presentation, and I either mistyped or forgot to search for "widescreen". My apologies.
I am aware of "anamorphic" lenses -- a clear sign of them is when lens flares are oval rather than circular -- but it's become so common to refer to 16:9 presentation on DVD movies as "anamorphic" that it's just another definition of the word to me.
Most theatrical releases are either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. IIRC a widescreen TV's aspect ratio is 1.77:1 (I could be a little off), so there are still black bars at the top and bottom -- they're just significantly smaller.
Widescreen enhanced means that the image has higher vertical resolution because there's less black bar in the way. It doesn't imply that the movie was cropped or that the aspect ratio was adjusted in any way. Some 1.85:1 movies are opened up a little to fill the screen entirely, but that's usually because the movie itself was open matte, and they're just reducing the size of the matte (thus the aspect is slightly off from the theatrical presentation, but it's insignifantly small and you're not losing information and likely not screwing up the intended framing).
Anyway, Disney -- from what I've heard -- isn't screwing the consumer out of 16:9 transfers anymore. They've found better way to screw consumers.
Did you try this with both the original PS2 DVD drivers and the "updated" ones that came with the official Sony remote, or did you not have both available?
I'll avoid the natural comments about Disney and the MPAA and SSSCA and all that crap and address the review.
This is kind of a minor nitpick for a rant, but someone has to bring it up.
One of the common elements in DVD reviews that I read is whether or not the video is anamorphic. For some viewers -- especially those with TVs that can take advantage of the enhanced resolution -- that is an issue. Whenever a widescreen DVD is reviewed it should be noted whether or not the video is anamorphic, I've refused to purchase discs because of that issue.
BTW, the video, from what I've read, is anamorphic -- though Disney in the past was notorious about only releasing "letterbox" movies in 4:3, not 16:9.
Verio allows postmastergeneral.com, a known spamhaus, to operate. I don't think that they are going to be concerned with the negligence of one of their customers facilitating criminal activity when another of their customers is openly engaging in criminal activity.
In absence of known contact addresses I go with webmaster@, postamster@ and hostmaster@. Sometimes support@ and abuse@ if it's abuse.
You might have been able to get what you needed with the assistance of a standard webspider and grepping the output for "@" or "mailto:". There are legitimate spider programs (that's how most search engines get their data), the illigitimate ones are the ones that are specifically designed to search for addresses, especially if they ignore robots.txt.
Somehow I doubt that you could use the Linux dev kit to make the PS2 play copied PS2 games. A PSX emulator, maybe but I don't think that you'll get it to "boot" to play the game natively.
I think that the warning given is a little misleading. Someone might misread it to think that the PS2 cannot read CD-R media at all to the point where you couldn't mount CD-R discs under Linux -- that's not the case, the system can actually read the media, it just won't boot games from them (without physical modificaiton).
At the time it was PINE because the most common form of internet access at the time was through a UNIX shell on dialup.
Anyway, while precautions against losing important information is a good idea, I should *not* be forced to modify my habits because spammers have decided that my inbox is a dumping ground for their crap. They deserve death and I will feel no pity for a spammer whose actions gets them killed.
As for "lazy", it takes more time for me to compose a spam complaint than it does to "just hit delete". I used to "just hit delete" until I "just hit delete" on the e-mail of a high-school acquantence and lost his e-mail address forever. Now I ask the ISP hosting the spammer to "just hit delete" -- and I have no problems with a government dealing with their spammers by "just hitting delete" on the electric chair or gallows.
Actually, I wasn't. Torture should precede the shooting.
People think that I'm just playing some part of a bitter spam-hater when I "joke" about executing spammers. Truth is, I am a bitter spam-hater and I'm not joking.
IIRC the purpose of the USPS treating it that way is so that you cannot simply "refuse" delivery for a certified letter and use that as an excuse when claiming that you were never informed of the judgement (even though you knew what you were refusing at the time).
I don't know how the USPS deals with cases where a person claims that they never even got the letter to refuse delivery.
Yeah? Well Steve Newman is a fucking moron, a shill for a corrupt corporation that deserves the same fate as Enron for their bullshit SLAPP policies. No company that files frivilious lawsuits against utterly trivial and useless matters just to silence critics -- companies like Xybernaut -- deserve to collapse under their own moral decay.
Before anyone takes this the wrong way, I should clarify.
I believe that laws should be created allowing for the brutal and public execution of spammers. I am not suggesting that a vigilante go forth and murder any spammer or spam-contractor (though I wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for any spammer who found their equipment vandalized). I'm certainly not suggesting that I'd do it myself -- for one, I don't like the idea of taking the law into my own hands like that (and risking getting in serious legal trouble) and for another, I don't really have the balls to do it.
Hrmm...what happens if the physical line to his house is cut somewhere. They'd have to figure out just where it was cut...and how often.
In the absence of laws allowing for his execution (I would never advocate killing a spammer, only altering laws to allow us to kill them), preventative measures must be taken. Given the destructive nature of spam, it could be considered self-defense.
I never had that problem. Of course, I never used their software and my cable modem went right into a linux box that was used as a NAT router. The machines networked with that router had homepages set to whatever the user using it wanted (there were a total of two users, btw).
Are you suggesting that @Home's purchase of Excite and trying to profit from maintaining and providing a "portal" service was not a sound business decision?
Obviously you never discovered why the dot-com business took off so well...
Er, Crusade was canned before the first episode aired? I'd not heard the news of its demise until several episodes had aired (shame too, because reportedly the next episode to be filmed involved Bester)
Slashdot Mirror
And the site seems to be suffering from the /. effect. Either that or they didn't patch and someone took advantage of the exploit.
Nice guesses, and I agree, but I have one more. I'm betting that Anakin will have a son who is instrumental in overthrowing the Evil Empire.
A friend of mine says that Anakin will redeem himself at the end to save his son, but I don't see that coming.
I checked that site -- what a whiner! Exactly what is it that Hamibi believes he has a "right" to force onto Intel's privately owned machines at their expense?
If the law allowed for brutal public execution of spammers and people who knowingly contract spam run, I suspect that your spam load would drop significantly.
I did a word search to see if you'd used any terms mentioning the 16:9 ratio of the presentation, and I either mistyped or forgot to search for "widescreen". My apologies.
I am aware of "anamorphic" lenses -- a clear sign of them is when lens flares are oval rather than circular -- but it's become so common to refer to 16:9 presentation on DVD movies as "anamorphic" that it's just another definition of the word to me.
Erm what do you mean by "modified"?
Most theatrical releases are either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. IIRC a widescreen TV's aspect ratio is 1.77:1 (I could be a little off), so there are still black bars at the top and bottom -- they're just significantly smaller.
Widescreen enhanced means that the image has higher vertical resolution because there's less black bar in the way. It doesn't imply that the movie was cropped or that the aspect ratio was adjusted in any way. Some 1.85:1 movies are opened up a little to fill the screen entirely, but that's usually because the movie itself was open matte, and they're just reducing the size of the matte (thus the aspect is slightly off from the theatrical presentation, but it's insignifantly small and you're not losing information and likely not screwing up the intended framing).
Anyway, Disney -- from what I've heard -- isn't screwing the consumer out of 16:9 transfers anymore. They've found better way to screw consumers.
Did you try this with both the original PS2 DVD drivers and the "updated" ones that came with the official Sony remote, or did you not have both available?
I'll avoid the natural comments about Disney and the MPAA and SSSCA and all that crap and address the review.
This is kind of a minor nitpick for a rant, but someone has to bring it up.
One of the common elements in DVD reviews that I read is whether or not the video is anamorphic. For some viewers -- especially those with TVs that can take advantage of the enhanced resolution -- that is an issue. Whenever a widescreen DVD is reviewed it should be noted whether or not the video is anamorphic, I've refused to purchase discs because of that issue.
BTW, the video, from what I've read, is anamorphic -- though Disney in the past was notorious about only releasing "letterbox" movies in 4:3, not 16:9.
Verio allows postmastergeneral.com, a known spamhaus, to operate. I don't think that they are going to be concerned with the negligence of one of their customers facilitating criminal activity when another of their customers is openly engaging in criminal activity.
In absence of known contact addresses I go with webmaster@, postamster@ and hostmaster@. Sometimes support@ and abuse@ if it's abuse.
You might have been able to get what you needed with the assistance of a standard webspider and grepping the output for "@" or "mailto:". There are legitimate spider programs (that's how most search engines get their data), the illigitimate ones are the ones that are specifically designed to search for addresses, especially if they ignore robots.txt.
Somehow I doubt that you could use the Linux dev kit to make the PS2 play copied PS2 games. A PSX emulator, maybe but I don't think that you'll get it to "boot" to play the game natively.
I think that the warning given is a little misleading. Someone might misread it to think that the PS2 cannot read CD-R media at all to the point where you couldn't mount CD-R discs under Linux -- that's not the case, the system can actually read the media, it just won't boot games from them (without physical modificaiton).
At the time it was PINE because the most common form of internet access at the time was through a UNIX shell on dialup.
Anyway, while precautions against losing important information is a good idea, I should *not* be forced to modify my habits because spammers have decided that my inbox is a dumping ground for their crap. They deserve death and I will feel no pity for a spammer whose actions gets them killed.
I don't have a problem with your scenario.
As for "lazy", it takes more time for me to compose a spam complaint than it does to "just hit delete". I used to "just hit delete" until I "just hit delete" on the e-mail of a high-school acquantence and lost his e-mail address forever. Now I ask the ISP hosting the spammer to "just hit delete" -- and I have no problems with a government dealing with their spammers by "just hitting delete" on the electric chair or gallows.
What, you didn't think that I was serious?
Actually, I wasn't. Torture should precede the shooting.
People think that I'm just playing some part of a bitter spam-hater when I "joke" about executing spammers. Truth is, I am a bitter spam-hater and I'm not joking.
Until and unless they impose the death penalty for spamming, I won't be satisfied.
(why not? They impose it for a lot of other things!)
IIRC the purpose of the USPS treating it that way is so that you cannot simply "refuse" delivery for a certified letter and use that as an excuse when claiming that you were never informed of the judgement (even though you knew what you were refusing at the time).
I don't know how the USPS deals with cases where a person claims that they never even got the letter to refuse delivery.
I mean I get enough junk e-mail as it is, without unethical crooks having an entire OS dedicated to the task...
...Oh, you said spanning OS.
Nevermind.
Yeah? Well Steve Newman is a fucking moron, a shill for a corrupt corporation that deserves the same fate as Enron for their bullshit SLAPP policies. No company that files frivilious lawsuits against utterly trivial and useless matters just to silence critics -- companies like Xybernaut -- deserve to collapse under their own moral decay.
Rule number one of dealing with spammers: Spammers lie.
Rule number two: If in doubt, refer to rule number one.
Rule number zero: Spammers are stupid.
Before anyone takes this the wrong way, I should clarify.
I believe that laws should be created allowing for the brutal and public execution of spammers. I am not suggesting that a vigilante go forth and murder any spammer or spam-contractor (though I wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for any spammer who found their equipment vandalized). I'm certainly not suggesting that I'd do it myself -- for one, I don't like the idea of taking the law into my own hands like that (and risking getting in serious legal trouble) and for another, I don't really have the balls to do it.
Hrmm...what happens if the physical line to his house is cut somewhere. They'd have to figure out just where it was cut...and how often.
In the absence of laws allowing for his execution (I would never advocate killing a spammer, only altering laws to allow us to kill them), preventative measures must be taken. Given the destructive nature of spam, it could be considered self-defense.
This man deserves death. I am not speaking in any figurative sense, this man deserves to be killed as an example and warning to others.
All spammers deserve death. Bill Jones is no exception.
I never had that problem. Of course, I never used their software and my cable modem went right into a linux box that was used as a NAT router. The machines networked with that router had homepages set to whatever the user using it wanted (there were a total of two users, btw).
Are you suggesting that @Home's purchase of Excite and trying to profit from maintaining and providing a "portal" service was not a sound business decision?
Obviously you never discovered why the dot-com business took off so well...
...er, nevermind.
Er, Crusade was canned before the first episode aired? I'd not heard the news of its demise until several episodes had aired (shame too, because reportedly the next episode to be filmed involved Bester)