They would call and tell me my car warranty was about to expire. I thanked one of them and asked which of my two cars had the warranty problem... and the guy couldn't answer and hung up.
They were even dialing Canadian numbers, and have called me numerous times. I hope the bastards get some meaningful legal consequences from this.
Legal telemarketers are annoying enough. Scammers on a massive scale is a bloody nuisance. How it took so long to stop this is amazing.
Am I the only one who thinks that Twitter is created by and for morons?
Well, that might be a bit harsh.;-) I don't use it, but for some people, I'm sure it's a really cool thing.
but the author would have not chosen to name it anything like "Twitter" because his readers wouldn't have taken him seriously
Well, I think the word "twitter" in the English language is well matched by the intent of the service. It could be both the sound of the message arriving, and the excitement/buzz conveyed by being "all a twitter" -- for once, the word actually is fairly close to the English usage.
Given everyone's fascination with social media, it seems to be a fairly logical thing. You can message all of your friends every time you take a dump.:-P
But hey, who's to bother making such a point amongst the masses? No one even pays attention to accomplishments, elegance, or talent. So many beautiful songs are written every day, and we end up with things like Pokerface, completely void of style or melodic depth, becoming the most popular? How sad. Twits.
And then you go all foamy at the mouth and ruin it all.;-)
What you can't do is disable it from inside Firefox. And why is that? Because that's how Firefox was designed.
Really? I've got two add-ons with a nice shiny Uninstall button next to them that is enabled should I decide to push it. (Why I would uninstall noscript, I don't know, but it's there).
I also have Java Add-ons and.NET add-ons which have the Uninstall button disabled.
Methinks if Firefox was designed to prevent uninstalling add-ons, there would be no such button.
And, really, unless you know exactly which files to delete and if you can do it safely, deleting the files from the disk isn't really an option.
It seems to me that as soon as commercial interests takes over a certain web service it's obsolete and will soon be replaced by something else.
No, that's usually the point at which so many people are using the damned thing that trying to replace it now would be futile.
Take Facebook, no matter what kind of crap they do now, people still keep using it. You really think that most of the Twits who Tweet will know or care about this?
Why the hell hasn't Mozilla made it easy to remove plugins from Firefox? You have to Google solutions to find out how to remove Microsoft (and in some cases old Java) shit.
Mozilla has -- there's supposed to be an Uninstall button next to them.
Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't allow the Uninstall button to work, and you could only Disable. This is not a Mozilla problem in not providing a mechanism -- this is Microsoft and Sun making shitty add-ons.
Not that I'm saying they should be allowed to push updates like that, but what's the harm in some ridiculous search extension being added?
Well, the problem is, nobody knows exactly what it is and why it's there. Given Microsoft's lousy record with internet security, what's to say they haven't inadvertently created a security loophole?
From the looks of it, they're installing toolbars into Firefox. Since they're for Bing and for Search helper, I'm sure they're directing people to their own search engine. Which means they're taking advantage of their control over the OS to meddle with my browser.
And, most importantly, they didn't ask. Since this isn't Microsoft's software, WTF are they doing jamming in add-ons without notifying the user or making it possible to delete it?? When they installed the last.NET extension to my Firefox, I can't delete it -- only Disable it. It's not up to Microsoft to "enhance" my user experience in software that isn't theirs.
Seriously, you have to ask why installing additions into other companies' software without asking the user or allowing them to delete it is just plain wrong? What next, deleting any software which competes with their own offerings?
Slashdot is supposed to be a refuge for the intelligent geek in the vast wasteland of the web
And many of those intelligent geeks have read enough literature to know that sometimes spelling can be adjusted to reflect actual speech patterns. Take for example, Pygmalion.
Of course, geeks like to play with language in new and innovative ways
The use of the word sayin' is hardly a "new and innovative way" -- it's a very old and established usage of an apostrophe to convey that the speaker did, in fact, intend the word to be pronounced differently than standard.
I doubt this has much if anything to do with the *AAs since UEFI is basically a BIOS replacement and apparently doesn't require any DRM schemes to be in place. If the *AAs were behind this, bet your bottom dollar that multiple layers of DRM would be absolutely mandatory.
Oh, I don't think they're behind it... but I also know they have a decided preference for adding DRM at a very fundamental level in any hardware/OS so they can define the terms in which a computer can operate.
I'm just cynical enough to believe that if someone decides to swap out BIOS on machines, they'll be making loud noises to get their DRM injected into machines.
Other than the fact that there won't be any BIOS left, how does this affect most of us?
Is it likely to cause problems for Linux and BSD? Or is it just all going to be status quo but with an old piece of technology no longer present? Will the *AA's insist that the replacement allow them to lock down machines so we can only do what they approve of?
I really have no idea of the ramifications of the loss of BIOS.
Given the current fad of that stupid extra wide HDTV form factor
Actually, I used to dislike widescreen monitors. Now I actually kind of like it, as long it's a "square pixel" monitor -- meaning a circle is still a circle, and text isn't squished.
I'm sitting in front of a 22" monitor running at a native 1920x1080 -- it's pretty sweet, and you can put multiple windows side-by-side (since a window at full-width is usually useless for most things). It takes a fraction of the desk space as my old 19" multi-sync which I ran at 1600x1200, and once you change the way you lay out your windows, it's a *lot* better.
Throw in some virtual desktops, and I've got like 8 square feet or so of desktops. More if you go into three dimensions by having multiple VMWare images with their own virtual desktops for certain tasks.
I've seen way too many monitors that would be good for watching movies on because they're a "wide screen", but for text and images they're crap -- they've got a pixel count that makes it a 4:3 monitor, but a shape that makes it a 16:9 monitor. Those ones drive me nuts, they're not even a computer monitor in my opinion, they're a TV that does crappy computer graphics.
The summary is poorly worded. ATI's Powercolor HD5970 video card supports 12 display outputs. If you have two, you go up to 24 display outputs.
I don't think you're correct (but I'm not going to say it very firmly because I don't know that you're not.;-) The article appears to say...
As one HD5870 Eyefinity GPU card has six Displayport outputs for, yes, six displays in parallel, it shouldn't be too difficult to get twelve Displayport outputs from a hypothetical HD5970 Eyefinity, if it existed.
I think the HD5970 supports six, and the HD5970 is a non-existent device postulated by the author -- one assumes that would be consistent with the model numbering.
The 12-monitor version may not exist yet. Six monitors ought to be enough for anybody.;-)
Partly, because the verb "to film" carried over into non-film formats -- using a video camera was still called "filming" even if it wasn't technically accurate. Some people still talk about 'taping' shows on their PVR too -- I do, and I'm supposed to know better.
Language doesn't always change as fast as technology, and it would drive everyone batty to have to adjust their speech every time someone creates new technology. Especially because the technology changes so damned fast -- by next year it could be "caught on flurble" depending on what the next bit of technology is named, at which point it just gets tedious and you stick with the first word and everyone tacitly agrees that it's just easier that way.
Outside of Slashdot and universities, pedantry is usually met with snarls as people don't like being told by some smarmy git that the word they're using is no longer quite accurate. Discarding a well established verb in order to be more strictly 'technically' correct is a nuisance -- especially if the specific context doesn't really care about the technology.
For most purposes of discussion, "caught on film" still conveys what was meant, and all but the most annoying pedants will shut up about it.
When you wrap your mind about the significance of the transition from frame 4 to 5 is when I really get that 'wow' feeling.
Ow ow ow ow ow. I think I have a brain cramp.:-P
I'd like to see a scale to help me absorb that, but, yes, wow.
Betelgeuse is several orders of magnitude bigger than something which is several orders of magnitude bigger than our sun is about as close as I can get to grokking that picture.
But I never got the sense of insignificance that most people say you should fell when looking at the universe. The sizes boggled me, but never in a way that made me feel insignificant, it almost had the opposite effect on me, which I suppose is a bit weird.
It don't feel 'insignificant' in the face of it in the way most people use that term. Not in the crushing sense of 'what now', but more of a realization of just how unlikely one's own existence seems; and therefore all the more cool.
The sheer 'bigness' of it all astounds me, and it reminds me that our own perspective on the universe is extremely limited.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
People whose world view can barely encompass our own solar system... well, that's their problem.
However, as soon as you start to assign numbers to this kind of stuff, the brain just sort of stops trying and you occasionally find yourself just kind of going "wow".
Not for Jupiter, but it likely happens all the time in the rest of the galaxy.
Sorry, yes. I should have qualified and said that Jupiter never would, at least not in any meaningful timeline in relation to us.
But, Jupiter would need to accumulate immense amounts of mass to get to that stage. As you say, 15-75x it's current mass, which is an utterly huge amount of stuff.
This makes me wonder... How long until Jupiter turns into a star itself?
It won't. A gas giant is a star that never happened. There' no do-over whereby a gas giant might become a star subsequently.
The mass difference between Jupiter and even the smallest star is still huge -- like, 50+ times what it currently weighs. I don't believe what you ask is possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, Epic fail on my behalf.
I actually quoted text from a different poster (the one I intended to respond to) and replied to you.
Today, I am apparently stupider than usual. :-P
They were even dialing Canadian numbers, and have called me numerous times. I hope the bastards get some meaningful legal consequences from this.
Legal telemarketers are annoying enough. Scammers on a massive scale is a bloody nuisance. How it took so long to stop this is amazing.
I think by the time you get to the C-level execs, it's more about leveraging your synergies and maximizing your returns.
They don't likely know much about the technology, and believing in the company and drinking the Kool-Aid is mandatory.
In their mind, they produce high quality goods. The best there is.
Well, that might be a bit harsh. ;-) I don't use it, but for some people, I'm sure it's a really cool thing.
Well, I think the word "twitter" in the English language is well matched by the intent of the service. It could be both the sound of the message arriving, and the excitement/buzz conveyed by being "all a twitter" -- for once, the word actually is fairly close to the English usage.
Given everyone's fascination with social media, it seems to be a fairly logical thing. You can message all of your friends every time you take a dump. :-P
And then you go all foamy at the mouth and ruin it all. ;-)
Wait, are you seriously contending that the Microsoft EULA for the OS gives them blanket permissions to alter 3rd party software as they see fit??
That should be illegal. Well, then again, so should the way most EULAs/TOS get updated unilaterally.
Film at 11.
I mean, seriously, it's the most widely used OS on the planet. It's also the most likely target.
So ... Mozilla bad, Microsoft good? WTF?
Really? I've got two add-ons with a nice shiny Uninstall button next to them that is enabled should I decide to push it. (Why I would uninstall noscript, I don't know, but it's there).
I also have Java Add-ons and .NET add-ons which have the Uninstall button disabled.
Methinks if Firefox was designed to prevent uninstalling add-ons, there would be no such button.
And, really, unless you know exactly which files to delete and if you can do it safely, deleting the files from the disk isn't really an option.
No, that's usually the point at which so many people are using the damned thing that trying to replace it now would be futile.
Take Facebook, no matter what kind of crap they do now, people still keep using it. You really think that most of the Twits who Tweet will know or care about this?
Mozilla has -- there's supposed to be an Uninstall button next to them.
Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't allow the Uninstall button to work, and you could only Disable. This is not a Mozilla problem in not providing a mechanism -- this is Microsoft and Sun making shitty add-ons.
Well, the problem is, nobody knows exactly what it is and why it's there. Given Microsoft's lousy record with internet security, what's to say they haven't inadvertently created a security loophole?
From the looks of it, they're installing toolbars into Firefox. Since they're for Bing and for Search helper, I'm sure they're directing people to their own search engine. Which means they're taking advantage of their control over the OS to meddle with my browser.
And, most importantly, they didn't ask. Since this isn't Microsoft's software, WTF are they doing jamming in add-ons without notifying the user or making it possible to delete it?? When they installed the last .NET extension to my Firefox, I can't delete it -- only Disable it. It's not up to Microsoft to "enhance" my user experience in software that isn't theirs.
Seriously, you have to ask why installing additions into other companies' software without asking the user or allowing them to delete it is just plain wrong? What next, deleting any software which competes with their own offerings?
And many of those intelligent geeks have read enough literature to know that sometimes spelling can be adjusted to reflect actual speech patterns. Take for example, Pygmalion.
The use of the word sayin' is hardly a "new and innovative way" -- it's a very old and established usage of an apostrophe to convey that the speaker did, in fact, intend the word to be pronounced differently than standard.
Now, get offa' my lawn, ya' lil' fuckin' punk. ;-)
Oh, I don't think they're behind it ... but I also know they have a decided preference for adding DRM at a very fundamental level in any hardware/OS so they can define the terms in which a computer can operate.
I'm just cynical enough to believe that if someone decides to swap out BIOS on machines, they'll be making loud noises to get their DRM injected into machines.
Other than the fact that there won't be any BIOS left, how does this affect most of us?
Is it likely to cause problems for Linux and BSD? Or is it just all going to be status quo but with an old piece of technology no longer present? Will the *AA's insist that the replacement allow them to lock down machines so we can only do what they approve of?
I really have no idea of the ramifications of the loss of BIOS.
Say chowdah, Frenchy. :-P
Actually, I used to dislike widescreen monitors. Now I actually kind of like it, as long it's a "square pixel" monitor -- meaning a circle is still a circle, and text isn't squished.
I'm sitting in front of a 22" monitor running at a native 1920x1080 -- it's pretty sweet, and you can put multiple windows side-by-side (since a window at full-width is usually useless for most things). It takes a fraction of the desk space as my old 19" multi-sync which I ran at 1600x1200, and once you change the way you lay out your windows, it's a *lot* better.
Throw in some virtual desktops, and I've got like 8 square feet or so of desktops. More if you go into three dimensions by having multiple VMWare images with their own virtual desktops for certain tasks.
I've seen way too many monitors that would be good for watching movies on because they're a "wide screen", but for text and images they're crap -- they've got a pixel count that makes it a 4:3 monitor, but a shape that makes it a 16:9 monitor. Those ones drive me nuts, they're not even a computer monitor in my opinion, they're a TV that does crappy computer graphics.
However, since the picture shows an HD5970 that has 12-ports, I'm obviously wrong. :-P
I don't think you're correct (but I'm not going to say it very firmly because I don't know that you're not. ;-) ...
The article appears to say
I think the HD5970 supports six, and the HD5970 is a non-existent device postulated by the author -- one assumes that would be consistent with the model numbering.
The 12-monitor version may not exist yet. Six monitors ought to be enough for anybody. ;-)
Partly, because the verb "to film" carried over into non-film formats -- using a video camera was still called "filming" even if it wasn't technically accurate. Some people still talk about 'taping' shows on their PVR too -- I do, and I'm supposed to know better.
Language doesn't always change as fast as technology, and it would drive everyone batty to have to adjust their speech every time someone creates new technology. Especially because the technology changes so damned fast -- by next year it could be "caught on flurble" depending on what the next bit of technology is named, at which point it just gets tedious and you stick with the first word and everyone tacitly agrees that it's just easier that way.
Outside of Slashdot and universities, pedantry is usually met with snarls as people don't like being told by some smarmy git that the word they're using is no longer quite accurate. Discarding a well established verb in order to be more strictly 'technically' correct is a nuisance -- especially if the specific context doesn't really care about the technology.
For most purposes of discussion, "caught on film" still conveys what was meant, and all but the most annoying pedants will shut up about it.
Ow ow ow ow ow. I think I have a brain cramp. :-P
I'd like to see a scale to help me absorb that, but, yes, wow.
Betelgeuse is several orders of magnitude bigger than something which is several orders of magnitude bigger than our sun is about as close as I can get to grokking that picture.
Thanks for the pic (and the headache ;-)
It don't feel 'insignificant' in the face of it in the way most people use that term. Not in the crushing sense of 'what now', but more of a realization of just how unlikely one's own existence seems; and therefore all the more cool.
The sheer 'bigness' of it all astounds me, and it reminds me that our own perspective on the universe is extremely limited.
People whose world view can barely encompass our own solar system ... well, that's their problem.
However, as soon as you start to assign numbers to this kind of stuff, the brain just sort of stops trying and you occasionally find yourself just kind of going "wow".
So must the CIA, the BBC, and even their own embassy and government. They've got their own TLD for crying out loud.
Seriously, listen to the news or something. Read a book. It's an actual country.
Sorry, yes. I should have qualified and said that Jupiter never would, at least not in any meaningful timeline in relation to us.
But, Jupiter would need to accumulate immense amounts of mass to get to that stage. As you say, 15-75x it's current mass, which is an utterly huge amount of stuff.
The mind reels.
Dude, it's literally the first google hit ... Klondike Kat.
It won't. A gas giant is a star that never happened. There' no do-over whereby a gas giant might become a star subsequently.
The mass difference between Jupiter and even the smallest star is still huge -- like, 50+ times what it currently weighs. I don't believe what you ask is possible.