Recently stuff offered to USA and Canada only has started bothering people as they see it as a way of "We don't give a f to you" attitude.
For example I know it is not only Apple to blame but iTunes Greece store existing and there is no iTunes Turkey store while countries has similar markets...
I hope I could explain the background of "Why not available to my country?!" types of postings a bit.
btw, I know it is RIAA to blame for those "music" stores.
I'm sure it also has nothing to do with the complicated legal issues with doing business in a billion different countries. Perhaps Turkey has a law that make it difficult or expensive to do that type of business, and some merchants decide that it isn't worth the trouble?
As someone who lives in suburban Texas, I agree with you. It won't work very well here. While I can see a few wireless networks from my house, it mostly consists of my network, my next-door-neighbor's network, a couple of the 2wire networks, and two or three other neighbor's networks. But with all brick houses, the only network that is strong enough for me to connect to [other than my own of course] is my next-door-neighbor's.
So unless Fon provides a decent antenna, and people put them in their attic's, you will at most have 2-4 people who can possibly connect to your router. Of course, here in Texas, putting the router in your attic has problems too. It gets terribly hot in an attic here. I had an access point in my attic for awhile, and in the summers it frequently overheated and stopped working. I'd have to bring it down into the house and let it cool down before it would start working again.
Anyway, I may consider signing up for this, comfortable in the fact that nobody is ever going to be making use of my connection.
Oh and let me just add, that I'm not necessarily in favor of having net neutrality made into law. I understand that it most likely won't be terribly effective, and could very well have unintended consequences.
It would certainly better if the telcos would realize that a neutral net was better for everyone in the long run. Unfortunately, though some might argue this point, they pretty much have a monopoly right now. As a consumer, I am lucky to have two choices in whom I can purchase my broadband connection from. Many people [in the US] only have one choice, if that.
That reminds me, that this all also neglects to consider the fact that the Internet is still a global network. Foreign [to the US] companies selling to people outside the US will not be affected by this at all. Those same foreign companies who wish to sell to US customers will then either have to pay AT&T for priority, or as with small companies, will just have to deal with having a low-priority connection to their US customers, or decide that they just won't sell to us. The end result is that it decreases the availability of global goods and services to US consumers. Maybe that is all legal, but it does a disservice to us, and the telcos don't see anything wrong with that.
The point is, I wish the telcos would come to their senses and realize that neutrality is better for all, but I think that the unintended consequences of forcing net neutrality are fewer than those of allowing the profitable telco monopoly to squeeze even more money from consumers.
I would appreciate a well thought out response from someone who is educated in this well enough to not start with "I think..." or "maybe this will happen..."
Well, no guarantee there. The problem here is that since it has not yet happened, we don't know exactly what will happen. Anything anyone says on either side of the debate is most likely conjecture.
If creating a tiered internet: 1. does not worsen my connection *at all* 2. does not cost me *any* more money (assuming I am not benefiting from it), either directly or indirectly 3. is *entirely* paid for by people or companies that can benefit from it
why should I care?
Well that depends on what basis you're using for not caring. I'm not 100% sure I'm understanding your argument here. Are you saying that you "don't care" only if your connection is not worsened, doesn't cost you directly more money, and is only paid for by the companies such as Google?
On the one hand, that's a bit short sighted, in a kind of a "if it doesn't hurt me, I don't care what they do to you' kind of way. It is also most likely false [again, not knowing for SURE what will happen].
1. Who says your connection won't worsen? Sure, the total throughput you now enjoy probably won't get any less. But you will be negatively affected when Slashdot, or some other favorite site of yours, suddenly starts taking three times longer to display because the site owners can't afford to pay for priority. 2. It will cost you more money. When Amazon starts having to pay more money to the telcos, do you think for a second that their prices won't increase to compensate? In the end, unless you make absolutely no purchases from a high-priority company, you will pay for it. 3. This sounds like the exact same point as #2.
I have, time and time again, seen people make vague claims (eg. "you can't trust the telco companies, anything they do is bad")
It's not just about specific distrust in the Telcos. It has to do with the idea that even if you think a person or entity is trustworthy now, it may not be wise to give them more power than they need, since you have no guarantee that they will continue to be trustworthy in the future. These days we've seen too many examples of coporations ignoring the best interests of their customers and society in general [Enron, Worldcom, Union Carbide, etc.]. Since corporations seem to be accountable to their shareholders, and nobody else, that tends to make some people skittish when it comes to trusting them.
and repeating what the corporations that will not benefit from this say (eg. google and amazon). But can someone please tell me WHY net neutrality is such a good thing?!?
Well, does it not strike you as odd that the telcos want to be able to bill those companies twice for the same service? Google and Amazon, et al, already pay large amounts of money for huge pipes to the internet. All the telcos have to do is say, "You know, our infrastructure costs are getting higher. Since we want to run a sustainable, responsible [chuckle] business, I'm afraid we have to raise our prices to compensate." Instead they are trying to shoehorn in an extra fee in a way that will let them *seem* like they still have low prices, but really end up costing a business more than it would if they just raised prices.
The end effect will be that large companies will pay the fees [unless someone like Google makes use of that dark fiber and succeeds in making its own public network]. Smaller companies will just not bother to try, or will put themselves in heavier debt to pay the fees, or will try to surivive as a lower-class netizen. Sadly most people will be less likely to frequent a website that is always slow, so those businesses won't do well.
Let's face it. It isn't like these telco's aren't profitable, even with their supposedly underpriced, oversold bandwidth. SBC's 4th quarter 2002 profit was $2.63 BILLION dollars.
ProLiant servers have been around for many years, and the support software from Compaq is still what HP uses. I'm thankful HP was at least smart enough to keep those two lines of products going.
My question is, were they smart enough to fix one of the most annoying problems I've ever encountered on a server" I worked for a hosting company. One of the customers had a bunch of 2 or 3U Compaq rackmount servers. There was no way [that we ever discovered] to tell the server to boot if there was no keyboard attached. We either had to attach a keyboard every time we rebooted, or had to buy dongles that trick the system into thinking there was a keyboard attached.
Who the hell makes rackmount servers that can't boot without a keyboard?
I hope HP has fixed that. I've never recommended a Compaq/HP server to anyone because of that issue. If they can't even get that right, what else have they engineered poorly?
Its true that its the SC's role to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, but why does that free Congress from having to think about the Constitutional ramifications of the laws they wish to pass? Shouldn't they consider people's rights and Constitutional restrictions on government when they are deciding to pass a law?
As it is, it seems its too much trouble for Congressmen to even read laws before voting on them. I think that is a pretty large breakdown in the system.
You're right, but lets face it, Congress has reached the pinnacle of laziness [and corruption?]. With the current system , why should they expend serious effort worrying about the constitutionality of a law. Even if a law is not constitutional, unless somebody with the money to fight it complains, it will stay on the books. They will now pass just about any law that comes down the pipe, and let the SC worry about whether or not it is constitutional on the off chance someone can actually spend the time and money to get it to the SC in the first place.
It's a sad state of affairs, but I think it is more accurate than I'd like to hope.
Although I think it would be great to have free nationwide 384/128kbps wireless, I see two issues:
One with the filter they want to implement. If this becomes ubiquitous then anyone who pays for another ISP may be assumed to be doing so for 'porn' purposes. So you might want to keep your non-NBRS ISP connection to yourself.
Also this is a big-brother wet-dream! Especially if people start using it for unencrypted voip traffic. No need to bug people's houses. Just get anywhere within x-miles of the target and you can read everything they send out. And it will be easy to find them using a triangulation of multiple towers in the area. At least in heavily populated area's; it might be alittle more difficult to triangulate someone's position using the single tower in BFE, Kansas.
Anyway, in the past I would have considered someone crazy if they really thought these things were an issue. Unfortunately recent history is making me more and more concerned.
I actually like that every email, both incoming and outgoing, gets a stamp that it was scanned. Lets me know that yes, it's still working properly and lets everybody else know that the email was definitively scanned.
I LOVE AVG but I turn this off on all my installs. It's just way too easy for someone sending an email virus to add "This email scanned by so-and-so Antivirus" to really be useful at all.
But I do love AVG, especially the fact that it scans email no matter what client you are using, whereas the McAfee crap that my work wants us to use only integrates and scans email from Outook.
And in a comparison of escort , hooker and prostitute it looks like the Italians love their escorts, but nobody has much interest in hookers or prostitutes.:)
While it's easy to be paranoid, the important (and easy) place to have checks and balances to to insure that evidence collected without a warrant can't be used against one in court...But the judicial branch can check this nicely by simply making it clear that any such database is *entirely* inadmissible as evidence.
I think you are missing the problem. Certainly if your case gets to court, it will most likely not be admissable evidence. Unfortunately, you may not get your day in court.
You should also be careful because fruit juice is packaged to be deceptive, you have to check the ingredients. I've purchases products that were labeled 100% juice and contained High-Fructose Corn Syrup.
On that note, if you like apple juice, I **HIGHLY** recommend Martinelli's. It's made in Watsonville, CA, but is available nationwide. They even have a store locator.
It is Delicious! Drink some Martinelli's for about a week, then go drink your old brand [say Mott's or the store brand] and realize that what you've been drinking actually tastes terrible!:)
As a bonus, for those of us who don't drink alcohol, the Martinelli's Sparkling Apple Cider is a great substitute for champagne.
I have no ties with Martinelli's, I just think their product is fabulous. Plus it has helped me drastically reduce my soda consumption. I'm drinking mostly water now, but when I need something with flavor I go for the Martinelli's.
They stopped letting non-flying people past security after 9/11. They started requiring ID for a boarding pass in 95 -- post OK City.
In the airports I have flown to before 9/11 [San Jose, Midland/Odessa, Newark, La Guardia, LAX, SFO, Oakland, Milwaukee, Jacksonville, DFW, Dallas Love, Houston, Pittsburgh and many many more], they haven't allowed non-flying people past security since at LEAST the early 90's. I'm pretty sure Newark stopped allowing it sometime in the 80's.
I do agree this is a clever method and puts some hurt on the spammers (and is fully legal under the stupid CANSPAM opt-out provision) - but does it actually reduce spam? To me it looks more like BS has poked a hornets nest here, do we have any evidence the spammers have really been hurt at all?
Do you not think that the fact that the spammers are angry enough to try to retaliate gives evidence that they have been hurt, or are at least fearful of being hurt by this method?
There were no metal detectors, no security personnell on the lookout, nothing.
What hole-in-the-wall airport have you been hanging out in? I have been flying since I was six years old [around 1980ish] and I have NEVER been able to get on a plane without going through a metal detector, having my bags go through an x-ray machine, and having security guards watch as I do this.
What has changed since 9/11? I have to take off my shoes now, and occasionally [about 40% of the time] get pulled aside for a more thorough search. I'm not happy about it as now I get a strong vibe of feeling like a suspected terrorist. We were particularly hassled this last time we flew with our newborn baby. I was not happy.
But don't even suggest that there was no metal detectors, x-ray machines or security guards for domestic flights before 9/11. About the only pre-9/11 change I remember is when they stopped letting non-flying people past the security checkpoints, and when they started requiring ID to get a boarding pass [sometime in the 90's].
Upon skimming over the article this question popped into my head. Of the disadvantages of DX9 that DX10 is supposed to fix [such as the small batch problem and the fixed pipeline shader architecture], does OpenGL have those same disadvantages and if so, what is being done about them? Are those disadvantages present in both Windows and Linux/OSX etc?
Is it even possible to fix that kind of issue without having your API written into the OS/Kernel?
Man that's just terrible. The name "Revolution" had a powerful feel behind it, which I think would have been useful in its marketing against the Xbox360 and the PS3. "Wii" sounds diminutive and powerless. I hope they reconsider. Somehow, saying 'Hey I'm going to go out and buy a Wii [we]' just doesn't have the ring of 'I'm going out to buy a Revolution!'.
I went to each one of the sites before answering. I still missed two of them.
First I missed the lyrics sites. One of them supposedly installs activeX adware. I couldn't tell this since I'm using Firefox in Linux.
Then I missed one of the P2P software sites. I incorrectly decided that Blubster was safe, even after looking through the site. They do mention that they take information given when you fill out a contact form, but I didn't see any mention in the terms of use or privacy policy regarding anything in the software itself.
Of course, I would have never actually downloaded that in the first place. I knew emule was safe though. Yay open source!:) And Kazaa has a long history of being full of crap that's bad for your system. Ugh.
So yeah, I missed 2 of them, but would not have been infected by any of the bad sites. Mostly I just think this quiz is lame.
I was going to say it's also called PBS here in the states. Unfortunately I've noticed lately that the 'this program sponsered by.... and viewiers like you' bits have been slowly turning into full length commercials. Granted it's not as bad as the regular networks yet, but they've even started doing it during the show, not just between shows. So much for commercial free public TV.:(
And there's another thing I've noticed over the last few years. When I was growing up, commercials were always about 50% louder than the show that was playing. At some point I understood that there was a law passed, or a general agreement among broadcasters to stop doing that. For about 15 years the commercials were no longer louder than the show. Over the last few years though, I've noticed the commercials have been getting louder and louder again. What's up with that crap? Don't they realize that makes us [or me anyway] WANT to change the channel, or mute the volume or fast-forward the commercial if we're on a Tivo?
The Tony Hawk games on the dreamcast were the best! Way better than their playstation or n64 counterparts.
I'd have to say the same goes for the Dave Mirra BMX games. I have the original Dave Mirra game for DC, and I have Dave Mirra 2 for PS2. The original for DC looks better and plays much more smoothly than the 2nd version on PS2. That's just sad really.
I also wasted a lot of time playing Test Drive: Le Mans. Great game! As mentioned before, Soul Caliber was a must-have, as was the original Dead Or Alive! I had seen it in the arcade and when I heard it was coming out on the DC I knew I had to have one. It's the only fighting game I didn't completely suck at for some reason!
Had I known, D-Link would have lost a sale. I'll have to check my router when I get home to see if it's one of the affected ones.
Yeah I might have passed over the D-Link as well. But having gone through the settings of my router, I saw that while it did have defaults for the NTP server, it also allowed me to enter in my own. So I had already changed it to my own ISP's NTP server. I remember being surprised that they hadn't used pool.ntp.org as a default. Hopefully they will do something along those lines in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Recently stuff offered to USA and Canada only has started bothering people as they see it as a way of "We don't give a f to you" attitude.
For example I know it is not only Apple to blame but iTunes Greece store existing and there is no iTunes Turkey store while countries has similar markets...
I hope I could explain the background of "Why not available to my country?!" types of postings a bit.
btw, I know it is RIAA to blame for those "music" stores.
I'm sure it also has nothing to do with the complicated legal issues with doing business in a billion different countries. Perhaps Turkey has a law that make it difficult or expensive to do that type of business, and some merchants decide that it isn't worth the trouble?
As someone who lives in suburban Texas, I agree with you. It won't work very well here. While I can see a few wireless networks from my house, it mostly consists of my network, my next-door-neighbor's network, a couple of the 2wire networks, and two or three other neighbor's networks. But with all brick houses, the only network that is strong enough for me to connect to [other than my own of course] is my next-door-neighbor's.
So unless Fon provides a decent antenna, and people put them in their attic's, you will at most have 2-4 people who can possibly connect to your router. Of course, here in Texas, putting the router in your attic has problems too. It gets terribly hot in an attic here. I had an access point in my attic for awhile, and in the summers it frequently overheated and stopped working. I'd have to bring it down into the house and let it cool down before it would start working again.
Anyway, I may consider signing up for this, comfortable in the fact that nobody is ever going to be making use of my connection.
...so that broadcasters can broadcast more channels rather then better quality channels.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the whole problem with today's entertainment industry!
Oh and let me just add, that I'm not necessarily in favor of having net neutrality made into law. I understand that it most likely won't be terribly effective, and could very well have unintended consequences.
It would certainly better if the telcos would realize that a neutral net was better for everyone in the long run. Unfortunately, though some might argue this point, they pretty much have a monopoly right now. As a consumer, I am lucky to have two choices in whom I can purchase my broadband connection from. Many people [in the US] only have one choice, if that.
That reminds me, that this all also neglects to consider the fact that the Internet is still a global network. Foreign [to the US] companies selling to people outside the US will not be affected by this at all. Those same foreign companies who wish to sell to US customers will then either have to pay AT&T for priority, or as with small companies, will just have to deal with having a low-priority connection to their US customers, or decide that they just won't sell to us. The end result is that it decreases the availability of global goods and services to US consumers. Maybe that is all legal, but it does a disservice to us, and the telcos don't see anything wrong with that.
The point is, I wish the telcos would come to their senses and realize that neutrality is better for all, but I think that the unintended consequences of forcing net neutrality are fewer than those of allowing the profitable telco monopoly to squeeze even more money from consumers.
I would appreciate a well thought out response from someone who is educated in this well enough to not start with "I think..." or "maybe this will happen..."
Well, no guarantee there. The problem here is that since it has not yet happened, we don't know exactly what will happen. Anything anyone says on either side of the debate is most likely conjecture.
If creating a tiered internet:
1. does not worsen my connection *at all*
2. does not cost me *any* more money (assuming I am not benefiting from it), either directly or indirectly
3. is *entirely* paid for by people or companies that can benefit from it
why should I care?
Well that depends on what basis you're using for not caring. I'm not 100% sure I'm understanding your argument here. Are you saying that you "don't care" only if your connection is not worsened, doesn't cost you directly more money, and is only paid for by the companies such as Google?
On the one hand, that's a bit short sighted, in a kind of a "if it doesn't hurt me, I don't care what they do to you' kind of way.
It is also most likely false [again, not knowing for SURE what will happen].
1. Who says your connection won't worsen? Sure, the total throughput you now enjoy probably won't get any less. But you will be negatively affected when Slashdot, or some other favorite site of yours, suddenly starts taking three times longer to display because the site owners can't afford to pay for priority.
2. It will cost you more money. When Amazon starts having to pay more money to the telcos, do you think for a second that their prices won't increase to compensate? In the end, unless you make absolutely no purchases from a high-priority company, you will pay for it.
3. This sounds like the exact same point as #2.
I have, time and time again, seen people make vague claims (eg. "you can't trust the telco companies, anything they do is bad")
It's not just about specific distrust in the Telcos. It has to do with the idea that even if you think a person or entity is trustworthy now, it may not be wise to give them more power than they need, since you have no guarantee that they will continue to be trustworthy in the future.
These days we've seen too many examples of coporations ignoring the best interests of their customers and society in general [Enron, Worldcom, Union Carbide, etc.]. Since corporations seem to be accountable to their shareholders, and nobody else, that tends to make some people skittish when it comes to trusting them.
and repeating what the corporations that will not benefit from this say (eg. google and amazon). But can someone please tell me WHY net neutrality is such a good thing?!?
Well, does it not strike you as odd that the telcos want to be able to bill those companies twice for the same service? Google and Amazon, et al, already pay large amounts of money for huge pipes to the internet. All the telcos have to do is say, "You know, our infrastructure costs are getting higher. Since we want to run a sustainable, responsible [chuckle] business, I'm afraid we have to raise our prices to compensate."
Instead they are trying to shoehorn in an extra fee in a way that will let them *seem* like they still have low prices, but really end up costing a business more than it would if they just raised prices.
The end effect will be that large companies will pay the fees [unless someone like Google makes use of that dark fiber and succeeds in making its own public network]. Smaller companies will just not bother to try, or will put themselves in heavier debt to pay the fees, or will try to surivive as a lower-class netizen. Sadly most people will be less likely to frequent a website that is always slow, so those businesses won't do well.
Let's face it. It isn't like these telco's aren't profitable, even with their supposedly underpriced, oversold bandwidth. SBC's 4th quarter 2002 profit was $2.63 BILLION dollars.
ProLiant servers have been around for many years, and the support software from Compaq is still what HP uses. I'm thankful HP was at least smart enough to keep those two lines of products going.
My question is, were they smart enough to fix one of the most annoying problems I've ever encountered on a server" I worked for a hosting company. One of the customers had a bunch of 2 or 3U Compaq rackmount servers. There was no way [that we ever discovered] to tell the server to boot if there was no keyboard attached. We either had to attach a keyboard every time we rebooted, or had to buy dongles that trick the system into thinking there was a keyboard attached.
Who the hell makes rackmount servers that can't boot without a keyboard?
I hope HP has fixed that. I've never recommended a Compaq/HP server to anyone because of that issue. If they can't even get that right, what else have they engineered poorly?
What's to stop SCO from claiming that GNU Hurd stole from them too?
:)
The fact that not even SCO wants to admit to being the source of such a useless pile of vaporware!
Sorry, just had to
Yeah, you didnt even get the code right, its UUDDLRLRBA Start
Damn, you're right. That's what I get for posting in a hurry while trying to not let my English professor figure out what I'm doing.
I was always partial to either "IDSPISPOPD", or if I was playing Contra, "U,U,D,D,L,R,L,R,Start"...
Its true that its the SC's role to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, but why does that free Congress from having to think about the Constitutional ramifications of the laws they wish to pass? Shouldn't they consider people's rights and Constitutional restrictions on government when they are deciding to pass a law?
As it is, it seems its too much trouble for Congressmen to even read laws before voting on them. I think that is a pretty large breakdown in the system.
You're right, but lets face it, Congress has reached the pinnacle of laziness [and corruption?]. With the current system , why should they expend serious effort worrying about the constitutionality of a law. Even if a law is not constitutional, unless somebody with the money to fight it complains, it will stay on the books. They will now pass just about any law that comes down the pipe, and let the SC worry about whether or not it is constitutional on the off chance someone can actually spend the time and money to get it to the SC in the first place.
It's a sad state of affairs, but I think it is more accurate than I'd like to hope.
"Yeah, but does it run Linux?"
(Someone HAS to post it. This comment is obligatory in this kind of thread)
Don't forget: "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these PC-BSD machines!!!!"
Although I think it would be great to have free nationwide 384/128kbps wireless, I see two issues:
One with the filter they want to implement. If this becomes ubiquitous then anyone who pays for another ISP may be assumed to be doing so for 'porn' purposes. So you might want to keep your non-NBRS ISP connection to yourself.
Also this is a big-brother wet-dream! Especially if people start using it for unencrypted voip traffic. No need to bug people's houses. Just get anywhere within x-miles of the target and you can read everything they send out. And it will be easy to find them using a triangulation of multiple towers in the area. At least in heavily populated area's; it might be alittle more difficult to triangulate someone's position using the single tower in BFE, Kansas.
Anyway, in the past I would have considered someone crazy if they really thought these things were an issue. Unfortunately recent history is making me more and more concerned.
I actually like that every email, both incoming and outgoing, gets a stamp that it was scanned. Lets me know that yes, it's still working properly and lets everybody else know that the email was definitively scanned.
I LOVE AVG but I turn this off on all my installs. It's just way too easy for someone sending an email virus to add "This email scanned by so-and-so Antivirus" to really be useful at all.
But I do love AVG, especially the fact that it scans email no matter what client you are using, whereas the McAfee crap that my work wants us to use only integrates and scans email from Outook.
And in a comparison of escort , hooker and prostitute it looks like the Italians love their escorts, but nobody has much interest in hookers or prostitutes. :)
While it's easy to be paranoid, the important (and easy) place to have checks and balances to to insure that evidence collected without a warrant can't be used against one in court...But the judicial branch can check this nicely by simply making it clear that any such database is *entirely* inadmissible as evidence.
I think you are missing the problem. Certainly if your case gets to court, it will most likely not be admissable evidence. Unfortunately, you may not get your day in court.
You should also be careful because fruit juice is packaged to be deceptive, you have to check the ingredients. I've purchases products that were labeled 100% juice and contained High-Fructose Corn Syrup.
:)
On that note, if you like apple juice, I **HIGHLY** recommend Martinelli's. It's made in Watsonville, CA, but is available nationwide. They even have a store locator.
It is Delicious! Drink some Martinelli's for about a week, then go drink your old brand [say Mott's or the store brand] and realize that what you've been drinking actually tastes terrible!
As a bonus, for those of us who don't drink alcohol, the Martinelli's Sparkling Apple Cider is a great substitute for champagne.
I have no ties with Martinelli's, I just think their product is fabulous. Plus it has helped me drastically reduce my soda consumption. I'm drinking mostly water now, but when I need something with flavor I go for the Martinelli's.
Ender-
They stopped letting non-flying people past security after 9/11. They started requiring ID for a boarding pass in 95 -- post OK City.
In the airports I have flown to before 9/11 [San Jose, Midland/Odessa, Newark, La Guardia, LAX, SFO, Oakland, Milwaukee, Jacksonville, DFW, Dallas Love, Houston, Pittsburgh and many many more], they haven't allowed non-flying people past security since at LEAST the early 90's. I'm pretty sure Newark stopped allowing it sometime in the 80's.
I do agree this is a clever method and puts some hurt on the spammers (and is fully legal under the stupid CANSPAM opt-out provision) - but does it actually reduce spam? To me it looks more like BS has poked a hornets nest here, do we have any evidence the spammers have really been hurt at all?
Do you not think that the fact that the spammers are angry enough to try to retaliate gives evidence that they have been hurt, or are at least fearful of being hurt by this method?
There were no metal detectors, no security personnell on the lookout, nothing.
What hole-in-the-wall airport have you been hanging out in? I have been flying since I was six years old [around 1980ish] and I have NEVER been able to get on a plane without going through a metal detector, having my bags go through an x-ray machine, and having security guards watch as I do this.
What has changed since 9/11? I have to take off my shoes now, and occasionally [about 40% of the time] get pulled aside for a more thorough search. I'm not happy about it as now I get a strong vibe of feeling like a suspected terrorist. We were particularly hassled this last time we flew with our newborn baby. I was not happy.
But don't even suggest that there was no metal detectors, x-ray machines or security guards for domestic flights before 9/11. About the only pre-9/11 change I remember is when they stopped letting non-flying people past the security checkpoints, and when they started requiring ID to get a boarding pass [sometime in the 90's].
Upon skimming over the article this question popped into my head. Of the disadvantages of DX9 that DX10 is supposed to fix [such as the small batch problem and the fixed pipeline shader architecture], does OpenGL have those same disadvantages and if so, what is being done about them? Are those disadvantages present in both Windows and Linux/OSX etc?
:)
Is it even possible to fix that kind of issue without having your API written into the OS/Kernel?
This inquiring mind wants to know!
Man that's just terrible. The name "Revolution" had a powerful feel behind it, which I think would have been useful in its marketing against the Xbox360 and the PS3. "Wii" sounds diminutive and powerless. I hope they reconsider. Somehow, saying 'Hey I'm going to go out and buy a Wii [we]' just doesn't have the ring of 'I'm going out to buy a Revolution!'.
Maybe it's just mii though...
I went to each one of the sites before answering. I still missed two of them.
:) And Kazaa has a long history of being full of crap that's bad for your system. Ugh.
First I missed the lyrics sites. One of them supposedly installs activeX adware. I couldn't tell this since I'm using Firefox in Linux.
Then I missed one of the P2P software sites. I incorrectly decided that Blubster was safe, even after looking through the site. They do mention that they take information given when you fill out a contact form, but I didn't see any mention in the terms of use or privacy policy regarding anything in the software itself.
Of course, I would have never actually downloaded that in the first place. I knew emule was safe though. Yay open source!
So yeah, I missed 2 of them, but would not have been infected by any of the bad sites. Mostly I just think this quiz is lame.
It does exist, its called the BBC.
.... and viewiers like you' bits have been slowly turning into full length commercials. Granted it's not as bad as the regular networks yet, but they've even started doing it during the show, not just between shows. So much for commercial free public TV. :(
I was going to say it's also called PBS here in the states. Unfortunately I've noticed lately that the 'this program sponsered by
And there's another thing I've noticed over the last few years. When I was growing up, commercials were always about 50% louder than the show that was playing. At some point I understood that there was a law passed, or a general agreement among broadcasters to stop doing that. For about 15 years the commercials were no longer louder than the show. Over the last few years though, I've noticed the commercials have been getting louder and louder again. What's up with that crap? Don't they realize that makes us [or me anyway] WANT to change the channel, or mute the volume or fast-forward the commercial if we're on a Tivo?
The Tony Hawk games on the dreamcast were the best! Way better than their playstation or n64 counterparts.
I'd have to say the same goes for the Dave Mirra BMX games. I have the original Dave Mirra game for DC, and I have Dave Mirra 2 for PS2. The original for DC looks better and plays much more smoothly than the 2nd version on PS2. That's just sad really.
I also wasted a lot of time playing Test Drive: Le Mans. Great game! As mentioned before, Soul Caliber was a must-have, as was the original Dead Or Alive! I had seen it in the arcade and when I heard it was coming out on the DC I knew I had to have one. It's the only fighting game I didn't completely suck at for some reason!
Had I known, D-Link would have lost a sale. I'll have to check my router when I get home to see if it's one of the affected ones.
Yeah I might have passed over the D-Link as well. But having gone through the settings of my router, I saw that while it did have defaults for the NTP server, it also allowed me to enter in my own. So I had already changed it to my own ISP's NTP server. I remember being surprised that they hadn't used pool.ntp.org as a default. Hopefully they will do something along those lines in the future.