Heavy metal or whatever, you can change the look of most netbooks with a vinyl skin. They can make them look serious or wild. I got an istyles skin for my aspire one and people think it's paint at first glance. They don't sell one for the Wind though.
I know skinit lets you design your own lid with anything you want and they have an option for the msi wind. I've never seen one applied though.
I have the same choice, and for now I'm sticking with Comcast. However if I had the power, both executive boards would be in the soup line tomorrow.
Comcast - Makes invisible limits on unlimited service and boots customers that break them. In a singular stroke of genious it is championing the cause of network neutrality by proving that providers can't be trusted not to discriminate(bittorrent).
ATT - Stole billions from the American public by promising to deliver fiber to homes and then reneging. It's since spent billions on acquisitions but strangely forgot about the fiber or paying the money back. Of course in more recent news ATT loves to spy on you and now it's kneeling under Big Content's desk.
Why do they want this? Easy. U-Verse. They want to sell content so they want to make the content holders happy. IMO they are smart enough to know that the cost of simple QOS and appropriate package pricing is unlikely to cost more than insanely complicated DPI schemes...but then they'd be in a bad way with the content providers who hold the keys.
No clue if you're being serious but OnDemand streams are limited by bandwidth just like everything else. The parent's solution is basically OnDemand on steroids: stratified tiers and tons more content.
Regarding the votes prior to OOXML? Nothing. It wouldn't work to invalidate them now because anything previously passed will have likely become defacto. Not to mention that it would be far too much work to comprehensively review everything up to this point.
One thing that seems to have shot over the heads of most of the previous posters was that this was essentially about an opt-in "short code", not "blocking". People have latched onto the words block, ban, and censor when they don't seem to apply. Although Verizon may have said it reserved the right to filter/block/whatever messages, that wasn't what actually happened here.
It's difficult to filter through the NYT's FUD but apparently this group tried to get a short code where you can text 'join' to 55555 or some such. A short code is not required to send text messages. Without a short code you could still compile a mailing list via alternate means and use an automated system to send your messages. I'm not sure about difficulty or cost but it's possible. At no point in either article was there a complaint that Verizon had actually blocked text messages. In fact, the group in question said that they had already been sending text messages. It does not indicate which networks were getting the text messages but it's a safe bet that this included Verizon since Naral would have been sure to mention actual messages being dropped.
For those talking about SPAM, you're off the mark as well. As I mentioned above, short codes are for opt-in services. Verizon wouldn't have been refusing short codes in an effort to protect customers from SPAM.
Verizon's policy of blocking messages doesn't sit well with me. If they ever used it to block messages between two consenting parties I'd be the first in line to string them up. In this case it looks like they were just sticking to a (really stupid) policy. I guess I could see where such a policy might partially apply to message SPAM but in that case it shouldn't really matter what the content of the message is. SPAM should be blocked as soon as it's confirmed to be unsolicited mass mailing.
So, if anyone can point me to where Verizon actually blocked any messages, that would be great. I'd love for Verizon to take as much rope as possible so it can hang itself properly.
That's gotta be a nice feeling. We don't want to be sued today so we'll just ask you not to sue us. Whew, that was much easier than a lawsuit. Why didn't I think of that?
Not to mention I'd prefer not to be emiting any more light than necessary, even in the infrared spectrum. All you'd need is an enemy with infrared vision and you might as well be using a regular laptop.
This was my first thought. The article blames the deficit on a growing Asian powerhouse but who's to say we wouldn't also have grown without inept legislation stunting growth. I found this passage interesting(if inconclusive):
"By 1999, rising imports of life science technologies produced a trade deficit in a third technology area. After 2000, U.S. imports exceeded exports in five of the 11 technology areas."
The mention of antibiotics was mostly intended to point out that the destruction of symbiotic bacteria is tolerable and temporary. I wasn't advocating the use of a virus as an antibiotic course in a human. However I suspect that as this line of research progresses that someday we may see someone trying to create a virus for that very purpose. There would certainly be benefit to a virus that would only kill the infectious bacteria in a patient and not the symbiotic ones.
As to preventing the spread of a virus I would expect researchers to explore mechanisms similar to those already found in nature. Try to engineer a quick burning virus that kills all of its hosts before it has the opportunity to spread. You would want to make sure that the virus was not resilient enough to survive long outside of controlled conditions. This may make it difficult to store for later use but would ensure that it was unlikely to spread via contact or go airborn.
I don't have blind faith in medical researchers. I'm not going to sign up to replace their lab mice or anything. However I don't believe that an entire line of research should be abandoned because people are afraid of risks that haven't even been tested. I'd rather they tested this and found out that they can't control mutations. At least in that case we might learn something that could be used to fight a wild virus, like say HIV.
The important thing would be to make sure that these viruses couldn't persist or survive long enough to spread. Even if the virus managed to kill every bug in your gut it wouldn't be a problem as long as it was flushed out and died. Antibiotic courses can and do sterilize people's guts but the cultures eventually re-grow once the antibiotic is gone. Personally I'd rather get a virus that works like a simple antibiotic than a massive infection that affects _my_ cells.
That exact piece of physical property also cannot be used as a basis for countless transformative works. Physical property laws exist to protect an individual's possessions. Copyright laws exist to benefit society. This is why there is a difference. Your comparison makes no sense.
Re:I tried to WTFA
on
Photosynth Demo
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You must not have seen the whole thing. The cathedral was assembled from images available from the internet taken by hundreds of different people and cameras.
Sometimes you just have to cut your losses. Earth is too hard to protect so the environmentalists are getting a head start protecting the rest of the galaxy:D
I just saw in my profile that you actually replied. The name-calling really elevates you by the way.
I know I should have just ignored the insult but I guess I'm still amazed that this was intentional.
If the original "two types of people" is obscure then I'm not even sure where that places you.
At first I wondered if you were seriously attempting some sort of twist. In the end your sig simply makes you look like you have neither math nor grammar skills.
But you don't need my approval, go right ahead and do what you like.
Actually this one isn't that hard. If you believe that God guided the writing of the bible then it would be natural to believe that he guided it's assembly as well. By the same token God would make sure any translations had the "intended" meaning. If you're an omnipotent being who wrote a book to guide your people you're going to let them leave parts out or mis-translate it? I don't think so.
your sig: "There are 11 types of people in the world, those who know binaries and those who don't."
Apparently you're one of those who don't know binary. If you're going to quote a geek phrase at least do us a favor by not getting the math totally wrong.
I have the Samsung A950. Dunno about the other guy. Just like he said, it's stripped of virtually everything useful. The ONLY reason I have it is that I seem to get good reception but I'm beginning to wonder if I can get good enough reception with a company that doesn't abuse customers so badly. Here's a short list of what they've done to the phone:
-Stripped the UI & replaced it with a gaudy proprietary one -Disabled bluetooth OBX so you cannot transfer files or synch your phonebook -Disabled bluetooth modem so you cannot use the phone as a modem -Disabled mp3 playback and forced a lossy and lengthy conversion to.wma -Uses a proprietary driver so that even if you have the USB cable you still cannot access your pictures, movies, phonebook, etc.
I've managed to re-claim a few features by using bitpim but they are limited and it has to connect in a diagnostic mode or something at a very slow speed.
For the average person they cannot get at the pictures & movies they take without using verizon's website & paying a fee. They cannot back up their phone book without paying a fee. They cannot load music onto the phone without paying extra for a cable & software CD. They cannot put mp3's on the phone without quality loss.
This is all on top of the standard US cellular carrier BS shared by more than just Verizon. They don't want you to use your own phone. They don't want you to take the phone you supposedly own to another network.
So yes, it can make phone calls. But when the rest of the world gets to make phone calls and have other useful functionality you begin to wonder why you have to settle for just making phone calls.
Ebay isn't saying you can't sell things of subjective value. Where they have a problem is that they aren't sure who the item belongs to. Sure there are issues of hacked accounts having stuff sold off. However the real issue is that they're not sure whether you or Blizzard owns that epic gear.
You paid for the game time and put the effort in to earn that copy of an item, so maybe it is yours. Artists at Blizzard created the item and it, just like everything else in that virtual world, is the intellectual property of Blizzard. Maybe the item belongs to them then.
There is also the issue that many MMO games have explict prohibitions against selling items. All it would take would be one publisher deciding Ebay was promoting violations and deciding to sue. Would they win? Doesn't matter because Ebay doesn't need the headache. They figure the listing fees wouldn't weigh against the cost of a court battle.
For some reason after reading your very well worded assessment of Vista I had the mental image of a turd covered in aero glass(vista, not your post). Just thought I'd share that.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought exactly the same thing. Lock it up and charge insane license fees please!
Heavy metal or whatever, you can change the look of most netbooks with a vinyl skin. They can make them look serious or wild. I got an istyles skin for my aspire one and people think it's paint at first glance. They don't sell one for the Wind though.
I know skinit lets you design your own lid with anything you want and they have an option for the msi wind. I've never seen one applied though.
I have the same choice, and for now I'm sticking with Comcast. However if I had the power, both executive boards would be in the soup line tomorrow.
Comcast - Makes invisible limits on unlimited service and boots customers that break them. In a singular stroke of genious it is championing the cause of network neutrality by proving that providers can't be trusted not to discriminate(bittorrent).
ATT - Stole billions from the American public by promising to deliver fiber to homes and then reneging. It's since spent billions on acquisitions but strangely forgot about the fiber or paying the money back. Of course in more recent news ATT loves to spy on you and now it's kneeling under Big Content's desk.
These are our choices? Shoot me.
Why do they want this? Easy. U-Verse. They want to sell content so they want to make the content holders happy. IMO they are smart enough to know that the cost of simple QOS and appropriate package pricing is unlikely to cost more than insanely complicated DPI schemes...but then they'd be in a bad way with the content providers who hold the keys.
Yes, too bad this wasn't the story directly linked from the summary. Of course, if this were the story maybe it wouldn't have even been posted at all.
No clue if you're being serious but OnDemand streams are limited by bandwidth just like everything else. The parent's solution is basically OnDemand on steroids: stratified tiers and tons more content.
Hilarious!
Regarding the votes prior to OOXML? Nothing. It wouldn't work to invalidate them now because anything previously passed will have likely become defacto. Not to mention that it would be far too much work to comprehensively review everything up to this point.
One thing that seems to have shot over the heads of most of the previous posters was that this was essentially about an opt-in "short code", not "blocking". People have latched onto the words block, ban, and censor when they don't seem to apply. Although Verizon may have said it reserved the right to filter/block/whatever messages, that wasn't what actually happened here.
It's difficult to filter through the NYT's FUD but apparently this group tried to get a short code where you can text 'join' to 55555 or some such. A short code is not required to send text messages. Without a short code you could still compile a mailing list via alternate means and use an automated system to send your messages. I'm not sure about difficulty or cost but it's possible. At no point in either article was there a complaint that Verizon had actually blocked text messages. In fact, the group in question said that they had already been sending text messages. It does not indicate which networks were getting the text messages but it's a safe bet that this included Verizon since Naral would have been sure to mention actual messages being dropped.
For those talking about SPAM, you're off the mark as well. As I mentioned above, short codes are for opt-in services. Verizon wouldn't have been refusing short codes in an effort to protect customers from SPAM.
Verizon's policy of blocking messages doesn't sit well with me. If they ever used it to block messages between two consenting parties I'd be the first in line to string them up. In this case it looks like they were just sticking to a (really stupid) policy. I guess I could see where such a policy might partially apply to message SPAM but in that case it shouldn't really matter what the content of the message is. SPAM should be blocked as soon as it's confirmed to be unsolicited mass mailing.
So, if anyone can point me to where Verizon actually blocked any messages, that would be great. I'd love for Verizon to take as much rope as possible so it can hang itself properly.
That's gotta be a nice feeling. We don't want to be sued today so we'll just ask you not to sue us. Whew, that was much easier than a lawsuit. Why didn't I think of that?
Not to mention I'd prefer not to be emiting any more light than necessary, even in the infrared spectrum. All you'd need is an enemy with infrared vision and you might as well be using a regular laptop.
This was my first thought. The article blames the deficit on a growing Asian powerhouse but who's to say we wouldn't also have grown without inept legislation stunting growth. I found this passage interesting(if inconclusive):
"By 1999, rising imports of life science technologies produced a trade deficit in a third technology area. After 2000, U.S. imports exceeded exports in five of the 11 technology areas."
The DMCA was passed in 1998.
Apparently humor is -1 offtopic today?
The mention of antibiotics was mostly intended to point out that the destruction of symbiotic bacteria is tolerable and temporary. I wasn't advocating the use of a virus as an antibiotic course in a human. However I suspect that as this line of research progresses that someday we may see someone trying to create a virus for that very purpose. There would certainly be benefit to a virus that would only kill the infectious bacteria in a patient and not the symbiotic ones.
As to preventing the spread of a virus I would expect researchers to explore mechanisms similar to those already found in nature. Try to engineer a quick burning virus that kills all of its hosts before it has the opportunity to spread. You would want to make sure that the virus was not resilient enough to survive long outside of controlled conditions. This may make it difficult to store for later use but would ensure that it was unlikely to spread via contact or go airborn.
I don't have blind faith in medical researchers. I'm not going to sign up to replace their lab mice or anything. However I don't believe that an entire line of research should be abandoned because people are afraid of risks that haven't even been tested. I'd rather they tested this and found out that they can't control mutations. At least in that case we might learn something that could be used to fight a wild virus, like say HIV.
The important thing would be to make sure that these viruses couldn't persist or survive long enough to spread. Even if the virus managed to kill every bug in your gut it wouldn't be a problem as long as it was flushed out and died. Antibiotic courses can and do sterilize people's guts but the cultures eventually re-grow once the antibiotic is gone. Personally I'd rather get a virus that works like a simple antibiotic than a massive infection that affects _my_ cells.
That exact piece of physical property also cannot be used as a basis for countless transformative works. Physical property laws exist to protect an individual's possessions. Copyright laws exist to benefit society. This is why there is a difference. Your comparison makes no sense.
You must not have seen the whole thing. The cathedral was assembled from images available from the internet taken by hundreds of different people and cameras.
Sometimes you just have to cut your losses. Earth is too hard to protect so the environmentalists are getting a head start protecting the rest of the galaxy :D
I'm sure all 20 users were relieved to hear they could continue using the site.
I just saw in my profile that you actually replied. The name-calling really elevates you by the way.
I know I should have just ignored the insult but I guess I'm still amazed that this was intentional.
If the original "two types of people" is obscure then I'm not even sure where that places you.
At first I wondered if you were seriously attempting some sort of twist. In the end your sig simply makes you look like you have neither math nor grammar skills.
But you don't need my approval, go right ahead and do what you like.
Actually this one isn't that hard. If you believe that God guided the writing of the bible then it would be natural to believe that he guided it's assembly as well. By the same token God would make sure any translations had the "intended" meaning. If you're an omnipotent being who wrote a book to guide your people you're going to let them leave parts out or mis-translate it? I don't think so.
your sig:
"There are 11 types of people in the world, those who know binaries and those who don't."
Apparently you're one of those who don't know binary. If you're going to quote a geek phrase at least do us a favor by not getting the math totally wrong.
I have the Samsung A950. Dunno about the other guy. Just like he said, it's stripped of virtually everything useful. The ONLY reason I have it is that I seem to get good reception but I'm beginning to wonder if I can get good enough reception with a company that doesn't abuse customers so badly. Here's a short list of what they've done to the phone:
.wma
-Stripped the UI & replaced it with a gaudy proprietary one
-Disabled bluetooth OBX so you cannot transfer files or synch your phonebook
-Disabled bluetooth modem so you cannot use the phone as a modem
-Disabled mp3 playback and forced a lossy and lengthy conversion to
-Uses a proprietary driver so that even if you have the USB cable you still cannot access your pictures, movies, phonebook, etc.
I've managed to re-claim a few features by using bitpim but they are limited and it has to connect in a diagnostic mode or something at a very slow speed.
For the average person they cannot get at the pictures & movies they take without using verizon's website & paying a fee. They cannot back up their phone book without paying a fee. They cannot load music onto the phone without paying extra for a cable & software CD. They cannot put mp3's on the phone without quality loss.
This is all on top of the standard US cellular carrier BS shared by more than just Verizon. They don't want you to use your own phone. They don't want you to take the phone you supposedly own to another network.
So yes, it can make phone calls. But when the rest of the world gets to make phone calls and have other useful functionality you begin to wonder why you have to settle for just making phone calls.
Ebay isn't saying you can't sell things of subjective value. Where they have a problem is that they aren't sure who the item belongs to. Sure there are issues of hacked accounts having stuff sold off. However the real issue is that they're not sure whether you or Blizzard owns that epic gear.
You paid for the game time and put the effort in to earn that copy of an item, so maybe it is yours. Artists at Blizzard created the item and it, just like everything else in that virtual world, is the intellectual property of Blizzard. Maybe the item belongs to them then.
There is also the issue that many MMO games have explict prohibitions against selling items. All it would take would be one publisher deciding Ebay was promoting violations and deciding to sue. Would they win? Doesn't matter because Ebay doesn't need the headache. They figure the listing fees wouldn't weigh against the cost of a court battle.
For some reason after reading your very well worded assessment of Vista I had the mental image of a turd covered in aero glass(vista, not your post). Just thought I'd share that.