Granted, that this sort of worry is predicated on the black-box having some sort of system to determine what the speed limit in an area is; however, do you really trust the government to not push for that next? I don't, it would be far to easy to have a receiver in the black-box, and a transmitter attached to each speed limit sign. Then, as you pass the sign, the box knows what speed you are supposed to be doing, and can mark violations accordingly. Then, that data can simply be downloaded every time you have a smog check, and a bill sent to you.
Yes, this is a bit of a tin-foil hat type argument, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. On the other hand, if this is done right, it might be turned into a good thing. Assume the same setup, except that, instead of issuing tickets, the black-box enables a govenor in the car, which keeps the driver from exceeding the speed limit. Thus, we don't have speeding at all. And, of course, cities and states don't get revenue from speeding tickets anymore, somehow, I don't think they will let that happen. Lastly, eventually, someone will be injured in an accident, and claim that they would have been able to avoid the accident, if they had just been able to speed up. They will sue the car manufacturer and/or government, and probably win. At which point, both the car manufaturer and the government will have an incentive to stop doing this, and go back to the system where they just issue tickets based on the speed system. This ignores the whole tracking/spying that could be done, which scares the heck out of me.
Either way, this is just going to degenerate into a way to collect revenue for state and local governments, through and very hidden tax. While I grant that the black-box, as orginally envisioned, would be a good idea, it opens up too much room for abuse.
Drop the box or the monthly subscription, either one, and I'd be much more interested.
I think this is starting to happen. Right now, you can buy most Blizzard games, and get free online play with them. Granted, its not an MMORPG, but Diablo 2 is a fun game with friends. On the other side of the coin, I recently got into an MMORPG, mainly because they did offer the client as a free download (with 7 day free trial), and then the standard $13/month subscription. Granted, it was a 1 GB download, so doing it over a modem would be a bad idea, but for DSL subscribers, like me, it was the perfect solution. No cost for the client, just the monthly fee, this is the way MMORPGs should be distributed.
Another item, which should have been on that list:
- Spend less time talking about yourself, and more time getting her to talk about herself.
Most people enjoy telling others about thier hobbies and passions, women especially. Just keep engaging her with questions, small talk stuff. Ask her about her past, her likes, dislikes, etc. And, act genuinely interested. Make sure its obvious you are interested in her, not in stroking yourself. Eye contact is a big plus in this area.
Oh, and avoid referncing everything back to video games, even if the woman likes video games; too much of this can get annoying fast. I have one friend who basically lives, eats, and breathes video games (he might even sleep with them, but I've not really wanted to find out). And he manages to annoy even me with it, and I like video games, but there are other things in life.
Just to play devil's advocate:
Let us assume for a moment that the movie studios' main intrest is making money. I don't think that this is that far of a strech.
Second, let us also assume that the movie exec's are not dumb. While this runs contrary to what most/.'ers feel, I have to believe that it takes a bit of intellgence to get put in charge of a movie studio.
Along with this, I think its pretty safe to assume that most of the exec's have an MBA, or at least a degree in business, of some sort.
Now, don't you think, with all of the above, that a few of them have thought to run a few studies on the price? Might it just be that, when they ran the numbers, the price they are currently charging was at, or very near, the top of the curve? Min/Max-ing this sort of thing is not rocket science, I'm sure they do this regularly. Granted, with all such price calculations, there are going to be some assumptions made, but usually they are based on some information from reality.
You are simply one of the early blips in the Law of Diminishing Returns. Your price point is well below what the average person will pay. In the end though, the current price is probably been examined and re-examined to death, and is the best price for the market.
Let's just toss out an idea (poorly formed), but might work.
As each PC gets infected with the spambot, the first thing it does is try to contact a known SMTP server on the web. If it can get through, it sets up shop as normal, and opens up another port, lets call it port 12345 for now.
Now, if the spambot cannot contact the chosen SMTP server(might even go through a list of them), it starts scanning the internet for any IP listening on port 12345. If it finds an system operating on port 12345, it sends some sort of test string to that IP/port. The listening server responds with some pre-determined code. Once the originating system receives the expected response, it starts sending all of its email out using the other system as a proxy. Thus doubling the amount of bandwidth used on the proxy, but allowing the spambot to function on a "protected" computer.
Lastly, the proxy server should only allow a few connections, to keep from saturating the bandwidth available to it.
Granted, this isn't a whole solution around the port 25 block, but it may be a start of how it might be done, and something to watch for. Personally, I'm all in favor of ISP's blocking outbound port 25, and only opening it for those who request it specifically. My current ISP does this, and I'm perfectly happy with it.
Or run your own mail server. While this isn't an option for everyone, its a good solution to keeping your mail secure, and you can activly do something about the spam you receive.
Sadly, in the US we pay this media tax as well. It was part of the AHRA, IIRC. Basiclly, any "Music" media has this small tax tacked on to it because it is assumed that this media will be used to copy music and give it to your friends. Of course, as the RIAA pushes for all of these new restrictions, and laws that will stop you from giving your friends a mix CD, you never hear them mention that this tax should be repealed. That would, after all, be fair, if they copying is no longer allowed, they shouldn't get a free ride.
There's a simple, upfront solution. When an account is turned on by the ISP block all outbound traffic on port 25. Only open port 25 if the user requests it specifically. This way, reguardless of the system being comprimised, it does not become a source of spam.
After that, monitor traffic on port 25, if the volume seems abnormally high contact the customer. Ask them if they are legitimately generating that much email or not. If they are not, re-block port 25 until they get thier system fixed.
The ISP I am with currently does this. As I run a mail server at home, I have port 25 open, and have never had a problem, but for all of the comprimised boxes on the same network as me (I see lots of virus hits on my firewall logs comming from the network I am in), they don't become spam relays.
Why companies are willing to go to the trouble of turning off accounts for spam, but are unwilling to take this simple step, I will never understand. Unless, of course, its just a way to generate revenue in re-connect fees from hapless users.
Just to do a little bit of CYA, you should add a line after the "Run at your own risk line" asking if the user wants to continue, press Ctrl+C to cancel, and then a pause. That way, the user has, in effect, agreed to what you are about to do. All in all though, I like it.
Having done a lot of systems integration work over the past few years, I find that a lot of software, which the developer says requires admin level rights, doesn't. Alot of times this is simply a cop out solution for needing to access certain parts of the registry and/or write to those parts. I've actually managed to get several applications to run as a user level login, just by figuring out which keys were being accessed, and then setting permissions appropriatly. Other than that, you also tend to run into services, which the developers were too lazy to actually build the ACL for, so it defaults to an admin only situation. My solution, I wrote a VB app which allows me to change the ACL on a service to grant start and stop permissions on any service in the system to any user/group in the domain/local machine. (MS actually has a nice article on this in the knowledge base, with sample code in C, I just translated it to VB, as this is what I know and have a copy of.)
Sure, there are going to be those apps which require administrator access for some stupid reason, which you just can't get around, but the rest of the time, if you have the time to spend, you can usually force the issue. On the other hand, I do wish developers would get it through thier collective heads that a user should seldom have or need admin rights on a machine to run an app.
I think is this also a matter of the user base. Assuming Linux begins unseating Windows on the desktop I think we will begin to see a homogonizing of Linux, at least for the average user. Most people don't want to fiddle with the inner workings of thier computer, they just want to click next until the computer gives them a smiley face and they can use thier new gadget. To this end, I expect that we will see one or two flavors become widely popular with the main-stream users, with the rest being relegated to geek toys. Further, the one that will become dominant will be the one that gives the user what they want, ease of use, unless one of the flavors starts a good marketing campaign. Moreover, you will probably start to see apps developed for Linux which make things eaiser for a user, but make the system less secure. Consider the root password for a moment; the user will have to type it in every time they want to install a new piece of software. This is a great idea for security, but damned inconvient for a user. So, naturally, some enterprising person will invent Gatorux, a wonderful little program that lets you type in your root password once and forget about it, then any time it is requested Gatorux will type it in for you automagically. Of course, now that Gatorux has root access, it will install and regularly update some adware program that creates no end of headaches. It will also become a prime target for hackers.
Also, lets not forget the social engineering aspect. It will change slightly, but it will still work the same. The email will simply be an icon that says "Nekkid pics of Anna Kornokova", and when clicked will have a dialog box pop-up and say "Type root password to download HOT NAKED pictures". And we will still have countless people infected with a virus. A bit harder to do, maybe, but its going to happen. As PT Barnum didn't say, "There's a sucker born every minute".
Lastly, you will have those users who will just run as root all the time because, it works better.
Personally, I can't wait to see Linux really take off on the desktop, it will be better overall, but far from perfect I expect. However, I do think that the current fractured state of Linux going to go away as it happens. Average users and businesses are going to want something that is standardized. They are going to want something that they can expect to just work. And they are going to install programs that will comprimise the security of thier system because, it makes it work "better". "Better", of course meaning, "I don't have to think about it." Also, if nothing else, Linux on the desktop would give Microsoft some meaningful competition, which might just make them start to innovate again, and put out a quality product.
Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I have no doubt that some soldiers think about blowing up civilians. What I meant is that the US military does a good job of keeping the soldiers from thinking about the fact that they are killing civilians. Afterall, such thoughts are dangerous in a military force.
Yes, it is specified:
From the X-Prize Site, rules:
3. The flight vehicle must be flown twice within a 14-day period. Each flight must carry at least one person, to minimum altitude of 100 km (62 miles). The flight vehicle must be built with the capacity (weight and volume) to carry a minimum of 3 adults of height 188 cm (6 feet 2 inches) and weight 90 kg (198 pounds) each. Three people of this size or larger must be able to enter, occupy, and be fastened into the flight vehicle on Earth's surface prior to take-off, and equivalent ballast must be carried in-flight if the number of persons on-board during flight is less than 3 persons.
Check rule 6 in the Rules section of the website you posted:
6. Entrants must specify and provide the ANSARI X PRIZE Rules Committee with their take-off and landing location, and the date of their launch, not less than 30 days prior to any flight attempt.
Scaled Composites did not register this flight as a prize attempt with the committee 30 days prior. They could have, but didn't, so, this is not a prize flight.
Please note, I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms, but unless you also have the small, weak government envisioned by the Founding Fathers it is not a useful check on tyranny. (As the modern United States of America should prove to any doubters.)
I don't think this is entirely true. While it may not have been envisioned by the framers, even with a very powerful military, weapons in the hands of the people can help keep politicians in line, somewhat. The reason for this is that one person, with a gun, and enough drive to kill a politician, is probably going to get the job done. If the politician has done enough things to piss more than one person off, to the point of wanting to kill them, then that politician should probably be very sure he has a current will. To me, the idea of revolt being the prime deterent to tyrany has shifted to the threat of being killed by one determined person with a gun. Even in recent history the president, arguably the most protected person in office, was shot (Regan). Granted the shot wasn't fatal, but it was still life threatening.
Also, this type of argument assumes a couple of things:
1. The revolt isn't started in the military. If this were to happen, things would just get messy, quick.
2. The revolt is not on a massive country wide scale. For this, look at Vietnam. Its very clear that the US had a very clear technological advantage. However, the US military was fighting the whole penesula. People from both North and South Vietnam didn't want the US forces there, or at best didn't care. Identifying the enemy was very difficult. Also, the Vietnimesse were very determined to push the US out, they would take huge losses and not let up. I tend to think that the same could happen in the US, if the government got bad enough. Granted, the likelyhood of it actually happeneing is very low. But, if enough people are willing to fight and die for something, they can overcome a technologicly superior force.
3. Consider who the military would be killing, US citizens. If the revolt is a popular revolt, the US government would absolutly cripple itself by putting the revolt down. Also, this always begs the question of how the soldiers in the military would react to having to kill US citizens. Though, the military does do a good job of keeping its soldiers from thinking about such things.
AWhile reading through the posts on this article, I found two things:
1. The default FireFox pop-up blocker allows this sort of pop-up.
2. I then found the TabBrowser Extensions for FireFox, installed it, and now this work around fails. So even this workaround is already dying.
Not certain on the exact answer, being an ignorant American, this is the first I have ever heard of Gas Mark. Though on all stoves I have worked with, it is the highest setting possible, and is very hot. I can broil a steak in 5 to 10 minutes, depending on thickness. Basically, its the American stove equivilent of afterburner.
I credit that game with what little knowledge I have of geography (ok, Risk helped a bit) and because of that game, I can still recognize the flag of Nepal on sight.
Starscape - Bought this one recently, and love it, but it is very much like Star Control 3, without the colony managment. That or Solar Winds. In the end though, its a damn fun game, and one that I am glad I spent the US$35 on (ordered the CD and case).
Though, as the parent poster said, game companies, even indies aren't going to go too far out on a limb, nor can they really. Comming up with something that no one is going to say is like something else that has been done before is basically impossible. You just have to reach a point where your game seems to be the best example of something, with its own twists. That way, eventually, everyone says that all of the games similar to your game are just knock offs of your game.
There really should be an option to open all links in a new tab. Perhaps there is a convenient hot key? (Ctrl+click) That's mighty nice but there should still be a single click mode.
What's wrong with the middle-click to open a link in a new tab? Granted that most of us who use Windows regularly don't have a middle button, but this is as good of reason as any to finally upgrade that old mouse. And some, like myself, already have a middle button, and love the ability to middle click to open in a new tab, as opposed to the left click to open in the same tab. Of course, I use the Mozilla suite as a whole (I just got used to my email client and browser being one app. Plus, I do update my web site occasionally.) But, the option to have the middle-click to open in a new tab is in FireFox.8, which I use at work (browser.tabs.opentabfor.middleclick)
Alright, what email client do you use (Outlook, Thunderbird, AOL's built in)? You have a board full of geeks, I'm sure some of us are more than willing to help you.
Sadly, as far as I can tell, filtering does not exist in the built-in AOL email client (may be wrong, I've not touched it in many years, but I don't see in information on it in a quick google search). In that case, may I recommend Thunderbird its the email client from Mozilla, and works wonderfully. And again, I'm sure that/. is full of people who can tell you how to get it setup and running.
I don't think it needs to be that discrete. Find out who the company selling the product is, have some nice people with guns go by and ask them who they hired to spam for them, make sure you get some proof. Then, if the spammer is in the US, go kick in his door and drag him off to jail. If the spammer is outside the US, fine the company for conspiracy to commit a crime.
This should have two effects:
1) US based spammers who don't follow the rules get tossed in jail (or beaten with a cane, I like the idea of bringing back caning)
2) US based companies have a hige incentive to not hire non-US spammers who are not going to follow the rule. Brings money back to the US, and creates a method of enforcement that will affect spammers outside the US.
Maybe its just me, but I really don't mind spammers being pushed offshore. As it is, I alreay block certain ranges of IP address, what's one more forgien IP range to me, I don't get any email from outside the US anyway. The problem is, occasioanlly (and actually quite a bit recently) I will get spam from IP addresses that are almost certainly cracked boxes sitting on broadband. This leads to the problem that blocking the IP ranges that these emails are comming from would cut off a few of my friends, which I refuse to do. I have sent a few emails to Comcast's abuse email, but have not seen any response, and the problem seems to be getting worse. Personally, I wish other ISP's would start doing what my isp did and filter outgoing port 25 unless you specifically ask for it to be open. I can run my home mail server, and the idiots on DSL with an unprotected windows box don't send out spam. In all, a very good arangement, though the people at DSLExtreme seem to actually have a bit of a clue. As for the rest of the world, well, we'll just have to wait until they sort themselves out. Maybe if the US actually does something good (for a change) the rest of the world might follow, its that whole lead by example idea that the US abandonded shortly after it was formed.
Slashdot Mirror
Just install over the top of your previous version, everything comes up and works fine.
</broken record>
Granted, that this sort of worry is predicated on the black-box having some sort of system to determine what the speed limit in an area is; however, do you really trust the government to not push for that next? I don't, it would be far to easy to have a receiver in the black-box, and a transmitter attached to each speed limit sign. Then, as you pass the sign, the box knows what speed you are supposed to be doing, and can mark violations accordingly. Then, that data can simply be downloaded every time you have a smog check, and a bill sent to you.
Yes, this is a bit of a tin-foil hat type argument, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. On the other hand, if this is done right, it might be turned into a good thing. Assume the same setup, except that, instead of issuing tickets, the black-box enables a govenor in the car, which keeps the driver from exceeding the speed limit. Thus, we don't have speeding at all. And, of course, cities and states don't get revenue from speeding tickets anymore, somehow, I don't think they will let that happen. Lastly, eventually, someone will be injured in an accident, and claim that they would have been able to avoid the accident, if they had just been able to speed up. They will sue the car manufacturer and/or government, and probably win. At which point, both the car manufaturer and the government will have an incentive to stop doing this, and go back to the system where they just issue tickets based on the speed system. This ignores the whole tracking/spying that could be done, which scares the heck out of me.
Either way, this is just going to degenerate into a way to collect revenue for state and local governments, through and very hidden tax. While I grant that the black-box, as orginally envisioned, would be a good idea, it opens up too much room for abuse.
What is the definition of an honest politician?
When they are bought, they stay bought.
Drop the box or the monthly subscription, either one, and I'd be much more interested.
I think this is starting to happen. Right now, you can buy most Blizzard games, and get free online play with them. Granted, its not an MMORPG, but Diablo 2 is a fun game with friends. On the other side of the coin, I recently got into an MMORPG, mainly because they did offer the client as a free download (with 7 day free trial), and then the standard $13/month subscription. Granted, it was a 1 GB download, so doing it over a modem would be a bad idea, but for DSL subscribers, like me, it was the perfect solution. No cost for the client, just the monthly fee, this is the way MMORPGs should be distributed.
Another item, which should have been on that list:
- Spend less time talking about yourself, and more time getting her to talk about herself.
Most people enjoy telling others about thier hobbies and passions, women especially. Just keep engaging her with questions, small talk stuff. Ask her about her past, her likes, dislikes, etc. And, act genuinely interested. Make sure its obvious you are interested in her, not in stroking yourself. Eye contact is a big plus in this area.
Oh, and avoid referncing everything back to video games, even if the woman likes video games; too much of this can get annoying fast. I have one friend who basically lives, eats, and breathes video games (he might even sleep with them, but I've not really wanted to find out). And he manages to annoy even me with it, and I like video games, but there are other things in life.
Just to play devil's advocate: /.'ers feel, I have to believe that it takes a bit of intellgence to get put in charge of a movie studio.
Let us assume for a moment that the movie studios' main intrest is making money. I don't think that this is that far of a strech.
Second, let us also assume that the movie exec's are not dumb. While this runs contrary to what most
Along with this, I think its pretty safe to assume that most of the exec's have an MBA, or at least a degree in business, of some sort.
Now, don't you think, with all of the above, that a few of them have thought to run a few studies on the price? Might it just be that, when they ran the numbers, the price they are currently charging was at, or very near, the top of the curve? Min/Max-ing this sort of thing is not rocket science, I'm sure they do this regularly. Granted, with all such price calculations, there are going to be some assumptions made, but usually they are based on some information from reality.
You are simply one of the early blips in the Law of Diminishing Returns. Your price point is well below what the average person will pay. In the end though, the current price is probably been examined and re-examined to death, and is the best price for the market.
Let's just toss out an idea (poorly formed), but might work.
As each PC gets infected with the spambot, the first thing it does is try to contact a known SMTP server on the web. If it can get through, it sets up shop as normal, and opens up another port, lets call it port 12345 for now.
Now, if the spambot cannot contact the chosen SMTP server(might even go through a list of them), it starts scanning the internet for any IP listening on port 12345. If it finds an system operating on port 12345, it sends some sort of test string to that IP/port. The listening server responds with some pre-determined code. Once the originating system receives the expected response, it starts sending all of its email out using the other system as a proxy. Thus doubling the amount of bandwidth used on the proxy, but allowing the spambot to function on a "protected" computer.
Lastly, the proxy server should only allow a few connections, to keep from saturating the bandwidth available to it.
Granted, this isn't a whole solution around the port 25 block, but it may be a start of how it might be done, and something to watch for. Personally, I'm all in favor of ISP's blocking outbound port 25, and only opening it for those who request it specifically. My current ISP does this, and I'm perfectly happy with it.
Or run your own mail server. While this isn't an option for everyone, its a good solution to keeping your mail secure, and you can activly do something about the spam you receive.
Sadly, in the US we pay this media tax as well. It was part of the AHRA, IIRC. Basiclly, any "Music" media has this small tax tacked on to it because it is assumed that this media will be used to copy music and give it to your friends. Of course, as the RIAA pushes for all of these new restrictions, and laws that will stop you from giving your friends a mix CD, you never hear them mention that this tax should be repealed. That would, after all, be fair, if they copying is no longer allowed, they shouldn't get a free ride.
There's a simple, upfront solution. When an account is turned on by the ISP block all outbound traffic on port 25. Only open port 25 if the user requests it specifically. This way, reguardless of the system being comprimised, it does not become a source of spam.
After that, monitor traffic on port 25, if the volume seems abnormally high contact the customer. Ask them if they are legitimately generating that much email or not. If they are not, re-block port 25 until they get thier system fixed.
The ISP I am with currently does this. As I run a mail server at home, I have port 25 open, and have never had a problem, but for all of the comprimised boxes on the same network as me (I see lots of virus hits on my firewall logs comming from the network I am in), they don't become spam relays.
Why companies are willing to go to the trouble of turning off accounts for spam, but are unwilling to take this simple step, I will never understand. Unless, of course, its just a way to generate revenue in re-connect fees from hapless users.
Just to do a little bit of CYA, you should add a line after the "Run at your own risk line" asking if the user wants to continue, press Ctrl+C to cancel, and then a pause. That way, the user has, in effect, agreed to what you are about to do. All in all though, I like it.
Having done a lot of systems integration work over the past few years, I find that a lot of software, which the developer says requires admin level rights, doesn't. Alot of times this is simply a cop out solution for needing to access certain parts of the registry and/or write to those parts. I've actually managed to get several applications to run as a user level login, just by figuring out which keys were being accessed, and then setting permissions appropriatly. Other than that, you also tend to run into services, which the developers were too lazy to actually build the ACL for, so it defaults to an admin only situation. My solution, I wrote a VB app which allows me to change the ACL on a service to grant start and stop permissions on any service in the system to any user/group in the domain/local machine. (MS actually has a nice article on this in the knowledge base, with sample code in C, I just translated it to VB, as this is what I know and have a copy of.)
Sure, there are going to be those apps which require administrator access for some stupid reason, which you just can't get around, but the rest of the time, if you have the time to spend, you can usually force the issue. On the other hand, I do wish developers would get it through thier collective heads that a user should seldom have or need admin rights on a machine to run an app.
I think is this also a matter of the user base. Assuming Linux begins unseating Windows on the desktop I think we will begin to see a homogonizing of Linux, at least for the average user. Most people don't want to fiddle with the inner workings of thier computer, they just want to click next until the computer gives them a smiley face and they can use thier new gadget. To this end, I expect that we will see one or two flavors become widely popular with the main-stream users, with the rest being relegated to geek toys. Further, the one that will become dominant will be the one that gives the user what they want, ease of use, unless one of the flavors starts a good marketing campaign. Moreover, you will probably start to see apps developed for Linux which make things eaiser for a user, but make the system less secure. Consider the root password for a moment; the user will have to type it in every time they want to install a new piece of software. This is a great idea for security, but damned inconvient for a user. So, naturally, some enterprising person will invent Gatorux, a wonderful little program that lets you type in your root password once and forget about it, then any time it is requested Gatorux will type it in for you automagically. Of course, now that Gatorux has root access, it will install and regularly update some adware program that creates no end of headaches. It will also become a prime target for hackers.
Also, lets not forget the social engineering aspect. It will change slightly, but it will still work the same. The email will simply be an icon that says "Nekkid pics of Anna Kornokova", and when clicked will have a dialog box pop-up and say "Type root password to download HOT NAKED pictures". And we will still have countless people infected with a virus. A bit harder to do, maybe, but its going to happen. As PT Barnum didn't say, "There's a sucker born every minute".
Lastly, you will have those users who will just run as root all the time because, it works better.
Personally, I can't wait to see Linux really take off on the desktop, it will be better overall, but far from perfect I expect. However, I do think that the current fractured state of Linux going to go away as it happens. Average users and businesses are going to want something that is standardized. They are going to want something that they can expect to just work. And they are going to install programs that will comprimise the security of thier system because, it makes it work "better". "Better", of course meaning, "I don't have to think about it." Also, if nothing else, Linux on the desktop would give Microsoft some meaningful competition, which might just make them start to innovate again, and put out a quality product.
Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I have no doubt that some soldiers think about blowing up civilians. What I meant is that the US military does a good job of keeping the soldiers from thinking about the fact that they are killing civilians. Afterall, such thoughts are dangerous in a military force.
Yes, it is specified:
From the X-Prize Site, rules:
3. The flight vehicle must be flown twice within a 14-day period. Each flight must carry at least one person, to minimum altitude of 100 km (62 miles). The flight vehicle must be built with the capacity (weight and volume) to carry a minimum of 3 adults of height 188 cm (6 feet 2 inches) and weight 90 kg (198 pounds) each. Three people of this size or larger must be able to enter, occupy, and be fastened into the flight vehicle on Earth's surface prior to take-off, and equivalent ballast must be carried in-flight if the number of persons on-board during flight is less than 3 persons.
Check rule 6 in the Rules section of the website you posted:
6. Entrants must specify and provide the ANSARI X PRIZE Rules Committee with their take-off and landing location, and the date of their launch, not less than 30 days prior to any flight attempt.
Scaled Composites did not register this flight as a prize attempt with the committee 30 days prior. They could have, but didn't, so, this is not a prize flight.
Please note, I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms, but unless you also have the small, weak government envisioned by the Founding Fathers it is not a useful check on tyranny. (As the modern United States of America should prove to any doubters.)
I don't think this is entirely true. While it may not have been envisioned by the framers, even with a very powerful military, weapons in the hands of the people can help keep politicians in line, somewhat. The reason for this is that one person, with a gun, and enough drive to kill a politician, is probably going to get the job done. If the politician has done enough things to piss more than one person off, to the point of wanting to kill them, then that politician should probably be very sure he has a current will. To me, the idea of revolt being the prime deterent to tyrany has shifted to the threat of being killed by one determined person with a gun. Even in recent history the president, arguably the most protected person in office, was shot (Regan). Granted the shot wasn't fatal, but it was still life threatening.
Also, this type of argument assumes a couple of things:
1. The revolt isn't started in the military. If this were to happen, things would just get messy, quick.
2. The revolt is not on a massive country wide scale. For this, look at Vietnam. Its very clear that the US had a very clear technological advantage. However, the US military was fighting the whole penesula. People from both North and South Vietnam didn't want the US forces there, or at best didn't care. Identifying the enemy was very difficult. Also, the Vietnimesse were very determined to push the US out, they would take huge losses and not let up. I tend to think that the same could happen in the US, if the government got bad enough. Granted, the likelyhood of it actually happeneing is very low. But, if enough people are willing to fight and die for something, they can overcome a technologicly superior force.
3. Consider who the military would be killing, US citizens. If the revolt is a popular revolt, the US government would absolutly cripple itself by putting the revolt down. Also, this always begs the question of how the soldiers in the military would react to having to kill US citizens. Though, the military does do a good job of keeping its soldiers from thinking about such things.
AWhile reading through the posts on this article, I found two things:
1. The default FireFox pop-up blocker allows this sort of pop-up.
2. I then found the TabBrowser Extensions for FireFox, installed it, and now this work around fails. So even this workaround is already dying.
Not certain on the exact answer, being an ignorant American, this is the first I have ever heard of Gas Mark. Though on all stoves I have worked with, it is the highest setting possible, and is very hot. I can broil a steak in 5 to 10 minutes, depending on thickness. Basically, its the American stove equivilent of afterburner.
I credit that game with what little knowledge I have of geography (ok, Risk helped a bit) and because of that game, I can still recognize the flag of Nepal on sight.
Starscape - Bought this one recently, and love it, but it is very much like Star Control 3, without the colony managment. That or Solar Winds. In the end though, its a damn fun game, and one that I am glad I spent the US$35 on (ordered the CD and case).
Though, as the parent poster said, game companies, even indies aren't going to go too far out on a limb, nor can they really. Comming up with something that no one is going to say is like something else that has been done before is basically impossible. You just have to reach a point where your game seems to be the best example of something, with its own twists. That way, eventually, everyone says that all of the games similar to your game are just knock offs of your game.
There really should be an option to open all links in a new tab. Perhaps there is a convenient hot key? (Ctrl+click) That's mighty nice but there should still be a single click mode.
.8, which I use at work (browser.tabs.opentabfor.middleclick)
What's wrong with the middle-click to open a link in a new tab? Granted that most of us who use Windows regularly don't have a middle button, but this is as good of reason as any to finally upgrade that old mouse. And some, like myself, already have a middle button, and love the ability to middle click to open in a new tab, as opposed to the left click to open in the same tab. Of course, I use the Mozilla suite as a whole (I just got used to my email client and browser being one app. Plus, I do update my web site occasionally.) But, the option to have the middle-click to open in a new tab is in FireFox
Alright, what email client do you use (Outlook, Thunderbird, AOL's built in)? You have a board full of geeks, I'm sure some of us are more than willing to help you. /. is full of people who can tell you how to get it setup and running.
Sadly, as far as I can tell, filtering does not exist in the built-in AOL email client (may be wrong, I've not touched it in many years, but I don't see in information on it in a quick google search). In that case, may I recommend Thunderbird its the email client from Mozilla, and works wonderfully. And again, I'm sure that
I don't think it needs to be that discrete. Find out who the company selling the product is, have some nice people with guns go by and ask them who they hired to spam for them, make sure you get some proof. Then, if the spammer is in the US, go kick in his door and drag him off to jail. If the spammer is outside the US, fine the company for conspiracy to commit a crime.
This should have two effects:
1) US based spammers who don't follow the rules get tossed in jail (or beaten with a cane, I like the idea of bringing back caning)
2) US based companies have a hige incentive to not hire non-US spammers who are not going to follow the rule. Brings money back to the US, and creates a method of enforcement that will affect spammers outside the US.
Maybe its just me, but I really don't mind spammers being pushed offshore. As it is, I alreay block certain ranges of IP address, what's one more forgien IP range to me, I don't get any email from outside the US anyway. The problem is, occasioanlly (and actually quite a bit recently) I will get spam from IP addresses that are almost certainly cracked boxes sitting on broadband. This leads to the problem that blocking the IP ranges that these emails are comming from would cut off a few of my friends, which I refuse to do. I have sent a few emails to Comcast's abuse email, but have not seen any response, and the problem seems to be getting worse. Personally, I wish other ISP's would start doing what my isp did and filter outgoing port 25 unless you specifically ask for it to be open. I can run my home mail server, and the idiots on DSL with an unprotected windows box don't send out spam. In all, a very good arangement, though the people at DSLExtreme seem to actually have a bit of a clue. As for the rest of the world, well, we'll just have to wait until they sort themselves out. Maybe if the US actually does something good (for a change) the rest of the world might follow, its that whole lead by example idea that the US abandonded shortly after it was formed.