So over WiFi you can get 640x480 in 256 colors at 14FPS.
That's a pretty naive view of display operation. It doesn't even make sense to talk in frames-per-second because the intelligent solution would not be to send entire frames. For the average desktop environment, the bulk of the display is static and would not have to be sent over the wire to constantly be refreshed. You'd probably be able to push over the necessary bits with considerably less than 1Mbps, and that's if you went with "raw" change data! Considering advanced X11-like remote display protocols have been around since before WiFi, it should be pretty obvious that a wireless monitor is well within the reach of modern technology.
For me, a cell phone just doesn't have the resolution I'd like for a "detached" device, and even PDAs are really too small for general purpose computing. Instead, what I've long wanted is a WiFi thin client with at least an 800x600 touch screen and little else (maybe a USB plug). This is what I *hope* Apple is working on when I see their TabletPC-ish design patents. It'd be nice if it was OS independent (unlike what ViewSonic put out), but there are also some compelling features that would require OS support. Ideally you could have a number of these screens all tied to one computer, so each family member (or small business group) could log into their own account on just the one computer. I would gladly drop a grand for a way to simply use my G5 from another room in the house. The current features of PDAs and cell phones are a cute way to spend upwards of $500, but keeping everything in sync would be a hell of a lot easier if I just had a wireless monitor.
Apple's PC sales growth is around double that of the rest of the industry. It's at over 40%.
Which really shouldn't be surprising. People can say all the bad they want to about only having 5% of the total market, but what that really means is that Apple has 95% to grow into. Windows at 90+% is the one with very little room to grow. The iPod is doing well in what is the new generation of portable music players, and their favored position will eventually show the same ceiling that Windows has for the OS market. The big advantage is that, by being a small player in an entrenched market at the same time they're the big player in an explosive market, they keep on doing their "beleaguered" business for decades so long as they're always willing to search out the next new market to expand into.
If they're proper Unicode characters, I wouldn't think there'd be too much guesswork involved.
What "proper"? How may web pages do you know of that actually specify an accept-charset for forms? How many browsers do you know that restrict textarea entry based on the same? Face it, you were just getting lucky; they probably had all sorts of Windows people bitching and moaning about how it wasn't correct, so now everyone must pay!
I don't mind a good bowl of tag soup every now and now; but it was nice being able to simply type correctly.
And that was my point in the part you clipped. Just because it worked like you liked before doesn't mean it was done "correctly". Curly quotes, single or double, are neither plain text nor HTML. There is no 100% solution to guessing the encoding of non-ASCII characters, so it's a real mixed bag. I see this all the time on job boards where some ignorant HR drone tries to cut an paste curly quotes or bullet lists, and it all gets screwed up over the wire despite it looking OK for them. If you're so keen to geek out typographically, compose your pretty in an HTML editor that allows you to cut-and-paste as proper entity references.
Is that why us Mac-using* typographical snobs lost the ability to use actual quote marks and all that jazz?
I’m not sure what “actual quotes marks” you mean. Perhaps the problem is not with the Mac, but with you not knowing the difference between Plain Old Text and HTML Formatted, especially when compared to more advanced encodings.
You know, we all laugh at this, but if any of you have ever been the victim of a crime, you'd really want the police to be able to solve it.
Not if it meant violating more rights than the initial crime caused. Nobody wants their pocket picked, but even less attractive is the idea that everyone in the area gets strip searched to see if they have your wallet, nor do I want the thief's hand being cut off as a "solution". Lots of things in this world are messed up, and it seems that seldom does the government, especially combined with religion, go about doing things the right way.
In this increasingly digital world, its kinda scary to think that the police aren't keeping up with the criminals.
Scary great, because it also means they're not keeping up with the citizens. The right to bear arms was mainly established with the idea that we could use force to remove an unjust government, but with all the hardware the military has at their disposal these days it is fairly laughable to think some bullets are going to secure your freedoms. I have zero problem with the idea (which is almost certainly misguided if the NSA got involved) that my digital freedoms still have a fighting chance.
Lloyds is basically saying that Linux is dangerous to use. If they said it was safe, who would buy their insurance? So, what's the truth? Well, whatever it is there's no point in asking Lloyds.
The truth of insurance is that it is a business intended to generate profit. Nobody offers you coverage unless they think they're going to sucker you out of some dough. It goes without saying the profit margins can be higher if you target a phobia, and there are all kinds of irrational fears surrounding things, like open source, you get for free.
do the stars of your favorite show wear shoes? likely sponsored. clothes? again...
I think the best reverse example to this is that pretty much every time you see a cool portable computer, it has a big sticker on the back because Apple wouldn't pay them jack to show their logo. It's really interesting to see which shows are such big whores that they'll bother to cover up a brand when they're not getting a kickback. The only way it could get worse is if they got money to cover the Apple logo with a Dell logo. I'd be laughing so hard I don't know that I'd be able to shut off the TV!
In fact, that paper almost seems to be arguing that MMORPG economies, as they currently stand, are almost unavaoidably always inflationary.
That's pretty much true. With timed spawns and random drops, there is no real economy. I mean, there have only been so many bills printed by the US Mint but in most games it's like every wandering monster can print money. The false economies of games are directly related to the false ecologies. There is no real population of rats (or whatever) that make up the lower level grind such that you can kill them all and the rat problem goes away. They fabricate rats from the same nothing that they fabricate currency, and so inflation is bound to spiral out of control.
(city of heros seems to buck the trend... is there anything fundamentally very different about its economy?)
I don't know the particulars of that game enough to say. One way to balance inflation (without going down to a rat-level ecology) is to have sinks that take money out of the game just as quickly. What constant expenses are there in CoH that a player can't do without? Healing is often a good sink, as are items that wear out and break. If that's part of CoH, it would go a long way to explain a balanced economy.
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
Of course, this fails to account for the case where a man's life diminishes mankind. I'll grant you that death for spamming is a pretty harsh sentence, but if you look at it from a "death by 1000 cuts" way, it really isn't surprising the long-term result of his behavior would be such trouble.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Survival of the fittest, my friend. Given the choice, I'll take the label killer over corpse any day.
Subtle, subtle differences in sub-menu behavior - I always lose a menu and have to "re-click" when swithching between systems.
Then properly fault Windows, because that's something they need to learn from the Mac. Windows only allows you to move horizontally to select the submenu, and vertical movement changes your selection in the current menu. The Mac allow you more of a "cone" in moving toward the submenu such that the current menu selection doesn't switch with vertical movement as long as there is horizontal movement as well. It is an amazingly usable behavior and an endless source of frustration when I'm stuck with Windows myself.
Macs are not immune to viruses, we just haven't seen a virus or spyware author take the time to exploit it, yet.
This is essentially the only reasonable thing you wrote.
Why? Because it isn't profitable RIGHT NOW.
Simply wrong. Raw profit is not about volume, it is about . . . wait for it . . . profit! Apple is a profitable company despite not being as big as Microsoft. Any market forces you care to point to that affect Windows should equally affect the Mac. Yet where are the Mac exploits? Let's explore your flawed reasoning:
Lots of users (likely the ones who would initially be succeptible to a virus) are running windows. This makes it easy to spread.
That makes no sense. All computer users are involved in a "network effect" for their platform. Look at my address book (which is very easy to do on a Mac) and you'd quite likely to find the bulk of them are using Macs. What you say only makes sense in the general context of trying to exploit a random machine, and that actually supports the case of Macs being a more secure choice.
Most computers run windows. You don't see a lot of human viruses that only attack people with anemia; it's just more profitable to attack the majority (or everything, if you can get it).
Again, it's not a volume issue. When it comes to profit, it makes the most sense to target the platform that is "cheap" to attack. No malware author with a clue would ignore the Mac market just because it is outnumbered 9 to 1 if it were 10 times easier to exploit. The Mac just isn't that vulnerable compared to Windows. Again, the overwhelming amount of malware for Windows supports the conclusion that it is an easy target, not that it is abundant one.
Spyware makes its money on user numbers. The more users you can get, the more you want to develop a product. Why spend the time to write for the small % running macs when you can take some already-proven techniques and go for the big money (i.e. the lots of users) on Windows machines.
You keep making the same fallacious argument. You spend the time, by your own admission, if it is profitable. Nothing about the numbers says that market size is the driving force towards profitability. Indeed, as a Mac developer and with knowledge of the Mac community I can easily say that, were it not for basic protections built into the OS, fucking over the user is at least 10 times easier on a Mac. You don't use the same methods that you do on Windows, but anyone who would want to target the Mac would find users more ripe for the picking.
Programmers are lazy. If there isn't a really good reason to do it (i.e. not enough profit potential in their eyes) they generally won't do it unless they're really keen on it. Mostly, these people are not making spyware/viruses.
Do at least keep up with your own misguided reasoning. The Mac is overflowing with profit potential. On Windows, you have a saturated market. Your new malware is going to be in direct competition with hundreds if not thousands of others. The Mac, on the other hand, is 100% for the taking. Do the math and you'll see that the best path to profit would still be the Mac despite its smaller market.
When you see the Mac userbase hit a decent number (and I don't pretend to know what that is) then you'll see spyware and viruses for it.
Nah, we'll just see people like you trying to backpedal and explain why Macs still aren't getting exploited like Windows machines were.
Until then, stop being a mactard and just deal with the situation at hand: there is a lot of spyware out there and something needs to be done now. That something is not ignoring the problem until it swims up and bites you in the ass.
Right, that something to be done is to buy a Mac. Your dire predictions are just that: predictions. I'm not going to lose a second of sleep until there is a OS X exploit. Until then, you're just spewing FUD.
Don't troll windows users into switching to mac, I may like it, you may like it, but if theyre fine using windows then let them bitch about spyware.
If they're bitching about spyware, they're clearly not fine with Windows. If they shut the fuck up about their woes then, no, I pretty much don't care what they run. A Mac purchase simply sends the single best message to Microsoft (and all the PC makers under their thumb) that people are tired of their shit. I highly recommend doing it, and that's not me trolling.
Ah, I see you're not thinking like a corrupt politician! That's just it; the two have nothing to do with one another. So a less than thoughtful person will think, "You can't speed in congested traffic! I'll install one of these and laugh all the way to the bank." Then the government has them under their thumb all the other times they might want to speed.
Hell, I'd wager that these things would increase congestion (and road rage) if they were in widespread use. Since all traffic is limited to a certain speed, rubber-necking bottlenecks aren't going to clear up as quickly, and so the blockage that occurs in waves is likely going to move much, much slower. How would you like to be stuck behind two people going side by side without any hope of getting past them?
I stopped answering my telephone yesterday. So far nobody has called and complained.
Mods are on crack. You're closer to funny than insightful, and it's "funny" as in "so far misguided that it's amazing you're not a Darwin Award recipient." The OP's point is that for domains that already offer an SPF record, checking that record allows them to reject a fair number of messages. Your analogy is like rejecting by default, whereas they are accepting by default and rejecting if verification information is available and fails.
On the plus side, one tech support line, ( I think it was 3com) had a voice at the start of the hold cue that said, Press 1 for classical music, Press 2 for Jazz, Press 3 for classic rock.... That was pretty nice
Is that really nice, or merely a flag that their support was so bad that they're more interested in improving the wait than they are in improving the support? I think there is a car rental ad on TV that sarcastically portrays their competitor like that: "It's a long line but, hey, free coffee!" I don't want bloody free coffee or a choice in hold music when I deal with a company. If they want to impress me, they should play nails on a chalkboard, and it should play in the call center multiplied by all the people waiting, too. Instead they feed you the illusion of choice and you eat it up thinking it's "nice".
As the parent said, these women are quite average... which anyone who gets out of their basement and away from their computers for a few hours a day would quickly realize.
That hardly makes a compelling case for the real world, now does it?
Heh. I think that your attitude is part of the problem here. If you try to piss people off, they will try to piss you off too.
I don't see your logic. By default, everyone gets to see the web site. In order to be singled out and disallowed, they must make the first effort to piss me off. If they go further and ignore robots.txt, I go further and ban by IP. At no time am I responsible for any escalation. If you think my "colorful" language is disturbing, I would say it is better for them to be able to see the "why" of the disallow so that, as if they actually cared, they could change their ways. Somehow, though, I doubt that they'll have a human look at it if they won't even bother to have their spiders look at it.
I see that there appear to be real, legitimate, search engines that do not follow robots.txt rules.
No, you rather see some well-known search engines that generate illegitimate traffic instead of behaving properly. I note a number of them in this highly-documented robots.txt file. I'm personally most offended by idiots running this shit, since there is no single IP block to blacklist.
But it doesn't mean anything unless you can tell us how many hours they work per week.
It really shouldn't matter. While the actual worth of the "work" can be debated, the fact remains that if you have many idle hours (i.e., your argument is that they don't get much work), your time isn't that valuable. It's wrong to make this a wage issue. If they don't make enough working their dream job, they can get a real job just like everyone else.
The bit about voice actors demanding residuals on sold copies, however, is big. The argument goes, that if they get residuals, then why shouldn't the programmers, the artists, the script writers etc. also not get this?
That was actually the more sensible argument, and it's a shame it didn't stick. Yeah, it would massively change the game industry, but it's the industry that is trying to move toward the big-budget blockbuster releases like the movie industry does (and like TV hits, too, to a lesser extent). If you're seeking out specific talent, it only makes sense to offer them payment for more than just their time. A "piece of the action" has a time-honored position as reflecting their value, or lack thereof. I'll call it the "Jar Jar Defense"; should the guy who takes an hour to voice that tripe make the same money as the guy who takes an hour voice Yoda? Fuck, even a one second howl from Chewbacca is worth more than all the dialog spewed by Jar Jar.
In general, I find that any project that pushes its technology as a feature is doomed to fail. As a geek, yeah, I know what BitTorrent uses, but as a user I appreciate they don't beat me over the head about it. My prediction is that Rodi will die a nice, quiet death because it pushes the Dork factor, and a D2D network is going to be orders of magnitude smaller than a P2P network.
It could be possible for any band to list their songs on iTunes at a price they choose.
Never gonna happen. Last thing Apple wants is some jackass who can't carry a tune polluting their database with off-priced songs. It's $.99 to buy a song for everyone, and the consumers can grasp that a lot more firmly than the maze of licensing issues that surround alternative services.
Slashdot Mirror
So over WiFi you can get 640x480 in 256 colors at 14FPS.
That's a pretty naive view of display operation. It doesn't even make sense to talk in frames-per-second because the intelligent solution would not be to send entire frames. For the average desktop environment, the bulk of the display is static and would not have to be sent over the wire to constantly be refreshed. You'd probably be able to push over the necessary bits with considerably less than 1Mbps, and that's if you went with "raw" change data! Considering advanced X11-like remote display protocols have been around since before WiFi, it should be pretty obvious that a wireless monitor is well within the reach of modern technology.
For me, a cell phone just doesn't have the resolution I'd like for a "detached" device, and even PDAs are really too small for general purpose computing. Instead, what I've long wanted is a WiFi thin client with at least an 800x600 touch screen and little else (maybe a USB plug). This is what I *hope* Apple is working on when I see their TabletPC-ish design patents. It'd be nice if it was OS independent (unlike what ViewSonic put out), but there are also some compelling features that would require OS support. Ideally you could have a number of these screens all tied to one computer, so each family member (or small business group) could log into their own account on just the one computer. I would gladly drop a grand for a way to simply use my G5 from another room in the house. The current features of PDAs and cell phones are a cute way to spend upwards of $500, but keeping everything in sync would be a hell of a lot easier if I just had a wireless monitor.
Apple's PC sales growth is around double that of the rest of the industry. It's at over 40%.
Which really shouldn't be surprising. People can say all the bad they want to about only having 5% of the total market, but what that really means is that Apple has 95% to grow into. Windows at 90+% is the one with very little room to grow. The iPod is doing well in what is the new generation of portable music players, and their favored position will eventually show the same ceiling that Windows has for the OS market. The big advantage is that, by being a small player in an entrenched market at the same time they're the big player in an explosive market, they keep on doing their "beleaguered" business for decades so long as they're always willing to search out the next new market to expand into.
If they're proper Unicode characters, I wouldn't think there'd be too much guesswork involved.
What "proper"? How may web pages do you know of that actually specify an accept-charset for forms? How many browsers do you know that restrict textarea entry based on the same? Face it, you were just getting lucky; they probably had all sorts of Windows people bitching and moaning about how it wasn't correct, so now everyone must pay!
I don't mind a good bowl of tag soup every now and now; but it was nice being able to simply type correctly.
And that was my point in the part you clipped. Just because it worked like you liked before doesn't mean it was done "correctly". Curly quotes, single or double, are neither plain text nor HTML. There is no 100% solution to guessing the encoding of non-ASCII characters, so it's a real mixed bag. I see this all the time on job boards where some ignorant HR drone tries to cut an paste curly quotes or bullet lists, and it all gets screwed up over the wire despite it looking OK for them. If you're so keen to geek out typographically, compose your pretty in an HTML editor that allows you to cut-and-paste as proper entity references.
Is that why us Mac-using* typographical snobs lost the ability to use actual quote marks and all that jazz?
I’m not sure what “actual quotes marks” you mean. Perhaps the problem is not with the Mac, but with you not knowing the difference between Plain Old Text and HTML Formatted, especially when compared to more advanced encodings.
When will Michael Jackson sign up for this? And what will he look like next?
Since it's a radical new experimental surgery, he may shockingly end up looking like a black man!
You know, we all laugh at this, but if any of you have ever been the victim of a crime, you'd really want the police to be able to solve it.
Not if it meant violating more rights than the initial crime caused. Nobody wants their pocket picked, but even less attractive is the idea that everyone in the area gets strip searched to see if they have your wallet, nor do I want the thief's hand being cut off as a "solution". Lots of things in this world are messed up, and it seems that seldom does the government, especially combined with religion, go about doing things the right way.
In this increasingly digital world, its kinda scary to think that the police aren't keeping up with the criminals.
Scary great, because it also means they're not keeping up with the citizens. The right to bear arms was mainly established with the idea that we could use force to remove an unjust government, but with all the hardware the military has at their disposal these days it is fairly laughable to think some bullets are going to secure your freedoms. I have zero problem with the idea (which is almost certainly misguided if the NSA got involved) that my digital freedoms still have a fighting chance.
Lloyds is basically saying that Linux is dangerous to use. If they said it was safe, who would buy their insurance? So, what's the truth? Well, whatever it is there's no point in asking Lloyds.
The truth of insurance is that it is a business intended to generate profit. Nobody offers you coverage unless they think they're going to sucker you out of some dough. It goes without saying the profit margins can be higher if you target a phobia, and there are all kinds of irrational fears surrounding things, like open source, you get for free.
do the stars of your favorite show wear shoes? likely sponsored. clothes? again...
I think the best reverse example to this is that pretty much every time you see a cool portable computer, it has a big sticker on the back because Apple wouldn't pay them jack to show their logo. It's really interesting to see which shows are such big whores that they'll bother to cover up a brand when they're not getting a kickback. The only way it could get worse is if they got money to cover the Apple logo with a Dell logo. I'd be laughing so hard I don't know that I'd be able to shut off the TV!
In fact, that paper almost seems to be arguing that MMORPG economies, as they currently stand, are almost unavaoidably always inflationary.
That's pretty much true. With timed spawns and random drops, there is no real economy. I mean, there have only been so many bills printed by the US Mint but in most games it's like every wandering monster can print money. The false economies of games are directly related to the false ecologies. There is no real population of rats (or whatever) that make up the lower level grind such that you can kill them all and the rat problem goes away. They fabricate rats from the same nothing that they fabricate currency, and so inflation is bound to spiral out of control.
(city of heros seems to buck the trend... is there anything fundamentally very different about its economy?)
I don't know the particulars of that game enough to say. One way to balance inflation (without going down to a rat-level ecology) is to have sinks that take money out of the game just as quickly. What constant expenses are there in CoH that a player can't do without? Healing is often a good sink, as are items that wear out and break. If that's part of CoH, it would go a long way to explain a balanced economy.
While ID cannot be definitively disproven, I present GW as Exhibit 1 in showing the conjecture to be improbable.
It swings both ways, according to Oingo Boingo:
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
Of course, this fails to account for the case where a man's life diminishes mankind. I'll grant you that death for spamming is a pretty harsh sentence, but if you look at it from a "death by 1000 cuts" way, it really isn't surprising the long-term result of his behavior would be such trouble.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Survival of the fittest, my friend. Given the choice, I'll take the label killer over corpse any day.
Subtle, subtle differences in sub-menu behavior - I always lose a menu and have to "re-click" when swithching between systems.
Then properly fault Windows, because that's something they need to learn from the Mac. Windows only allows you to move horizontally to select the submenu, and vertical movement changes your selection in the current menu. The Mac allow you more of a "cone" in moving toward the submenu such that the current menu selection doesn't switch with vertical movement as long as there is horizontal movement as well. It is an amazingly usable behavior and an endless source of frustration when I'm stuck with Windows myself.
Macs are not immune to viruses, we just haven't seen a virus or spyware author take the time to exploit it, yet.
This is essentially the only reasonable thing you wrote.
Why? Because it isn't profitable RIGHT NOW.
Simply wrong. Raw profit is not about volume, it is about . . . wait for it . . . profit! Apple is a profitable company despite not being as big as Microsoft. Any market forces you care to point to that affect Windows should equally affect the Mac. Yet where are the Mac exploits? Let's explore your flawed reasoning:
Lots of users (likely the ones who would initially be succeptible to a virus) are running windows. This makes it easy to spread.
That makes no sense. All computer users are involved in a "network effect" for their platform. Look at my address book (which is very easy to do on a Mac) and you'd quite likely to find the bulk of them are using Macs. What you say only makes sense in the general context of trying to exploit a random machine, and that actually supports the case of Macs being a more secure choice.
Most computers run windows. You don't see a lot of human viruses that only attack people with anemia; it's just more profitable to attack the majority (or everything, if you can get it).
Again, it's not a volume issue. When it comes to profit, it makes the most sense to target the platform that is "cheap" to attack. No malware author with a clue would ignore the Mac market just because it is outnumbered 9 to 1 if it were 10 times easier to exploit. The Mac just isn't that vulnerable compared to Windows. Again, the overwhelming amount of malware for Windows supports the conclusion that it is an easy target, not that it is abundant one.
Spyware makes its money on user numbers. The more users you can get, the more you want to develop a product. Why spend the time to write for the small % running macs when you can take some already-proven techniques and go for the big money (i.e. the lots of users) on Windows machines.
You keep making the same fallacious argument. You spend the time, by your own admission, if it is profitable. Nothing about the numbers says that market size is the driving force towards profitability. Indeed, as a Mac developer and with knowledge of the Mac community I can easily say that, were it not for basic protections built into the OS, fucking over the user is at least 10 times easier on a Mac. You don't use the same methods that you do on Windows, but anyone who would want to target the Mac would find users more ripe for the picking.
Programmers are lazy. If there isn't a really good reason to do it (i.e. not enough profit potential in their eyes) they generally won't do it unless they're really keen on it. Mostly, these people are not making spyware/viruses.
Do at least keep up with your own misguided reasoning. The Mac is overflowing with profit potential. On Windows, you have a saturated market. Your new malware is going to be in direct competition with hundreds if not thousands of others. The Mac, on the other hand, is 100% for the taking. Do the math and you'll see that the best path to profit would still be the Mac despite its smaller market.
When you see the Mac userbase hit a decent number (and I don't pretend to know what that is) then you'll see spyware and viruses for it.
Nah, we'll just see people like you trying to backpedal and explain why Macs still aren't getting exploited like Windows machines were.
Until then, stop being a mactard and just deal with the situation at hand: there is a lot of spyware out there and something needs to be done now. That something is not ignoring the problem until it swims up and bites you in the ass.
Right, that something to be done is to buy a Mac. Your dire predictions are just that: predictions. I'm not going to lose a second of sleep until there is a OS X exploit. Until then, you're just spewing FUD.
Don't troll windows users into switching to mac, I may like it, you may like it, but if theyre fine using windows then let them bitch about spyware.
If they're bitching about spyware, they're clearly not fine with Windows. If they shut the fuck up about their woes then, no, I pretty much don't care what they run. A Mac purchase simply sends the single best message to Microsoft (and all the PC makers under their thumb) that people are tired of their shit. I highly recommend doing it, and that's not me trolling.
What does one have to do with the other?
Ah, I see you're not thinking like a corrupt politician! That's just it; the two have nothing to do with one another. So a less than thoughtful person will think, "You can't speed in congested traffic! I'll install one of these and laugh all the way to the bank." Then the government has them under their thumb all the other times they might want to speed.
Hell, I'd wager that these things would increase congestion (and road rage) if they were in widespread use. Since all traffic is limited to a certain speed, rubber-necking bottlenecks aren't going to clear up as quickly, and so the blockage that occurs in waves is likely going to move much, much slower. How would you like to be stuck behind two people going side by side without any hope of getting past them?
I stopped answering my telephone yesterday. So far nobody has called and complained.
Mods are on crack. You're closer to funny than insightful, and it's "funny" as in "so far misguided that it's amazing you're not a Darwin Award recipient." The OP's point is that for domains that already offer an SPF record, checking that record allows them to reject a fair number of messages. Your analogy is like rejecting by default, whereas they are accepting by default and rejecting if verification information is available and fails.
On the plus side, one tech support line, ( I think it was 3com) had a voice at the start of the hold cue that said, Press 1 for classical music, Press 2 for Jazz, Press 3 for classic rock.... That was pretty nice
Is that really nice, or merely a flag that their support was so bad that they're more interested in improving the wait than they are in improving the support? I think there is a car rental ad on TV that sarcastically portrays their competitor like that: "It's a long line but, hey, free coffee!" I don't want bloody free coffee or a choice in hold music when I deal with a company. If they want to impress me, they should play nails on a chalkboard, and it should play in the call center multiplied by all the people waiting, too. Instead they feed you the illusion of choice and you eat it up thinking it's "nice".
As the parent said, these women are quite average... which anyone who gets out of their basement and away from their computers for a few hours a day would quickly realize.
That hardly makes a compelling case for the real world, now does it?
Heh. I think that your attitude is part of the problem here. If you try to piss people off, they will try to piss you off too.
I don't see your logic. By default, everyone gets to see the web site. In order to be singled out and disallowed, they must make the first effort to piss me off. If they go further and ignore robots.txt, I go further and ban by IP. At no time am I responsible for any escalation. If you think my "colorful" language is disturbing, I would say it is better for them to be able to see the "why" of the disallow so that, as if they actually cared, they could change their ways. Somehow, though, I doubt that they'll have a human look at it if they won't even bother to have their spiders look at it.
I see that there appear to be real, legitimate, search engines that do not follow robots.txt rules.
No, you rather see some well-known search engines that generate illegitimate traffic instead of behaving properly. I note a number of them in this highly-documented robots.txt file. I'm personally most offended by idiots running this shit, since there is no single IP block to blacklist.
But it doesn't mean anything unless you can tell us how many hours they work per week.
It really shouldn't matter. While the actual worth of the "work" can be debated, the fact remains that if you have many idle hours (i.e., your argument is that they don't get much work), your time isn't that valuable. It's wrong to make this a wage issue. If they don't make enough working their dream job, they can get a real job just like everyone else.
The bit about voice actors demanding residuals on sold copies, however, is big. The argument goes, that if they get residuals, then why shouldn't the programmers, the artists, the script writers etc. also not get this?
That was actually the more sensible argument, and it's a shame it didn't stick. Yeah, it would massively change the game industry, but it's the industry that is trying to move toward the big-budget blockbuster releases like the movie industry does (and like TV hits, too, to a lesser extent). If you're seeking out specific talent, it only makes sense to offer them payment for more than just their time. A "piece of the action" has a time-honored position as reflecting their value, or lack thereof. I'll call it the "Jar Jar Defense"; should the guy who takes an hour to voice that tripe make the same money as the guy who takes an hour voice Yoda? Fuck, even a one second howl from Chewbacca is worth more than all the dialog spewed by Jar Jar.
In general, I find that any project that pushes its technology as a feature is doomed to fail. As a geek, yeah, I know what BitTorrent uses, but as a user I appreciate they don't beat me over the head about it. My prediction is that Rodi will die a nice, quiet death because it pushes the Dork factor, and a D2D network is going to be orders of magnitude smaller than a P2P network.
Lyrics for songs.
Not perfect, but iSing.
It could be possible for any band to list their songs on iTunes at a price they choose.
Never gonna happen. Last thing Apple wants is some jackass who can't carry a tune polluting their database with off-priced songs. It's $.99 to buy a song for everyone, and the consumers can grasp that a lot more firmly than the maze of licensing issues that surround alternative services.