It's rather microsoftish. For example: Your preferences have changed. Would you like to restart to use your new preferences: [OK] [CANCEL].
If you notice, all of the dialog box buttons in MacOS have verbs (action words) on them. Buttons are never specifically answers to questions, but are rather the action which will be taken when you click on them. For example, a traditional dialog box would say:
Your preferences have changed. Would you like to restart to use your new preferences?
[OK] [Cancel]
The proper MacOS dialog box would be something like this:
Your preferences have changed. Would you like to restart to use your new preferences?
[Continue] [Restart]
The traditional dialog box does not actually tell you what is going on when you press the button and it is easily confused with other dialog boxes that may be the same size, look the same, and have the same answers. For example, the following two dialogs could be confused and someone could accidently hit the wrong button thinking it was the dialog they expected:
Should I feed the fish?
[Yes] [No]
Should I eat the fish?
[Yes] [No]
A better set of buttons would be like this:
Should I feed the fish?
[Cancel] [Feed]
Should I eat the fish?
[Cancel] [Eat]
There is very little confusion there as to what action will be taken. Hit the [Feed] button and the fish gets fed, hit the [Eat] button and the fish gets eaten.
On any BSD, yeah. but not on Mac OS X ipfw implementation
Granted I haven't tried this little trick (I haven't had a need to yet) but I'm pretty sure that pipes work under Darwin. Anyone have any experience with this?
I have used the instructions on how to set up the firewall and I know that works just fine. I've been told that dynamic rules don't work properly in ipfw, but everything else seems to have no problem at all.
You can do this by setting up a firewall in the Terminal. Follow the instructions posted here, replacing the contents of the rc.firewall.current file with the following commands:
#!/bin/sh ipfw add 1000 pipe 1 ip from any to any ipfw pipe 1 config bw 300Kbit/s queue 50KBytes ipfw add allow ip from any to any
Doing this should limit the connection to 300Kbit/s. If you want the connection faster or slower you simply need to change the 300Kbit/s number. 56Kbit/s should be approximately the speed of a 56K modem. The last number probably should be scaled appropriately to the first number, that is if you cut the first number in half then cut the second in half.
To learn more about pipes and dummynet, read the manpages for ipfw with the following command in the terminal:
According to what I have read on the site, yes. However, it also installs and sets up x11 for you. They worked with the person in charge of OroborOSX, an Aqua look-alike window manager. This means that all of the windows and widgets that are running under x11 will look and act like normal Aqua windows and widgets. I use OroborOSX all the time and it is one of the best ways to run x11 apps under MacOS X.
Perhaps it refers to the Asian factories that manufacture the computers for Apple? You do know that Apple outsources their production.
Yep, I do know that. One of my main points was that the article was way too vague. If they meant that their informant was one of Apple's outsourcing partners then they could have made it a lot clearer than saying it was a local PC maker.
Even if it turns out to be true it still is pretty shoddy journalism. One thing is for certain, Apple has been selling pretty well and is doing a good job at keeping its head above water in an industry where many of the big fish are drowning. I really doubt that the 17" iMac is going to stop production, unless it is to make room for something bigger and better.
Apple normally doesn't throw out this kind of information, and if so, they do it quietly.
I totally agree with you here. Apple doesn't announce their business this way, they do so with press releases and all the usual fanfare. I especially love this quote from that news site:
The 17-inch flat-panel iMac will terminate production in June, following the same fate as the 15-inch flat-panel model, which stopped production last October, said local PC makers familiar with the matter.
Hmm, local PC makers? Is that like the guy down the street who hand assembles computers on the cheap or is it like a major computer manufacturer (not to be named of course) who wants to throw some muck at Apple just before one of Apple's major trade shows? I think that the only PC maker who would legitimately know if Apple was going to discontinue a product would be Apple itself!
This just sounds like a bunch of rumor-mongering intended to generate page hits and some notoriety. If they had some hard facts they would say who their sources were and would submit more facts to back it up. The three or four paragraphs on that news site does not appear to be a decently researched article by any stretch of the imagination.
Furthermore, you can be sure that if Apple has discontinued the 15" model, and if it is discontinuing its 17" model, it won't be to fall back to the eMac. That would be a step backwards and Apple is not one to take steps back. If this rumor has any truth to it then Apple would produce something MORE advanced, probably an upgrade to the 17" iMac.
purchased my iMac (15") on eBay from a reseller for about 1300 less than retail...
What unit of currency are you talking about? Because a really expensive 15" iMac will run you about $1,500. If you managed to get one for $1,300 less than list price, you're one lucky son of a bitch.
Isn't it obvious what unit he is using here?
He is using standard, common, cold, hard, US cents! So what he's trying to say is that he saved 1300 cents, 13 US dollars, on that 15" iMac. Good job, what a bargain hunter!:)
You can get all the chemicals you need at hardware stores, etc.
I totally agree with this. Most "modern" chemistry sets are so sickeningly-safe that they do not truly allow any chemistry to be done. I would collect your own chemicals, maybe buying a chemistry set to give you some guidance.
There are several cautions that I would keep in mind. First of all, chemistry is highly dangerous. Many of the "first" discoverers of a chemical compound of process have actually turned out to be the second, third, etc. The true first discoverers literally killed themselves in the attempt and were thus not able to make their claim to fame! The first inventor of gunpowder, the first discoverer of fluorine, chemistry is riddled with those that tried something without understanding the consequences of their actions.
Get several good chemistry texts and read them all the way through. Start off with simple, harmless experiments. Do not try anything potentially explosive, corrosive, or vapor-producing. Keep several neutralizing agents on hand, such as baking soda, lime, sand, a good multi-purpose fire extinguisher. Perform your experiments in an extremely well-ventilated area that has been fireproofed and is far away from any living or eating areas. A separate shack is a good place. Use goggles, a heavy rubberized and/or canvas smock, solid leather shoes, disposable gloves and face masks for some experiments.
Never leave an experiment unattended. Never dump the results of your experiments in the same place, they can sometimes cross-react and form a dangerous mixture. Do not store anything which has the potential to become unstable, many nitrogen and phosphorous compounds can spontaneously react and cause extreme heat, vapors, or explosions.
Make sure of the purity of your ingredients. If you get ordinary bleach for the sodium hypoclorite be careful - perfumes, surfactants, and other agents are often added to them which can cause unwanted reactions to occur. The same goes for household ammonia cleaning solutions. Most metals you will get will be alloys, always understand the elements in the alloy and how they may react in an experiment.
Yeah, it's a lot to keep in mind, but chemistry is truly a dangerous business. I've been working in chemical labs for over 10 years and I've seen professional chemists with doctorates have accidents that you wouldn't believe. Explosions, runaway reactions, improperly ventilated experiments, splashes of highly corrosive compounds, forgetting to turn on or off some crucial bit of equipment, a lot of people get hurt even in the safest laboratory. I'm very careful simply because every exposure to some of these chemicals shortens my life-span. Many of the chemicals will take up permanent residence in your bones, will leave holes in your liver, will cause you to go blind, or even will make you go sterile. Lots of them have a cumulative effect so every exposure increases the risk, no matter how much time has passed.
Neutrons are not easy to shield. They tend to pass through heavier elements like lead due to their neutral charge and the fact that they don't lose much kinetic energy per collision with a heavy nucleus. They can be shielded much easier with something like water where a light nucleus (of a hydrogen atom in water) can transfer more of the neutrons kinetic energy, slowing it down and hence shielding it.
True, I misspoke there. I meant to say that the neutrons would most likely be shielded in this instance due to the collective effect of the water and the debris in which much of the radioactive material is immersed. Not only is there an undetermined amount of water, there is also TONS of concrete, steel, sand, and other materials surrounding the radioactive debris. The sheer amount of material above the radioactive elements would have a pretty good shielding effect on neutron radiation, even if it is inefficient at blocking neutrons.
Ties in nicely with the story today about radioactive Christmas trees [bbc.co.uk] being sold by russian businessmen.
Heh, at least you don't have to worry about the lights burning out on those trees. The tree is its own light, glowing eerily over your Christmas presents.
Evaculate all the people, detonate a neutron bomb at high altitude, move back in and operate normally. The spray of neutrons from such a bomb would make all the radioactive atoms decay on the spot.
Uh, no.
First of all, neutrons are stopped fairly easily by minimal shielding. Most of the irradiated debris would not get bombarded by a single neutron from that neutron bomb.
Secondly, adding a neutron to an atom will have wildly differing effects depending on many factors such as the speed of the neutron, the geometry of the collision, and the nuclear structure of the atom. Some atoms, such as hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other light elements tend to form stable or long-lived isotopes that give off fairly low levels of radiation. Others, such as uranium, can form highly radioactive elements and can start limited chain reactions - not a good idea in a closed environment. Take a look at this site for more information on nuclear chemistry.
One last thing you should know is that a neutron bomb is not a totally "clean" bomb. It still has a pretty decent amount of radioactive fallout, it just tends to produce quicker forms of radiation which will dissipate more easily. There will still be a fairly "hot" zone which will only add to the bad situation in Chernobyl.
Still, this is probably just a troll judging from your comment about the whole mess being cleaned up in a week. I thought you trolls were attending some sort of training sessions on how to be subtle? If you are then you had better take a refresher course on troll techniques, the first one didn't take.
...maybe we could just lock in the coordinates on our freight transporter and teleport it directly into the sun. You're thinking 1000 years, not 100. Think of what we have accomplished in the past 100 years and stop being ridiculously optimistic.
Not only that, we also have devices as small as a match-head that can do billions of calculations every second. These devices can be put together into a machine that can hold their own against the best chess players in the world. People can not only fly, but many do so for less than a week's wages and they travel from one part of the world to another in just a few hours, going faster than sound can travel in some instances. There are now devices which can create light so intense and organized that it can cut through just about any substance. Many diseases which have killed billions of people in their childhood have been eradicated. We have managed to learn how to replace broken-down organs in order to prolong life and even how to make copies of people and animals.
In short, we have come a long way in the past 100 years. If you were to bring someone from 1902 to the present they would most likely be utterly astounded by what we have accomplished in so short of a time. Many theorists already have some ideas of how we might be able to eventually "teleport" physical objects, they have done it for information and are seeking to expand it further. Where will we be in 100 years? 1000 years? I'm not sure, but judging from the past 100 years it would not surprise me to find out that a lot of the discoveries that you have just scoffed at are around in a century, or even less.
Hey, it's your choice and your business, do as you please. I just can't help that fighting this is more than a little bit Quixotic...:)
Ahh hell, a couple of minutes of my free time is worth tilting at a few windmills.:)
I totally agree with you though, you would have to put some serious time and effort into totally obscuring yourself. I perform the two or three actions that will give me a modicum of privacy and then I don't sweat the small stuff. Once the quest for privacy becomes an all-consuming lifetime pursuit then you should start looking over your shoulder for the men in the white coats. Or maybe the little green men, if that's the way your imagination runs...
From this point of view, you could tell them that you, NYT reader # 07593146, are a twelve eyed Tralfamadorean that lives on the fourth planet from Betelgeuse for all they'd care, because you're still giving them the data that they *really* need:
Basic demographics: NYT reader #07593146 reads from one computer at home & two from work, tends to follow stories about computer technology, usually enters the site from $third_party, and can be relied on to view $number of ad impressions per day
It doesn't work quite that way, usually when I go to a site with registration I either get around their registration (ie: the google trick), or I simply take a second to create a bogus account with random information. I'll use this throw-away account for the session and forget it. It can't be traced to me easily since I have a dynamic IP and my browser is set up to hand out very little information.
Sure, they will get some information from me but my purpose is to make this information as hard to link to one particular person as possible. If they want to see how many people are viewing a tech article, cool. If they want to see if I'm the same guy who viewed a cooking article last week and a car washing article the week before, not cool. I would simply rather be as anonymous as possible in my web surfing habits.
You don't have any problem with content that was paid for by advertising. What's wrong with you providing the content provider with a little basic demographic information to aid them in selling that advertising?
There is nothing wrong, they can ask if they want but I will not give out my correct information. I want to be as anonymous on the internet as possible. That is why I am happy that I have a dynamic IP, can accept cookies and then toss them out, and do other methods of foiling any tracking. I'm not anti-money, but I do value my anonymity more than I value the information they are providing.
If these providers were to stop providing their services because I am being anonymous then I wouldn't like it because I like to read news on the internet. However, I would still not trade my anonymity for news.
right.. because you should get everything for free, right?
No, actually. They had ads on that page and I'm sure that they get paid for those ads. I have no problem with them making money but I don't feel that the article was worth me giving them any data. If they can't make enough money without obtaining and selling the data then I would just as soon not read the article.
I hope the Washington Post is very successful and is swimming in cash, I just don't like being asked for or giving out data about myself.
I can tell you that they use that information you input to profile you and sell it to advertisers.
This is why I always put down that I'm a female, born in 1902, who lives in zip code 90210.
They can ask all they want, but all they will get is the most misleading information I can give them. Having a database full of garbage is much worse than them getting rid of the database entirely. Hopefully they will realize that some day and stop bothering us.
John Nesbit, vice president of Chicago area Internet marketing firm Penn Media
Jaffer Ali, Penn Media's chief executive
One of those contractors, Steve Harper, said he has sent 5 million e-mails so far. Earlier this month, he claims he sold 330,000 cars after sending a million ads in one day.
Harper, who works out of Dover, Del.
Patrick Finn, executive vice president of marketing at Hi-Speed Media Inc., an e-mail marketing firm in Sherman Oaks, Calif
CD? Oh, you mean the coasters for your coffee cups? Yeah, they fit right in the coffee cup holder. It's pretty convenient if you ask me. I don't think there is any slot to fit them in though, I usually just open up the side of the computer and stack them neatly. I have a whole collection of AOL coasters stored in there!
For those of you who noticed that the submitter is dyslexic, the article is really about LSD, not DSL.
Ahh, ok. I thought he really meant LDS (the Mormons). I mean, I know that they have the whole polygamy thing going on but I would have bet that more people liked cable than they liked Joseph Smith.
An American inventor named Gustave Whitehead allegedly flew in Aug 1901.
Not only did he fly several years before the Wright Brothers, he did so for a longer distance and with far more control. He made several flights that were not only witnessed by many people, but which were also written about and published in Scientific American in 1901. You can read that article and several others on this web page.
Gustave Whitehead was an engineer who built engines for a living. His engine design was far superior to the Wright Brother's. The Wright engine leaked badly, had poor power, and was extremely inefficient. Whitehead's engine was much lighter and built to stricter tolerances. It, and others designed like it, went on to be used by several other aircraft manufacturers.
While the Wright brothers received fame for their flights, mostly through good press and savvy public relations, Gustave Whitehead concentrated on his engine business. He was fairly successful with his business until a prototype helicopter which used several of his engines crashed. He was blamed for the failure and was sued. He lost most of his money and died penniless.
...they mentioned that linux users were criminals who only used hacker software...
...things like examine quicken files and send them the results...
...They are also going to sell the data to insurance companies so if you IM your best friend about your auto accident or doctors checkup, then someone will know about it. They also said this is perfect for fighting terrorism, and waved the flag a lot.
Lol, I'm sure. Great try at a troll attempt but I doubt that even the guys over at SBC are this clueless. Even if they want to do this, they have to have someone who will realize that this sort of behavior will cause such a backlash if it is found out that it won't be worth it to even attempt doing it. I doubt that any big company would attempt an effort like you are describing, especially considering the strong, healthy dose of paranoia that much of the computing field currently harbors.
Why don't you and the anonymous coward non-account you are hiding behind go back to the sandbox and play with the rest of the trolls. Thank you for playing...
Slashdot Mirror
If you notice, all of the dialog box buttons in MacOS have verbs (action words) on them. Buttons are never specifically answers to questions, but are rather the action which will be taken when you click on them. For example, a traditional dialog box would say:
The proper MacOS dialog box would be something like this:
The traditional dialog box does not actually tell you what is going on when you press the button and it is easily confused with other dialog boxes that may be the same size, look the same, and have the same answers. For example, the following two dialogs could be confused and someone could accidently hit the wrong button thinking it was the dialog they expected:
A better set of buttons would be like this:
There is very little confusion there as to what action will be taken. Hit the [Feed] button and the fish gets fed, hit the [Eat] button and the fish gets eaten.
Granted I haven't tried this little trick (I haven't had a need to yet) but I'm pretty sure that pipes work under Darwin. Anyone have any experience with this?
I have used the instructions on how to set up the firewall and I know that works just fine. I've been told that dynamic rules don't work properly in ipfw, but everything else seems to have no problem at all.
Doing this should limit the connection to 300Kbit/s. If you want the connection faster or slower you simply need to change the 300Kbit/s number. 56Kbit/s should be approximately the speed of a 56K modem. The last number probably should be scaled appropriately to the first number, that is if you cut the first number in half then cut the second in half.
To learn more about pipes and dummynet, read the manpages for ipfw with the following command in the terminal:
According to what I have read on the site, yes. However, it also installs and sets up x11 for you. They worked with the person in charge of OroborOSX, an Aqua look-alike window manager. This means that all of the windows and widgets that are running under x11 will look and act like normal Aqua windows and widgets. I use OroborOSX all the time and it is one of the best ways to run x11 apps under MacOS X.
Yep, I do know that. One of my main points was that the article was way too vague. If they meant that their informant was one of Apple's outsourcing partners then they could have made it a lot clearer than saying it was a local PC maker.
Even if it turns out to be true it still is pretty shoddy journalism. One thing is for certain, Apple has been selling pretty well and is doing a good job at keeping its head above water in an industry where many of the big fish are drowning. I really doubt that the 17" iMac is going to stop production, unless it is to make room for something bigger and better.
I totally agree with you here. Apple doesn't announce their business this way, they do so with press releases and all the usual fanfare. I especially love this quote from that news site:
Hmm, local PC makers? Is that like the guy down the street who hand assembles computers on the cheap or is it like a major computer manufacturer (not to be named of course) who wants to throw some muck at Apple just before one of Apple's major trade shows? I think that the only PC maker who would legitimately know if Apple was going to discontinue a product would be Apple itself!
This just sounds like a bunch of rumor-mongering intended to generate page hits and some notoriety. If they had some hard facts they would say who their sources were and would submit more facts to back it up. The three or four paragraphs on that news site does not appear to be a decently researched article by any stretch of the imagination.
Furthermore, you can be sure that if Apple has discontinued the 15" model, and if it is discontinuing its 17" model, it won't be to fall back to the eMac. That would be a step backwards and Apple is not one to take steps back. If this rumor has any truth to it then Apple would produce something MORE advanced, probably an upgrade to the 17" iMac.
Isn't it obvious what unit he is using here?
He is using standard, common, cold, hard, US cents! So what he's trying to say is that he saved 1300 cents, 13 US dollars, on that 15" iMac. Good job, what a bargain hunter!
I totally agree with this. Most "modern" chemistry sets are so sickeningly-safe that they do not truly allow any chemistry to be done. I would collect your own chemicals, maybe buying a chemistry set to give you some guidance.
There are several cautions that I would keep in mind. First of all, chemistry is highly dangerous. Many of the "first" discoverers of a chemical compound of process have actually turned out to be the second, third, etc. The true first discoverers literally killed themselves in the attempt and were thus not able to make their claim to fame! The first inventor of gunpowder, the first discoverer of fluorine, chemistry is riddled with those that tried something without understanding the consequences of their actions.
Get several good chemistry texts and read them all the way through. Start off with simple, harmless experiments. Do not try anything potentially explosive, corrosive, or vapor-producing. Keep several neutralizing agents on hand, such as baking soda, lime, sand, a good multi-purpose fire extinguisher. Perform your experiments in an extremely well-ventilated area that has been fireproofed and is far away from any living or eating areas. A separate shack is a good place. Use goggles, a heavy rubberized and/or canvas smock, solid leather shoes, disposable gloves and face masks for some experiments.
Never leave an experiment unattended. Never dump the results of your experiments in the same place, they can sometimes cross-react and form a dangerous mixture. Do not store anything which has the potential to become unstable, many nitrogen and phosphorous compounds can spontaneously react and cause extreme heat, vapors, or explosions.
Make sure of the purity of your ingredients. If you get ordinary bleach for the sodium hypoclorite be careful - perfumes, surfactants, and other agents are often added to them which can cause unwanted reactions to occur. The same goes for household ammonia cleaning solutions. Most metals you will get will be alloys, always understand the elements in the alloy and how they may react in an experiment.
Yeah, it's a lot to keep in mind, but chemistry is truly a dangerous business. I've been working in chemical labs for over 10 years and I've seen professional chemists with doctorates have accidents that you wouldn't believe. Explosions, runaway reactions, improperly ventilated experiments, splashes of highly corrosive compounds, forgetting to turn on or off some crucial bit of equipment, a lot of people get hurt even in the safest laboratory. I'm very careful simply because every exposure to some of these chemicals shortens my life-span. Many of the chemicals will take up permanent residence in your bones, will leave holes in your liver, will cause you to go blind, or even will make you go sterile. Lots of them have a cumulative effect so every exposure increases the risk, no matter how much time has passed.
So be careful!
True, I misspoke there. I meant to say that the neutrons would most likely be shielded in this instance due to the collective effect of the water and the debris in which much of the radioactive material is immersed. Not only is there an undetermined amount of water, there is also TONS of concrete, steel, sand, and other materials surrounding the radioactive debris. The sheer amount of material above the radioactive elements would have a pretty good shielding effect on neutron radiation, even if it is inefficient at blocking neutrons.
Heh, at least you don't have to worry about the lights burning out on those trees. The tree is its own light, glowing eerily over your Christmas presents.
Uh, no.
First of all, neutrons are stopped fairly easily by minimal shielding. Most of the irradiated debris would not get bombarded by a single neutron from that neutron bomb.
Secondly, adding a neutron to an atom will have wildly differing effects depending on many factors such as the speed of the neutron, the geometry of the collision, and the nuclear structure of the atom. Some atoms, such as hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other light elements tend to form stable or long-lived isotopes that give off fairly low levels of radiation. Others, such as uranium, can form highly radioactive elements and can start limited chain reactions - not a good idea in a closed environment. Take a look at this site for more information on nuclear chemistry.
One last thing you should know is that a neutron bomb is not a totally "clean" bomb. It still has a pretty decent amount of radioactive fallout, it just tends to produce quicker forms of radiation which will dissipate more easily. There will still be a fairly "hot" zone which will only add to the bad situation in Chernobyl.
Still, this is probably just a troll judging from your comment about the whole mess being cleaned up in a week. I thought you trolls were attending some sort of training sessions on how to be subtle? If you are then you had better take a refresher course on troll techniques, the first one didn't take.
Well first of all we did learn how to split the atom and how to fuse several of them together. We also learned how to make materials that can conduct electricity without resistance at fairly high temperatures. We can travel underwater for months at a time without coming to the surface. We managed to get to outer space and visit the moon. Some of our creations have even left the solar system.
Not only that, we also have devices as small as a match-head that can do billions of calculations every second. These devices can be put together into a machine that can hold their own against the best chess players in the world. People can not only fly, but many do so for less than a week's wages and they travel from one part of the world to another in just a few hours, going faster than sound can travel in some instances. There are now devices which can create light so intense and organized that it can cut through just about any substance. Many diseases which have killed billions of people in their childhood have been eradicated. We have managed to learn how to replace broken-down organs in order to prolong life and even how to make copies of people and animals.
In short, we have come a long way in the past 100 years. If you were to bring someone from 1902 to the present they would most likely be utterly astounded by what we have accomplished in so short of a time. Many theorists already have some ideas of how we might be able to eventually "teleport" physical objects, they have done it for information and are seeking to expand it further. Where will we be in 100 years? 1000 years? I'm not sure, but judging from the past 100 years it would not surprise me to find out that a lot of the discoveries that you have just scoffed at are around in a century, or even less.
Ahh hell, a couple of minutes of my free time is worth tilting at a few windmills.
I totally agree with you though, you would have to put some serious time and effort into totally obscuring yourself. I perform the two or three actions that will give me a modicum of privacy and then I don't sweat the small stuff. Once the quest for privacy becomes an all-consuming lifetime pursuit then you should start looking over your shoulder for the men in the white coats. Or maybe the little green men, if that's the way your imagination runs...
It doesn't work quite that way, usually when I go to a site with registration I either get around their registration (ie: the google trick), or I simply take a second to create a bogus account with random information. I'll use this throw-away account for the session and forget it. It can't be traced to me easily since I have a dynamic IP and my browser is set up to hand out very little information.
Sure, they will get some information from me but my purpose is to make this information as hard to link to one particular person as possible. If they want to see how many people are viewing a tech article, cool. If they want to see if I'm the same guy who viewed a cooking article last week and a car washing article the week before, not cool. I would simply rather be as anonymous as possible in my web surfing habits.
There is nothing wrong, they can ask if they want but I will not give out my correct information. I want to be as anonymous on the internet as possible. That is why I am happy that I have a dynamic IP, can accept cookies and then toss them out, and do other methods of foiling any tracking. I'm not anti-money, but I do value my anonymity more than I value the information they are providing.
If these providers were to stop providing their services because I am being anonymous then I wouldn't like it because I like to read news on the internet. However, I would still not trade my anonymity for news.
No, actually. They had ads on that page and I'm sure that they get paid for those ads. I have no problem with them making money but I don't feel that the article was worth me giving them any data. If they can't make enough money without obtaining and selling the data then I would just as soon not read the article.
I hope the Washington Post is very successful and is swimming in cash, I just don't like being asked for or giving out data about myself.
This is why I always put down that I'm a female, born in 1902, who lives in zip code 90210.
They can ask all they want, but all they will get is the most misleading information I can give them. Having a database full of garbage is much worse than them getting rid of the database entirely. Hopefully they will realize that some day and stop bothering us.
Research has proven that exposure to laboratories is a leading cause of cancer among rodents...
CD? Oh, you mean the coasters for your coffee cups? Yeah, they fit right in the coffee cup holder. It's pretty convenient if you ask me. I don't think there is any slot to fit them in though, I usually just open up the side of the computer and stack them neatly. I have a whole collection of AOL coasters stored in there!
No, but it does have a coffee cup holder.
That looked pretty damn responsible to me, way to use that +1 bonus ciurana!
Ahh, ok. I thought he really meant LDS (the Mormons). I mean, I know that they have the whole polygamy thing going on but I would have bet that more people liked cable than they liked Joseph Smith.
Not only did he fly several years before the Wright Brothers, he did so for a longer distance and with far more control. He made several flights that were not only witnessed by many people, but which were also written about and published in Scientific American in 1901. You can read that article and several others on this web page.
Gustave Whitehead was an engineer who built engines for a living. His engine design was far superior to the Wright Brother's. The Wright engine leaked badly, had poor power, and was extremely inefficient. Whitehead's engine was much lighter and built to stricter tolerances. It, and others designed like it, went on to be used by several other aircraft manufacturers.
While the Wright brothers received fame for their flights, mostly through good press and savvy public relations, Gustave Whitehead concentrated on his engine business. He was fairly successful with his business until a prototype helicopter which used several of his engines crashed. He was blamed for the failure and was sued. He lost most of his money and died penniless.
Lol, I'm sure. Great try at a troll attempt but I doubt that even the guys over at SBC are this clueless. Even if they want to do this, they have to have someone who will realize that this sort of behavior will cause such a backlash if it is found out that it won't be worth it to even attempt doing it. I doubt that any big company would attempt an effort like you are describing, especially considering the strong, healthy dose of paranoia that much of the computing field currently harbors.
Why don't you and the anonymous coward non-account you are hiding behind go back to the sandbox and play with the rest of the trolls. Thank you for playing...