It's not known if the Universe is infinite or not (I'm not sure what you mean by "partially infinite").
Even if it is, the article is "hundreds in the Milky Way", not "hundreds in the Universe". I am not aware that the number of observed candidates for black holes in our galaxy numbers in the hundreds, so this would still seem newsworthy.
The OP gave a list of features. The Iphone, like many other phones, does many of these features, but also misses out many significant features. That is why he said that no phone came close to achieving all of these features.
The very same post then listed which features the Iphone lacked, clearly indicating that the OP was well aware of which features the Iphone missed. And then you come in, quibbling over subjective interpretations of "come close". Given that the OP was talking about features about what he wanted in his phone, I think I'll trust his opinion of what he considers comes close for his needs, than some random other person.
The same could be said of any phone, but of course, trust Iphone fans to take it as a personal attack on their product...
No, you might as well not claim that, because it would be silly.
WTH? It's okay to claim it for the Iphone, but not other phones? My phone does all of these features, except some significant ones that it misses. I think some of the ones that the Iphone misses are at least as significant. More to the point, there are plenty of modern phones out there way better than my phone, that aren't the Iphone, and also stand as perfectly good examples that we could apply your "But but, it does all of them... except for the things it doesn't" argument to. Clearly, some phones do some things, whilst other phones do other things - and no phones do all of these things, which was the whole point of the OP. Most people don't find that so difficult to understand.
Indeed - and there's more to it. Even if they read it, keeping track of things like download usage is hard for the user (but evidently easier for the ISP to do - so why not simply restrict rather than taking the opportunity to "fine"?) Contracts are not enforceable simply upon signing it - the person must have reasonably been aware of the costs, and the costs imposed must be reasonable. They don't get to charge you a million quid, even if someone signed it.
I'm not sure why you write as if it's the consumer being unreasonable - if the company advertises "unlimited", but then can't actually offer what it advertised, that's tough and I have no symapthy for their whining.
And whilst a company can charge rates if it advertises up front, that doesn't mean it gets to arbitrarily charge fines (or otherwise hidden costs). The company does not make the law.
If people go over what they're allowed, then the company can always block access for the rest of that month. If they allow the customer that access, I don't see how a "fine" is reasonable or meaningful.
You may be joking, but it's a valid point: comparing religious belief to things like believing in unicorns and fairies is something that in my experience makes religious people very angry (and it evidently annoyed at least one moderator, who has now unfairly modded the OP as a troll), yet surely they are the ones ridiculing those who believe in fairies? People with such beliefs do exist after all - it's not clear to me why religious people should be offended by a comparison to fairy-believers, any more so than a fairy believer might be offended at being compared to religious people.
Well indeed - just as I would also oppose discrimination against people with mental illnesses such as hearing voices or obsessively believing bad things will happen to them.
How are these design issues? These are software issues,
Software isn't design?
and some of them will be fixed soon.
I'm sure that all phones will get better with time. He's presumably talking about what's on the market now, not what might be in years to come.
Do you really need multiple codecs on your phone?
Do you really need a web browser, touch screen, GPS or anything else like that on your phone? No. But presumably he wants multiple codecs on his phone, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it.
It is quite standard to convert content to fit on the phones screen better, and make it more playable.
For audio? (And presumably the main advantage for doing this for video would be to just reduce the file size, I don't see how it would "fit" better when it's going to be rescaled, I hope? What does "more playable" mean?)
Actually, the iPhone has all of those except tactile keyboard, copy/paste, tethering, MMS, and Ogg support.
So the Iphone has all of those, except the ones it doesn't? Thank you Captain Obvious, I think that was the point he was making - it's not like those are trivial irrelevant features. (Did they finally add video recording? What about Flash, and the ability to "add in software from any source" without hacking the product?)
In fact, let's recheck the OP where he says:
The iPhone is a great phone, but it has the stupidest design issues such as the lack of basic features like MMS, copy/paste, multiple codecs for audio and video (OGG is a no brainer), lack of Flash along with usability issues such as the application "approval" process and the lack of a decent camera (with no zoom or video recording features).
So your point is?
I might as well claim that my Motorola V980 does all of those, except full keyboard and touchscreen, high resolution camera, bluetooth, GPS, Flash, OGG, and USB port.
If you count the upcoming release of the iPhone OS, you'll only be missing a tactile keyboard and Ogg support.
Newsflash: phones get better with time. I'm sure that future planned releases from Nokia etc will cover more of these features too.
Seriously, why do people get so hung up on Ogg support?
It's the other things I care about. It would seem odd that I upgrade from a 5 year old phone, spend out large amounts of money for a high end product (and get locked into a contract - usually phones are free when you are on contract), only to then miss out features that my old phone have. Can't I have a phone that does all I want? That was the OP's point, saying "But this phone does all that, except the things it doesn't" shows a serious misuse of the word "all".
The problem is that discrimination is more likely to be the other way round - religious organisations discriminating against people who believe in a different kind of green monkey, or even against those of us who don't believe in such things at all. I'm not sure there's much evidence that atheists would discriminate against someone just for listing a religion on their Facebook profile (and even if they did - in countries like the US where the overwhelming majority are religious, discrimination from other religious people is still going to be the bigger problem).
So whilst it may be a valid argument to say that religious discrimination laws don't make sense, I'm still glad we have them.
In fact, recently when laws against religious discrimination were proposed in the UK, it was the Christian organisations who opposed, because they wanted the right to discriminate against non-Christians (even if it wasn't relevant for the job - e.g., a schoolteacher wanting to work at a religiously-owned school). The law was passed in the end, but there is concern over exceptions granted for "faith-based employers" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3252700.stm ).
(Also I would still argue that we should be wary of discrimination based on mental illness, when the person can still do the job.)
At some point we hit a point of diminishing returns on better graphics units... the human eye can only distinguish so much.
Sure, but we're a long way off from that yet.
(Your third paragraph is a separate issue - yes, some people are happy with space-invader graphics, but that obviously isn't to do with how much the human eye can distinguish.)
Google hit number 2 is Wikipedia, which explains it as well as anyone could have done in the summary.
Then there are links to news articles, explaining recent controversy over it.
I know that RTFA (which would also have answered your question) is unfashionable here on Slashdot, but I'm wondering what your problem was with this Google search...
So another company/person will be able to host a book that Google decides not to? Isn't that part of what this issue is about, after all - the fact that they won't be able to?
Firstly no one is claiming what they are doing is illegal, so your point is a straw man based on misunderstanding what censorship means. Legal censorship is still censorship.
However, the problem here is (AIUI) that other people will not be allowed to host the content that Google decide not to. What was that about "they have the right to host whatever content they feel like"? The problem is, they don't. And what entity will enforce laws that prevent them? The Government. I'm not saying that copyright laws are wrong, but the point is that Google would be able to censor information, and the ability to prevent others from publishing that information being backed by the Government.
Yes, obviously we should trust a quick biased anecdotal summary of a random person's University campus rather than a widespread survey(!)
There's no way, and I mean absolutely no way, that number is true for laptop users.
It's unclear to me if you are really lacking in an understanding of basic statistics here or not. There is no reason to think that your quick "survey" is in any way representative. The two most obvious problems are that it only covers laptops, and only covers University students.
Are you seriously suggesting that OS X is outdoing Vista by 3 to 1? That's ludicrous.
Having done some support work against Vista, I can understand why too. I think Vista means Popup Window in Latin. It is by far the most annoying end user OS ever, secure or not.
And you can blame Apple and its users for this. After all the people who whined because Windows let you do things automatically, whilst Macs asked for permission. Yet strangely, now that Microsoft asks for permission, that's wrong too, and Apple is suddenly magically better. Which is it? If Apple ask for permission, it's no different, and if not, it's insecure, by their own logic.
Either way, some proper research from a reputable scientist that isn't setting out to disprove psychic abilities, just wants to see if anything is happenin, would be really nice.
Yes, it's strange that despite all the alleged uncited examples you give of people who are apparently "too good" at predictions, this is never shown to work in repeatable scientific test conditions.
So while in a pub you will have people spewing theories, it will stay in the pub. Whereas on the Internet, a friend copies a friend, copies a friend and at the end we have the entire world believing things will come to an end.
There's no difference at all - the people who hear it in the pub will tell their friends, no different to on the Internet. Why would there be any difference? Worse, in real life it's easier for information to change as a form of chinese whispers, where as at least a copy and paste is unaltered.
There are also other odd situations in real life, such as A tells person B some rumour, then later person B says back to A how he also heard this rumour from someone. Person A thinks that this is more evidence for the rumour, even though person B might only be remembering what he heard from A in the first place!
The Internet has made improvements in that it's also much easier to look up citations, or to double-check facts (sure, a lot of email-forwarders don't, but for those who do, it's easier). When I now have conversations in real life, I have a nagging doubt whenever I say things like "Some people think..." - it's the Internet that has encouraged the practice of supporting statements like that, where as in real life not only is this never done, most people never even think anything problematic about it.
I can see the problem with Twitter is that it's harder to double check or cite sources in that medium. The main problem compared with real life is probably the number of people you can reach - the number of people reading your Twitter posts is probably higher than the number you'd be talking to in a pub.
Do you have a real source? Wikipedia is not the most reliable source.
Except that Wikipedia cites "Patterson, KD; Pyle GF (Spring 1991). "The geography and mortality of the 1918 influenza pandemic". Bull Hist Med. 65 (1): 421. PMID 2021692."
Whether you consider that to be a real source is up to you, but there's no issue of unreliability from Wikipedia's point of view.
Someone should try that the next time the RIAA sues - "I was asking people to send me copies of their mp3 files, so I could check if they'd plagiarised the tunes or not".
Given how much plagiarism and repetition there is in the Top 40, they'd probably find quite a lot!
Running in a webpage certainly has its advantages - mostly, I think that people are more likely to try it. But:
You don't have to bother about with unpacking zip files, rpm's, tar's,.run files, especially when you don't have admin permissions on the host machine.
You still have to worry about permissions with a web based application (e.g., on Java I remember running into troubles having to sign applets to do certain things).
Also, you won't start up your application one day, and read the message "This version is no longer supported. Please exit and upgrade to uber-version X.Y.Z".
Isn't this much more a problem with web applications? If I download a native application, I can run it for as long as my hardware still runs, except for the minor exception of cripple/share/trialware.
But for web applications, it's only there for as long as the web host chooses to host the application.
And supporters of the law even openly admit this - lobbyist Liz Longhurst (who was basically propped up by the Government as their emotional figurehead for this law) stated:
"The law is the start of good things, but I think it will be difficult to enforce. But I want the legislation on the books even though it might be difficult to enforce. Whine Whine Whine"
According to the summary, "users who attempt to access the... site are met with a 'content blocked' message."
This isn't like the regular IWF blacklist of child porn, which is kept secret for good reasons
You're conflating two things - it's perfectly possible to display a "this site has been blocked" message when you try to access a given site, without publicising the list.
It's in the ISPs' best interest to be honest about what they're doing here; people who can't reach legal content have a legitimate complaint, which obviously doesn't apply in the case of child porn
Unfortunately, as shown by the recent Wikipedia episode, their "child porn" definitions (which is actually "potentially illegal child porn") can cover legal images too, or even clearly legal text (they blocked text, but were incapable of blocking the image itself, suggesting that the blocking system is fundamentally broken).
Do a lot of people 17 and under have credit cards, their own laptop and a G3 card + service?
And if they had a credit card, they couldn't simply opt out of the service anyway, making it pointless.
I agree with what you say, and it applies to "But think of the children!" arguments to the Internet in general. It's not like a child can accidently stumble across Internet connections without people noticing. They either have to sign up to an ISP (age can be verified), go to an Internet cafe (even easier to judge age), or most likely, their parents allow them access, in which case it's no different to allowing their children access to anything else that the Government might deem "adult" - at the end of the day, it's the parents' choice. We don't criminalise all alcohol out of fear that a child might stumble across a beer bottle - the age restrictions on purchasing it are considered sufficient, as they should be for Internet access.
Just to clarify - what you refer to is the IWF blocking system that applies to all (home and mobile) systems, covers 95% of users. It cannot be removed by the user, and as you note, the Government have pressured ISPs to do this, and it's all rather worrying.
But this article is about a separate system. It covers a much wide range of material, but the upside is you can remove it. It's unclear if the IWF have any connection to this.
Another difference is that this system evidently tells the user, where as the IWF system fakes a 404 on most ISPs.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to be kidding.
It's not known if the Universe is infinite or not (I'm not sure what you mean by "partially infinite").
Even if it is, the article is "hundreds in the Milky Way", not "hundreds in the Universe". I am not aware that the number of observed candidates for black holes in our galaxy numbers in the hundreds, so this would still seem newsworthy.
The OP gave a list of features. The Iphone, like many other phones, does many of these features, but also misses out many significant features. That is why he said that no phone came close to achieving all of these features.
The very same post then listed which features the Iphone lacked, clearly indicating that the OP was well aware of which features the Iphone missed. And then you come in, quibbling over subjective interpretations of "come close". Given that the OP was talking about features about what he wanted in his phone, I think I'll trust his opinion of what he considers comes close for his needs, than some random other person.
The same could be said of any phone, but of course, trust Iphone fans to take it as a personal attack on their product...
No, you might as well not claim that, because it would be silly.
WTH? It's okay to claim it for the Iphone, but not other phones? My phone does all of these features, except some significant ones that it misses. I think some of the ones that the Iphone misses are at least as significant. More to the point, there are plenty of modern phones out there way better than my phone, that aren't the Iphone, and also stand as perfectly good examples that we could apply your "But but, it does all of them ... except for the things it doesn't" argument to. Clearly, some phones do some things, whilst other phones do other things - and no phones do all of these things, which was the whole point of the OP. Most people don't find that so difficult to understand.
Indeed - and there's more to it. Even if they read it, keeping track of things like download usage is hard for the user (but evidently easier for the ISP to do - so why not simply restrict rather than taking the opportunity to "fine"?) Contracts are not enforceable simply upon signing it - the person must have reasonably been aware of the costs, and the costs imposed must be reasonable. They don't get to charge you a million quid, even if someone signed it.
I'm not sure why you write as if it's the consumer being unreasonable - if the company advertises "unlimited", but then can't actually offer what it advertised, that's tough and I have no symapthy for their whining.
And whilst a company can charge rates if it advertises up front, that doesn't mean it gets to arbitrarily charge fines (or otherwise hidden costs). The company does not make the law.
If people go over what they're allowed, then the company can always block access for the rest of that month. If they allow the customer that access, I don't see how a "fine" is reasonable or meaningful.
You may be joking, but it's a valid point: comparing religious belief to things like believing in unicorns and fairies is something that in my experience makes religious people very angry (and it evidently annoyed at least one moderator, who has now unfairly modded the OP as a troll), yet surely they are the ones ridiculing those who believe in fairies? People with such beliefs do exist after all - it's not clear to me why religious people should be offended by a comparison to fairy-believers, any more so than a fairy believer might be offended at being compared to religious people.
Well indeed - just as I would also oppose discrimination against people with mental illnesses such as hearing voices or obsessively believing bad things will happen to them.
How are these design issues? These are software issues,
Software isn't design?
and some of them will be fixed soon.
I'm sure that all phones will get better with time. He's presumably talking about what's on the market now, not what might be in years to come.
Do you really need multiple codecs on your phone?
Do you really need a web browser, touch screen, GPS or anything else like that on your phone? No. But presumably he wants multiple codecs on his phone, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it.
It is quite standard to convert content to fit on the phones screen better, and make it more playable.
For audio? (And presumably the main advantage for doing this for video would be to just reduce the file size, I don't see how it would "fit" better when it's going to be rescaled, I hope? What does "more playable" mean?)
Actually, the iPhone has all of those except tactile keyboard, copy/paste, tethering, MMS, and Ogg support.
So the Iphone has all of those, except the ones it doesn't? Thank you Captain Obvious, I think that was the point he was making - it's not like those are trivial irrelevant features. (Did they finally add video recording? What about Flash, and the ability to "add in software from any source" without hacking the product?)
In fact, let's recheck the OP where he says:
The iPhone is a great phone, but it has the stupidest design issues such as the lack of basic features like MMS, copy/paste, multiple codecs for audio and video (OGG is a no brainer), lack of Flash along with usability issues such as the application "approval" process and the lack of a decent camera (with no zoom or video recording features).
So your point is?
I might as well claim that my Motorola V980 does all of those, except full keyboard and touchscreen, high resolution camera, bluetooth, GPS, Flash, OGG, and USB port.
If you count the upcoming release of the iPhone OS, you'll only be missing a tactile keyboard and Ogg support.
Newsflash: phones get better with time. I'm sure that future planned releases from Nokia etc will cover more of these features too.
Seriously, why do people get so hung up on Ogg support?
It's the other things I care about. It would seem odd that I upgrade from a 5 year old phone, spend out large amounts of money for a high end product (and get locked into a contract - usually phones are free when you are on contract), only to then miss out features that my old phone have. Can't I have a phone that does all I want? That was the OP's point, saying "But this phone does all that, except the things it doesn't" shows a serious misuse of the word "all".
The problem is that discrimination is more likely to be the other way round - religious organisations discriminating against people who believe in a different kind of green monkey, or even against those of us who don't believe in such things at all. I'm not sure there's much evidence that atheists would discriminate against someone just for listing a religion on their Facebook profile (and even if they did - in countries like the US where the overwhelming majority are religious, discrimination from other religious people is still going to be the bigger problem).
So whilst it may be a valid argument to say that religious discrimination laws don't make sense, I'm still glad we have them.
In fact, recently when laws against religious discrimination were proposed in the UK, it was the Christian organisations who opposed, because they wanted the right to discriminate against non-Christians (even if it wasn't relevant for the job - e.g., a schoolteacher wanting to work at a religiously-owned school). The law was passed in the end, but there is concern over exceptions granted for "faith-based employers" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3252700.stm ).
(Also I would still argue that we should be wary of discrimination based on mental illness, when the person can still do the job.)
At some point we hit a point of diminishing returns on better graphics units... the human eye can only distinguish so much.
Sure, but we're a long way off from that yet.
(Your third paragraph is a separate issue - yes, some people are happy with space-invader graphics, but that obviously isn't to do with how much the human eye can distinguish.)
Google hit number 1 is the company itself.
Google hit number 2 is Wikipedia, which explains it as well as anyone could have done in the summary.
Then there are links to news articles, explaining recent controversy over it.
I know that RTFA (which would also have answered your question) is unfashionable here on Slashdot, but I'm wondering what your problem was with this Google search...
So another company/person will be able to host a book that Google decides not to? Isn't that part of what this issue is about, after all - the fact that they won't be able to?
Firstly no one is claiming what they are doing is illegal, so your point is a straw man based on misunderstanding what censorship means. Legal censorship is still censorship.
However, the problem here is (AIUI) that other people will not be allowed to host the content that Google decide not to. What was that about "they have the right to host whatever content they feel like"? The problem is, they don't. And what entity will enforce laws that prevent them? The Government. I'm not saying that copyright laws are wrong, but the point is that Google would be able to censor information, and the ability to prevent others from publishing that information being backed by the Government.
Yes, obviously we should trust a quick biased anecdotal summary of a random person's University campus rather than a widespread survey(!)
There's no way, and I mean absolutely no way, that number is true for laptop users.
It's unclear to me if you are really lacking in an understanding of basic statistics here or not. There is no reason to think that your quick "survey" is in any way representative. The two most obvious problems are that it only covers laptops, and only covers University students.
Are you seriously suggesting that OS X is outdoing Vista by 3 to 1? That's ludicrous.
Having done some support work against Vista, I can understand why too. I think Vista means Popup Window in Latin. It is by far the most annoying end user OS ever, secure or not.
And you can blame Apple and its users for this. After all the people who whined because Windows let you do things automatically, whilst Macs asked for permission. Yet strangely, now that Microsoft asks for permission, that's wrong too, and Apple is suddenly magically better. Which is it? If Apple ask for permission, it's no different, and if not, it's insecure, by their own logic.
Either way, some proper research from a reputable scientist that isn't setting out to disprove psychic abilities, just wants to see if anything is happenin, would be really nice.
Yes, it's strange that despite all the alleged uncited examples you give of people who are apparently "too good" at predictions, this is never shown to work in repeatable scientific test conditions.
So while in a pub you will have people spewing theories, it will stay in the pub. Whereas on the Internet, a friend copies a friend, copies a friend and at the end we have the entire world believing things will come to an end.
There's no difference at all - the people who hear it in the pub will tell their friends, no different to on the Internet. Why would there be any difference? Worse, in real life it's easier for information to change as a form of chinese whispers, where as at least a copy and paste is unaltered.
There are also other odd situations in real life, such as A tells person B some rumour, then later person B says back to A how he also heard this rumour from someone. Person A thinks that this is more evidence for the rumour, even though person B might only be remembering what he heard from A in the first place!
The Internet has made improvements in that it's also much easier to look up citations, or to double-check facts (sure, a lot of email-forwarders don't, but for those who do, it's easier). When I now have conversations in real life, I have a nagging doubt whenever I say things like "Some people think ..." - it's the Internet that has encouraged the practice of supporting statements like that, where as in real life not only is this never done, most people never even think anything problematic about it.
I can see the problem with Twitter is that it's harder to double check or cite sources in that medium. The main problem compared with real life is probably the number of people you can reach - the number of people reading your Twitter posts is probably higher than the number you'd be talking to in a pub.
Do you have a real source? Wikipedia is not the most reliable source.
Except that Wikipedia cites "Patterson, KD; Pyle GF (Spring 1991). "The geography and mortality of the 1918 influenza pandemic". Bull Hist Med. 65 (1): 421. PMID 2021692."
Whether you consider that to be a real source is up to you, but there's no issue of unreliability from Wikipedia's point of view.
Someone should try that the next time the RIAA sues - "I was asking people to send me copies of their mp3 files, so I could check if they'd plagiarised the tunes or not".
Given how much plagiarism and repetition there is in the Top 40, they'd probably find quite a lot!
Running in a webpage certainly has its advantages - mostly, I think that people are more likely to try it. But:
You don't have to bother about with unpacking zip files, rpm's, tar's, .run files, especially when you don't have admin permissions on the host machine.
You still have to worry about permissions with a web based application (e.g., on Java I remember running into troubles having to sign applets to do certain things).
Also, you won't start up your application one day, and read the message "This version is no longer supported. Please exit and upgrade to uber-version X.Y.Z".
Isn't this much more a problem with web applications? If I download a native application, I can run it for as long as my hardware still runs, except for the minor exception of cripple/share/trialware.
But for web applications, it's only there for as long as the web host chooses to host the application.
Indeed :)
And supporters of the law even openly admit this - lobbyist Liz Longhurst (who was basically propped up by the Government as their emotional figurehead for this law) stated:
"The law is the start of good things, but I think it will be difficult to enforce. But I want the legislation on the books even though it might be difficult to enforce. Whine Whine Whine"
According to the summary, "users who attempt to access the ... site are met with a 'content blocked' message."
This isn't like the regular IWF blacklist of child porn, which is kept secret for good reasons
You're conflating two things - it's perfectly possible to display a "this site has been blocked" message when you try to access a given site, without publicising the list.
It's in the ISPs' best interest to be honest about what they're doing here; people who can't reach legal content have a legitimate complaint, which obviously doesn't apply in the case of child porn
Unfortunately, as shown by the recent Wikipedia episode, their "child porn" definitions (which is actually "potentially illegal child porn") can cover legal images too, or even clearly legal text (they blocked text, but were incapable of blocking the image itself, suggesting that the blocking system is fundamentally broken).
And yes, we were talking about the IWF list :)
Do a lot of people 17 and under have credit cards, their own laptop and a G3 card + service?
And if they had a credit card, they couldn't simply opt out of the service anyway, making it pointless.
I agree with what you say, and it applies to "But think of the children!" arguments to the Internet in general. It's not like a child can accidently stumble across Internet connections without people noticing. They either have to sign up to an ISP (age can be verified), go to an Internet cafe (even easier to judge age), or most likely, their parents allow them access, in which case it's no different to allowing their children access to anything else that the Government might deem "adult" - at the end of the day, it's the parents' choice. We don't criminalise all alcohol out of fear that a child might stumble across a beer bottle - the age restrictions on purchasing it are considered sufficient, as they should be for Internet access.
BT have blocked BT. Isn't it clear?
Just to clarify - what you refer to is the IWF blocking system that applies to all (home and mobile) systems, covers 95% of users. It cannot be removed by the user, and as you note, the Government have pressured ISPs to do this, and it's all rather worrying.
But this article is about a separate system. It covers a much wide range of material, but the upside is you can remove it. It's unclear if the IWF have any connection to this.
Another difference is that this system evidently tells the user, where as the IWF system fakes a 404 on most ISPs.