This will sound odd, but try a VPN over the same connection.
I found my ISP was slowing down all traffic, apart from to speedtest.net and other speed testing sites.
However, they were not slowing down VPN traffic.
After running all my traffic for a month over a VPN, my speeds were 10x faster and not slowing down at peak times.
Then I received a call from my ISP kindly asking me to leave. I'm now with a decent ISP.
Same here. I don't think it's foolhardy to have a tiny bit of hope though, however small.
They recently delayed Tax Credit cuts, rejected the Section 5 of the Public Order Act, and some controversial plans on Trade Union changes and Child Refugees.
I'm not quite sure what's going on.
Other email providers exist, which ones do we force or ask to scan all their documents?
Do we force companies to scan theirs too?
Get developers to add backdoors scanners to all their software?
This isn't a new problem.
Even though it's hypothetical, it's still dumb.
Not only that, but you should be able to demonstrate you could write the code, and explain that this was a while ago and has gone through many revisions.
This has happened to me on many occasions doing contract work - and has never been an issue. My name is not always publicly displayed on my code.
If your new potential employer refuses to understand that, then the trust between you and your new employer has already broken down - I would recommend not working for them.
This and absolutely this.
If you have explained that you've worked on behalf of another company and that they have changed the author, and they don't believe you - then the trust has already broken down with your new potential employer. Cut your losses with the new employer, but keep the work on record - and in future explain the work you've done rather than relying on your name being in the code.
If your new employer doesn't believe you now, and don't understand that this happens - why would you want to work for them?
From many years of contract experience, I've found this to be the best solution.
This was a few years ago now, and was an AMD Athlon 64, so I was getting less than my screen refresh rate under Windows XP. Not all of us run gaming hardware!
Second time I've seen that link in this same article. I am absolutely sick of seeing it - there's a *few* errors in it. For example:
Operators are very fragile in the parser; foo()[0] and foo()->method() are both syntax errors. The former is allegedly fixed in PHP 5.4, but I can’t find mention of a fix for the latter.
The latter doesn't need a fix because it always worked. Honestly, how hard is it to test that foo()->method() works?
Objects compare as greater than anything else except other objects, which they are neither less than nor greater than.
Strict-equals on objects compares the references; but regular equals compares the contents of the objects. Two objects compare equal if the contain exactly the same fields and values. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
is always addition, and . is always concatenation.
This is a good thing; JavaScript gets this wrong.
There is no way to declare a variable. Variables that don’t exist are created with a null value when first used.
Variables that don't exist issue a notice. You can deal with that just like any other error.
Global variables need a global declaration before they can be used.
Actually there is also the $GLOBALS array for this. I'll agree that's not much a solution. Globals should just not be used; if you want to use static class variables, it's a much better choice with a sane syntax.
there’s no pass-by-object identity like in Python.
I'm not sure if I understand this but all objects are passed-by-reference in PHP (since 5) and PHP references act appropriately when used as function parameters, etc.
A reference can be taken to a key that doesn’t exist within an undefined variable (which becomes an array). Using a non-existent array normally issues a notice, but this does not.
An attempt to use the reference will result in a notice but isset() and empty() operate it on it correctly.
Constants are defined by a function call taking a string; before that, they don’t exist.
You can declare constants in classes and namespaces with the const keyword.
There’s an (array) operator for casting to array. Given that PHP has no other structure type, I don’t know why this exists.
You can cast scalars to single element arrays and objects to arrays with the same structure. Both are actually very useful.
include() and friends are basically C’s #include: they dump another source file into yours. There is no module system, even for PHP code.
PHP is interpreted -- namespaces and autoloaders are PHP's module system.
Appending to an array is done with $foo[] = $bar
This is a good thing.
empty($var) is so extremely not-a-function that anything but a variable,
Empty is equivalent to the not operator but will also work on undefined variables -- that's why it requires a variable.
There’s redundant syntax for blocks: if (...):... endif;, etc.
Useful inside of templates where matching { } is much more difficult.
PHP’s one unique operator is @ (actually borrowed from DOS), which silences errors.
Sometimes you don't care if a function succeeds; like with the unlink() function which will raise an error if the file you're trying to delete doesn't exist.
I too could spend the time writing several paragraphs explaining in detail why this article is incorrect and the misunderstandings and misapprehensions the author is under. I'm fed up of seeing this propaganda going unargued.
Operators are very fragile in the parser; foo()[0] and foo()->method() are both syntax errors. The former is allegedly fixed in PHP 5.4, but I can’t find mention of a fix for the latter.
The latter doesn't need a fix because it always worked. Honestly, how hard is it to test that foo()->method() works?
Objects compare as greater than anything else except other objects, which they are neither less than nor greater than.
Strict-equals on objects compares the references; but regular equals compares the contents of the objects. Two objects compare equal if the contain exactly the same fields and values. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
is always addition, and . is always concatenation.
This is a good thing; JavaScript gets this wrong.
There is no way to declare a variable. Variables that don’t exist are created with a null value when first used.
Variables that don't exist issue a notice. You can deal with that just like any other error.
Global variables need a global declaration before they can be used.
Actually there is also the $GLOBALS array for this. I'll agree that's not much a solution. Globals should just not be used; if you want to use static class variables, it's a much better choice with a sane syntax.
there’s no pass-by-object identity like in Python.
I'm not sure if I understand this but all objects are passed-by-reference in PHP (since 5) and PHP references act appropriately when used as function parameters, etc.
A reference can be taken to a key that doesn’t exist within an undefined variable (which becomes an array). Using a non-existent array normally issues a notice, but this does not.
An attempt to use the reference will result in a notice but isset() and empty() operate it on it correctly.
Constants are defined by a function call taking a string; before that, they don’t exist.
You can declare constants in classes and namespaces with the const keyword.
There’s an (array) operator for casting to array. Given that PHP has no other structure type, I don’t know why this exists.
You can cast scalars to single element arrays and objects to arrays with the same structure. Both are actually very useful.
include() and friends are basically C’s #include: they dump another source file into yours. There is no module system, even for PHP code.
PHP is interpreted -- namespaces and autoloaders are PHP's module system.
Appending to an array is done with $foo[] = $bar
This is a good thing.
empty($var) is so extremely not-a-function that anything but a variable,
Empty is equivalent to the not operator but will also work on undefined variables -- that's why it requires a variable.
There’s redundant syntax for blocks: if (...):... endif;, etc.
Useful inside of templates where matching { } is much more difficult.
PHP’s one unique operator is @ (actually borrowed from DOS), which silences errors.
You may think that it is some grand anti-piracy conspiracy, but Microsoft is right. TPB is infested with torrents that contain malware. There are people who use it to spread viruses and malware. It makes sense too - it's quite easy method to infect peoples computers.
Google is also infested with sites that contain malware. There are people who use it to spread viruses and malware. It makes sense too - it's quite easy method to infect peoples computers.
It contains a lot more viruses than TPB ever could.
Facebook has said its users should only have one account per physical human being, and if it catches people using two accounts it will delete one of them.
The peeple making the emergency calls may not necessarily be on the bus, just within range of the jammer. For example, maybe the bus is stuck in traffic due to an accident and people outside are trying to make emergency cals.
So your best reason against cellphone jammers is that there "might be someone near a bus who needs to make a call"?
I'm not singling you out personally here, but you've entirely missed the point and just replied blindly without reading the parent comments.
I said I personally think jammers are a terrible idea under any circumstance, but some of the scenarios people are using for justification against them are insane. There's far better arguments against them.
There's plenty of reasons to ban them; but no-one seems to be following the thread and instead arguing that they should be banned just because "someone might need to make a 911 call while someone drives past with a jammer switched on who might be a part time vet who needs to visit a Corgi with a chest infection"?
I think he was leaping ahead by assuming that if someone was assaulted, had a seizure, needed a cop or paramedic, it wouldn't be secret information.
The guy jamming the signal would know about it as well and shut off his jammer.
Thank you for being the only person who replied who got this! It seems very few people read the thread anymore.
I personally think jammers are a terrible idea under any circumstance, but some of the scenarios people are using for justification against them are insane.
There's plenty of reasons to ban them; but because "someone might need to make a 911 call on a bus"?... bloody hell.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you assume that the current speed will be maintained?
Newton's first law?
It was Eclipse Internet. They don't really seem to exist any more and are part of KCOM.
Before that, I had a similar problem with O2 Broadband, and they went the same way.
This will sound odd, but try a VPN over the same connection.
I found my ISP was slowing down all traffic, apart from to speedtest.net and other speed testing sites.
However, they were not slowing down VPN traffic.
After running all my traffic for a month over a VPN, my speeds were 10x faster and not slowing down at peak times.
Then I received a call from my ISP kindly asking me to leave. I'm now with a decent ISP.
That's bullshit! Reveton back in 2012 used to demand Ukash or Paysafecard.
Yeah, that name will be changing.
BT (British Telecom) in the UK already make a Home Hub.
Also "Home Hub" is allegedly already trademarked by Apple.
Same here. I don't think it's foolhardy to have a tiny bit of hope though, however small. They recently delayed Tax Credit cuts, rejected the Section 5 of the Public Order Act, and some controversial plans on Trade Union changes and Child Refugees. I'm not quite sure what's going on.
This isn't law yet.
It has been passed, but it can still be pushed back by the House of Lords.
The Register has a more informative, but shorter article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Other email providers exist, which ones do we force or ask to scan all their documents?
Do we force companies to scan theirs too?
Get developers to add backdoors scanners to all their software?
This isn't a new problem.
Even though it's hypothetical, it's still dumb.
This is certainly the best solution.
Not only that, but you should be able to demonstrate you could write the code, and explain that this was a while ago and has gone through many revisions.
This has happened to me on many occasions doing contract work - and has never been an issue. My name is not always publicly displayed on my code.
If your new potential employer refuses to understand that, then the trust between you and your new employer has already broken down - I would recommend not working for them.
This and absolutely this. If you have explained that you've worked on behalf of another company and that they have changed the author, and they don't believe you - then the trust has already broken down with your new potential employer. Cut your losses with the new employer, but keep the work on record - and in future explain the work you've done rather than relying on your name being in the code. If your new employer doesn't believe you now, and don't understand that this happens - why would you want to work for them? From many years of contract experience, I've found this to be the best solution.
I have, and I still do. If you think I'm lying, try it yourself; anonymous coward.
This was a few years ago now, and was an AMD Athlon 64, so I was getting less than my screen refresh rate under Windows XP. Not all of us run gaming hardware!
Thanks :) Going by the other replies, it seems like I already have...
It runs better under Linux, i.e. at a higher framerate. Sorry for not clarifying that.
The thing I found weird about this, is I've been running Portal in Wine for ages, and it seems to run better than it does under Windows!
...and Webkit has a terrible rendering engine. Sounds like an appropriate combination.
Second time I've seen that link in this same article. I am absolutely sick of seeing it - there's a *few* errors in it. For example:
The latter doesn't need a fix because it always worked. Honestly, how hard is it to test that foo()->method() works?
Strict-equals on objects compares the references; but regular equals compares the contents of the objects. Two objects compare equal if the contain exactly the same fields and values. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
This is a good thing; JavaScript gets this wrong.
Variables that don't exist issue a notice. You can deal with that just like any other error.
Actually there is also the $GLOBALS array for this. I'll agree that's not much a solution. Globals should just not be used; if you want to use static class variables, it's a much better choice with a sane syntax.
I'm not sure if I understand this but all objects are passed-by-reference in PHP (since 5) and PHP references act appropriately when used as function parameters, etc.
An attempt to use the reference will result in a notice but isset() and empty() operate it on it correctly.
You can declare constants in classes and namespaces with the const keyword.
You can cast scalars to single element arrays and objects to arrays with the same structure. Both are actually very useful.
PHP is interpreted -- namespaces and autoloaders are PHP's module system.
This is a good thing.
Empty is equivalent to the not operator but will also work on undefined variables -- that's why it requires a variable.
Useful inside of templates where matching { } is much more difficult.
Sometimes you don't care if a function succeeds; like with the unlink() function which will raise an error if the file you're trying to delete doesn't exist.
Thankfully, someone has already detailed this for me:
When they tried to bury him, apparently the coffin has broken - the lid has come off,
In his honour it has been sellotaped back on.
Do you think they've tried turning his batteries round and smacking him against the coffee table?
It would be really difficult to structure a tax with the incidence falling solely on setups like the one Amazon has here.
It's not just Amazon - Google and eBay are doing exactly the same thing.
You may think that it is some grand anti-piracy conspiracy, but Microsoft is right. TPB is infested with torrents that contain malware. There are people who use it to spread viruses and malware. It makes sense too - it's quite easy method to infect peoples computers.
Google is also infested with sites that contain malware. There are people who use it to spread viruses and malware. It makes sense too - it's quite easy method to infect peoples computers.
It contains a lot more viruses than TPB ever could.
Should Google be blocked too?
Facebook has said its users should only have one account per physical human being, and if it catches people using two accounts it will delete one of them.
They'll delete him? That's murder!
The peeple making the emergency calls may not necessarily be on the bus, just within range of the jammer. For example, maybe the bus is stuck in traffic due to an accident and people outside are trying to make emergency cals.
So your best reason against cellphone jammers is that there "might be someone near a bus who needs to make a call"?
I'm not singling you out personally here, but you've entirely missed the point and just replied blindly without reading the parent comments.
I said I personally think jammers are a terrible idea under any circumstance, but some of the scenarios people are using for justification against them are insane. There's far better arguments against them.
There's plenty of reasons to ban them; but no-one seems to be following the thread and instead arguing that they should be banned just because
"someone might need to make a 911 call while someone drives past with a jammer switched on who might be a part time vet who needs to visit a Corgi with a chest infection"?
I don't think that's a very substantial argument.
I think he was leaping ahead by assuming that if someone was assaulted, had a seizure, needed a cop or paramedic, it wouldn't be secret information.
The guy jamming the signal would know about it as well and shut off his jammer.
Thank you for being the only person who replied who got this! It seems very few people read the thread anymore.
I personally think jammers are a terrible idea under any circumstance, but some of the scenarios people are using for justification against them are insane.
There's plenty of reasons to ban them; but because "someone might need to make a 911 call on a bus"?... bloody hell.