Yes indeed they did, and apparently they're into mascara, lipstick and eyeliner as well, with just a hint of blush. Of course, you need a good foundation.
The issue isn't about whether someone can get the money to pay for it. The issue is that the government is making a lot of money selling the spectrum, and part of it was to compensate people for the costs imposed on them.
Who will immediately re-compensate the wireless providers who purchased that spectrum by paying higher prices. It's not like we're getting anything for free, you know.
So just because someone hasn't stolen the OP's mail yet, doesn't actually mean it is safe.
I didn't mean to imply that it was... obviously, the fact that we make interfering with the post a serious crime indicates that it is a potential problem. I'm just saying that I don't believe that extending those same standards to the Internet is automatically a good idea.
Anyone can steal mail from my mailbox, there is no lock. But people don't. Let's see how we can create similar principles for digital information.
Principles, hell. If you're in the U.S., the reason people don't steal your mail is because a. they probably don't give a damn and b. interfering with the mail is a felony. No real principles involved there: it's just that nobody wants to go to jail for reading someone else's junk mail. I'm not really sure that reading someone's email should invoke the same sort of penalties.
WIRED credibility is seriously called into question by such blatant errors which articles source denies.
WIRED credibility? I don't want to be disrespectful, but do people take WIRED seriously as a news source? I always thought it was just hundreds of pages of ads with a few fillers here and there masquerading as articles.
To be sure, they didn't invent it, they were just particularly blatant about it. PC Magazine & others have done it before, but at least they tried the "comparo"-style fillers to attract readers and create a pretense of content. WIRED never bothered to go to such lengths. To quote WIRED is a bit like using one of those supermarket stand recycled-paper car trader brochures as a source of auto industry news.
Wired is just about as accurate and trustworthy as The Onion, I think... only not so entertaining.
I mostly agree with you, but the furor, if any, should be about the fact that it's yet again another example of yellow journalism. We get enough slanted reporting in the political media as it is; it's all the more absurd that the same tactics and biased reporting occurs over a phone.
Yellow, slanted journalism? What do you have against the Japanese anyway?
I have been there. I never saw any cultural opposition at all. The iPod was popular there, mcdonalds is pretty popular (and has some cool exclusive menu items), several english books were recently translated into Japanese and were very popular. Hollywood movies can perform well in Japanese box office. MLB seems to be more popular there than here. I think really the Japanese applaud things that are new or that fit the attributes they want. Where it comes from isn't that important.
We just like playing a xenophobe card everytime the iPhone doesn't do well because it lacks features the Japanese want, or when the Xbox and 360 sell poorly because it lacks the kinds of titles the Japanese like best. It strikes me as extremely arrogant to complain that the only reason a product designed by the mighty Americans isn't selling MUST be because of xenophobia and couldn't be because they just don't WANT it.
Wrong. You're focusing solely on luxury consumer goods, which is a mistake and not all that relevant to a major industrial economy.
There's trillions of dollars of industrial trade in other areas (machine tools, heavy equipment, construction materials, textiles, food, etc.) that are far more important to a successful economy and overall quality of life than iPhones, iPods, big screen TVs or anything like that. They're also things that the Japanese are heavily invested in, and very good at producing. The reality is that the Japanese do not easily grant outsiders access to their important domestic markets, because they would risk those industries. Unlike, for example, the United States, which foolishly allowed Japan to decimate its electronics manufacturing sector from top to bottom. We've been trying for decades to get the Japanese government to open up some of those markets to foreign competition (namely us), but they're very reluctant to do so.
Just goes to show that some people are too smart to fall for the whole "free trade" crap that's been foisted on us. The Japanese deal in the global economy all right, but they do it on their terms. Gotta give 'em credit for that.
Really people, stop bitching, and start encrypting everything
That only works until the mere presence of encryption (or any dataset that merely appears to be encrypted) is criminalized to a high degree. They'll do whatever they can to make the average citizen perceive encryption as too risky.
A few examples he's selectively remembered (Metallica, Dr. Dre, Madonna and others are either forgotten or regarded as idiots) constitute the "majority of serious artists",
What examples? Neither Dr. Dre, Madonna or any "others" were specifically mentioned in theheadlessrabitt's post. Not sure where you got that from. Matter of fact, I took his point to mean that "serious" artists are more interested in their contribution to society, than in allowing obsolescent parasites to endlessly profit from their creativity and hard work. Even if you want to put this into simple financial terms, you'll probably have better luck earning an honest living in the Internet Age if you don't sign with a major label.
This is an older article, but Janis Ian certainly qualifies as a longtime industry insider, and she really takes the content cartel to task.
Dude, a. it was a joke, and b. I included a link to a detailed history of the entire offensive. I figure that would forestall any attempts at pedantry, but I see I was wrong.
If they added a browser-like address bar where you could type in the path to a particular spot, than maybe. If said address bar did tab-completion like a good shell, than "yes". If the search function used an index instead of what appears to be a sequential scan of the whole registry, then hell yes.
But really, I rarely have to muck in the registry.
Couldn't agree more, and it's odd that given Microsoft's dependence upon the registry that they haven't really improved their primary management tool for the past fifteen years.
Unfortunately, as a Windows dev I spend too much time mucking about in the registry. It's a pain in the ass. It also annoys me that no matter how fast my machine, regedit always seems to take the same amount of time to search for something.
Slashdot Mirror
inux isn't popular because it's a fad. It's popular because it's a successful alternative that doesn't allow remote control by the bad guys.
Neither does Windows if you have a clue. The problem is, most users don't.
Symantec did just outsource a bunch of their support. I wonder if they'll reconsider the move.
Not unless it begins to affect their bottom line sufficiently to offset the savings they think they're getting by outsourcing in the first place.
People still get malware, and still use Symantec products?
No, people still buy the malware called Symantec Antivirus.
They just went rouge?
Yes indeed they did, and apparently they're into mascara, lipstick and eyeliner as well, with just a hint of blush. Of course, you need a good foundation.
The issue isn't about whether someone can get the money to pay for it. The issue is that the government is making a lot of money selling the spectrum, and part of it was to compensate people for the costs imposed on them.
Who will immediately re-compensate the wireless providers who purchased that spectrum by paying higher prices. It's not like we're getting anything for free, you know.
"Steve Austin, a man barely alive ... we have the technology, we can rebuild him."
So just because someone hasn't stolen the OP's mail yet, doesn't actually mean it is safe.
I didn't mean to imply that it was ... obviously, the fact that we make interfering with the post a serious crime indicates that it is a potential problem. I'm just saying that I don't believe that extending those same standards to the Internet is automatically a good idea.
a bastard-child of Twitter and YouTube
YouTwit? Twitube?
Anyone can steal mail from my mailbox, there is no lock. But people don't. Let's see how we can create similar principles for digital information.
Principles, hell. If you're in the U.S., the reason people don't steal your mail is because a. they probably don't give a damn and b. interfering with the mail is a felony. No real principles involved there: it's just that nobody wants to go to jail for reading someone else's junk mail. I'm not really sure that reading someone's email should invoke the same sort of penalties.
Dreamweaver Is Dying
As Richter said in Total Recall: "About damn time."
Andy Richter was in Total Recall?
Man, I gotta watch that movie again...
Well, I've noticed that in a certain light from just the right angle, Michael Ironside is a dead ringer for Andy Richter.
Dreamweaver Is Dying
As Richter said in Total Recall: "About damn time."
WIRED credibility? I don't want to be disrespectful, but do people take WIRED seriously as a news source? I always thought it was just hundreds of pages of ads with a few fillers here and there masquerading as articles.
To be sure, they didn't invent it, they were just particularly blatant about it. PC Magazine & others have done it before, but at least they tried the "comparo"-style fillers to attract readers and create a pretense of content. WIRED never bothered to go to such lengths. To quote WIRED is a bit like using one of those supermarket stand recycled-paper car trader brochures as a source of auto industry news.
Wired is just about as accurate and trustworthy as The Onion, I think ... only not so entertaining.
I mostly agree with you, but the furor, if any, should be about the fact that it's yet again another example of yellow journalism. We get enough slanted reporting in the political media as it is; it's all the more absurd that the same tactics and biased reporting occurs over a phone.
Yellow, slanted journalism? What do you have against the Japanese anyway?
You are assuming BIGGER is better.
It is. Just ask any man. Women often feel differently however.
I have been there. I never saw any cultural opposition at all. The iPod was popular there, mcdonalds is pretty popular (and has some cool exclusive menu items), several english books were recently translated into Japanese and were very popular. Hollywood movies can perform well in Japanese box office. MLB seems to be more popular there than here. I think really the Japanese applaud things that are new or that fit the attributes they want. Where it comes from isn't that important. We just like playing a xenophobe card everytime the iPhone doesn't do well because it lacks features the Japanese want, or when the Xbox and 360 sell poorly because it lacks the kinds of titles the Japanese like best. It strikes me as extremely arrogant to complain that the only reason a product designed by the mighty Americans isn't selling MUST be because of xenophobia and couldn't be because they just don't WANT it.
Wrong. You're focusing solely on luxury consumer goods, which is a mistake and not all that relevant to a major industrial economy.
There's trillions of dollars of industrial trade in other areas (machine tools, heavy equipment, construction materials, textiles, food, etc.) that are far more important to a successful economy and overall quality of life than iPhones, iPods, big screen TVs or anything like that. They're also things that the Japanese are heavily invested in, and very good at producing. The reality is that the Japanese do not easily grant outsiders access to their important domestic markets, because they would risk those industries. Unlike, for example, the United States, which foolishly allowed Japan to decimate its electronics manufacturing sector from top to bottom. We've been trying for decades to get the Japanese government to open up some of those markets to foreign competition (namely us), but they're very reluctant to do so.
Just goes to show that some people are too smart to fall for the whole "free trade" crap that's been foisted on us. The Japanese deal in the global economy all right, but they do it on their terms. Gotta give 'em credit for that.
Maybe the mouse has a button shortage. It's not politically correct to make fun of the button deficient.
Actually, I was poking fun at the individual driving the mouse.
Nice fog, er I mean fud.
Fortunately, there is a cure for ignorance, but I can't force it on you.
Also you should investigate your keyboard it seems to be broken.
Nah ... it's a mouse driver problem.
it's the incompetent organic mass between the keyboard and the chair.
Or as Arthur C. Clarke once put it, "radiation-sensitive bundles of unstable carbon compounds."
And if I ever figure out who the hell ers4634 is, they'll truly know what it means to be excetuted. Bastard.
I still can't stop laughing at this one. "Excetuted". +5 Fucking Priceless.
... it'd be coming out of my nose right about now.
Damn I'm glad I just finished that Pepsi
Really people, stop bitching, and start encrypting everything
That only works until the mere presence of encryption (or any dataset that merely appears to be encrypted) is criminalized to a high degree. They'll do whatever they can to make the average citizen perceive encryption as too risky.
what credible threats to the life and liberty of the UK citizenry could possibly justify this?
A few examples he's selectively remembered (Metallica, Dr. Dre, Madonna and others are either forgotten or regarded as idiots) constitute the "majority of serious artists",
What examples? Neither Dr. Dre, Madonna or any "others" were specifically mentioned in theheadlessrabitt's post. Not sure where you got that from. Matter of fact, I took his point to mean that "serious" artists are more interested in their contribution to society, than in allowing obsolescent parasites to endlessly profit from their creativity and hard work. Even if you want to put this into simple financial terms, you'll probably have better luck earning an honest living in the Internet Age if you don't sign with a major label.
This is an older article, but Janis Ian certainly qualifies as a longtime industry insider, and she really takes the content cartel to task.
Don't mean to get pedantic, but you asked for it.
Dude, a. it was a joke, and b. I included a link to a detailed history of the entire offensive. I figure that would forestall any attempts at pedantry, but I see I was wrong.
If they added a browser-like address bar where you could type in the path to a particular spot, than maybe. If said address bar did tab-completion like a good shell, than "yes". If the search function used an index instead of what appears to be a sequential scan of the whole registry, then hell yes.
But really, I rarely have to muck in the registry.
Couldn't agree more, and it's odd that given Microsoft's dependence upon the registry that they haven't really improved their primary management tool for the past fifteen years.
Unfortunately, as a Windows dev I spend too much time mucking about in the registry. It's a pain in the ass. It also annoys me that no matter how fast my machine, regedit always seems to take the same amount of time to search for something.