Not so. You could alter the space-time continuum to prevent nuclear fusion from being possible. Of course, you'd shut down the sun, which could be bad, but there wouldn't be any nuclear terror. Besides, we've got enough fossil-fuels and geothermal for at least a generation, especially if we don't have to worry about global warming anymore.
I always thought throwing more resources at a software problem was as likely to slow things down as speed things up. That's what they taught me in CS207. That's what my personal experience has been. That's what dozens of software development methodologies advocate. But then again, this is Bill Gates, expert programmer, talking. Maybe I've been wrong all of these years.
> Negatives:...as President Will hit funding bind (accepted Public Funding)
No, actually, he HASN'T accepted public funding, despite his campaign's financial problems this summer. He has promised to accept public funding in the general election (in support of campaign finance reform) if the democratic nominee does as well.
So how is it they're going to figure out how much money to distribute to each copyright holder? I guess you could try some massive AI that sniffs all internet traffic, identifies copyrighted content, and tracks who's stuff is shared the most, but that would probably cost about $4.99/internet connection. Maybe they're just going to give all copyright holders the same amount. In that case, I think my parents have a wonderful recording of me singing when I was 5, which I should clearly be the copyright holder on. I can have it posted on my website (hosted in the US but accessible in Canada) in a minute or two. How do I tell the Canadian government where to send my check?
> Our only real hope at this point is that they hurry up and release Windows 7, and we can go ahead and stick Vista on the same shelf that ME is using to collect dust.
Windows 7 probably won't really be a new OS. Microsoft has really only release 4 OSs. The dozens of different names are for marketing purposes so they can make you pay again for things that should be released in service packs. - Dos/Windows 3.1/WFW - Command line OS. 3.1/WFW was a GUI add-on (If they'd stuck with that sensible model, maybe Vista wouldn't crash so much). - Windows 9x/ME - GUI becomes primary UI. This is where things start to head south. (no offense to Aussies and Kiwis) - Windows NT/2000/XP/Server 200x - Added true preemptive multi-tasking and NTFS. You shouldn't call any of these distinct OSs because there were no significant differences to OS functions, just features (AD, etc.) that they had to add to keep Linux from taking over, most of which are only useful to some small subset of users, even though all that code bloat gets shoved down everyone's throats. - Vista - Rewrite the GUI to compete with Apple. Like any new software, it's buggy as hell and crashes often. In fact, the only reason Vista deserves the status of a separate OS is BECAUSE it crashes, indicating they must have made some serious changes from the previous codebase which was finally getting pretty darn stable after about a decade.
Chances are that Windows 7 will just be another (hopefully less buggy) version of Vista. This isn't a bad thing, however, because Windows really is a pretty fully features OS. The only real OS-like thing with any sort of mass appeal that Linux does that Vista doesn't is not crash. (Xwindows still crashes from time to time, of course, but it's back in a second or so without me even pushing a button, whereas Vista starts over from the BIOS after I hold down the power button for 5 seconds.)
That's crap. Ford could easily ask them to simply sign an agreement where Ford gives them the right to use images of their Mustangs for that purpose, no fee involved. This way Ford retains it's rights to the images while the group continues to market their product for free. But they didn't. Instead they gave a cease and desist order. This is simply a case of overpaid lawyers causing trouble. They should all be fired and have their BAR licenses revoked for being asshats.
Hence why I (20 something) have just e-mailed my county commissioner to volunteer next November and asked my boss for that day off. You should all do the same. At least those of you who aren't geriatric (since they've probably already done so).
While the corporate IT department will probably never die, it will shrink. At one time, IT was as competitive advantage because it was so expensive that it didn't make sense for every company to have it. The following things are driving down the cost of IT, however: - Baby boomer's retiring. If you've got a bunch of very smart old people making 6-figure salaries, paying 1 IT guy per 10 employees isn't that expensive if that's what you need to walk them through checking their e-mail. The next generation of workers will be far more computer savvy, however, so many of the IT guys who get by on just knowing the basics will be out of a job. - Development getting easier - Languages like Java, PHP, and Ruby greatly improved development by taking care of memory management. Now if only we could get rid of HTML and Javascript as the only secure, distributed, deployment-free, cross-platform programming paradigm and replace it with something that lets you do a simple gui easily but has fully-featured GUI support, we'll need a whole lot less code jockeys. - Further standardization - There were days when an IT guy had to be able to smell the ethers, search for tokens that fell out of the ring, and know what BCD stood for. Now, if you're familiar with Ethernet and TCP/IP, you know all you need to know to run a network at just about any company. Further standardization in things like e-mail, file sharing, and other common-to-all technologies will allow IT guys to specialize in a specific technology for each task (because it's the only one anyone uses) and do more more easily, leading to a consolidation in the number of IT people any one company needs.
For example, I know of a company that just outsource Exchange to Intermedia. About 150 mailboxes at $10/ea/mo (Academic) with 4G of storage each. That $18,000/year. Assuming a minimally competent Exchange Admin makes $50,000/year, you need close to 500 users to justify not outsourcing. Granted, your Exchange admin could do other things too, but not while providing the same level of support, and e-mail really does need to be an always-on technology. And you'd need at least 2 admins locally unless you never let them go on vacation or sleep.
The point being, IT will and should shrink, but those who remain in the business will be able to do a lot more with a lot less a lot quicker and more reliably.
It's not, but only because it's illegal to sell unpasteurized milk, thereby providing an illegal, government-supported oligopoly to a few big dairies. Personally, I get unpasteurized milk from my own cow, which I purchased a share of from a local dairy. I pay them a fee to care for my cow and milk it, and I pick up the milk once a week. If you've ever tasted unpasteurized milk, you'll know that although Pasteur was well-intentioned, pasteurization is simply another tool the man uses to keep the people down.
> God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
That's actually not the case. The fortran standard states that any variable starting with one of the letters in INTEGER are integers unless explicitly declared as reals. Of course, programming without 'implicit none' is like visiting a Vegas whore house without a condom...
Ah, I remember the good ol' days when people would ask me about system requirements and I'd tell them to just ignore them because your program would run just fine anyway, and even if it was theoretically slower, you probably won't notice the different. Vista, which seems to use.5G all by its little lonesome, sure put the last nail in that coffin. I have to admit, it's plenty fast on an appropriately spec'd machine though. Now if only I could get it to stop crashing. Why in the wide world of sports Microsoft sacrificed stability for eye-candy is beyond me. Just so long as there's never any such thing as Vista Server, I guess I (well other users, actually, I'm still on Linux and XP) can live with a desktop crash every few days.
Yes, to assume is to make ASs out of U and ME. But my point isn't in contradiction to yours. I AGREE it's difficult train non-technical employees and I'm sure they're not going to train 60,000 of them. They should LIMIT who accesses sensitive data and take extra effort to train those few employees to use encrypted disks, e-mail, network connections, and USB drives. Like you said, all the effort and software in the world isn't going to prevent 100% of employees from using unencrypted forms of data storage and transfer. %0.001 of 60,000 people still rounds to 1. %0.001 of 1000 people rounds to 0. The point is that it doesn't mater if the software also provides encrypted USB disk and e-mail, employees will find a way around it if it makes it easier to do their job, so the better solution is to limit access to a smaller number of employees who can be trusted to use the tools.
Pardon the tinfoil hat, but this is clearly a ruse to force ISPs to put in a Chinese-style, government-controlled way to limit free speech. Even if you don't have any interest in stealing the crap that Hollywood and the record companies spew out, you should be very concerned about this bill. I've sent my representative and both of my senators the letter blow. Feel free to copy and modify it as you like if you'd like to write to congress as well.
Dear <Fill in the blank>,
I understand that the House Judiciary Committee recently introduced the PRO-IP act. I've read that Representative Berman of California has even discussed a congressional mandate of filtering technology. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071213-time-to-revisit-the-dmca.html)
As a computer programmer, I generate intellectual property and I am all for tough laws to protect my rights. However, as a citizen, I am far more concerned about laws that force companies to raise their prices without benefiting their consumers (which is simply the equivalent of a tax on everyone that's spent on projects benefiting only a very few) and my personal freedoms.
The success of the Internet is entirely due to the ability of telecom providers to do their job: facilitate communication. They are not liable if a telephone or internet connection is used for committing a crime. The actual criminal is. As a consumer, I don't want to pay more for telecommunications because hollywood is too cheap to pursue legal action against pirates. After all, I don't ask the government to pay to put an alarm system on my home or car. Hollywood should bear the expense of protecting their intellectual property and pass that on to their customers so we all pay for the cost of producing movies and music based on how much of it we consume.
Furthermore, I have a much deeper concern about a congressional requirement for filtering technology. It is simply one more step towards a totalitarian state of big government with too much power. In America, we enjoy freedom of speech and press not only because our constitution mandates it, but because the free market has created the technology to facilitate it. Unlike in other countries such as China or North Korea, the government simply can't restrict speech because no one in America would obey such unconstitutional laws or policies. If the government puts in place a system that can limit what information can flow freely over the Internet, we're simply one law or government policy away from destroying the first amendment. Free speech is far to important to the American way of life to wait for the courts to declare such a thing unconstitutional.
Whether the technology is there or not, please vote against any legislation that attempts to mandate that internet service providers and/or telecommunications companies filter the information they are charged with transmitting on behalf of their customers. Such a policy would be devastating to both our economy and our democracy.
Encryption is crap unless it's used by those trained to understand how it works and what it's limitations are, which I'm sure 60,000 employees will not be. What happens when an employee copies data to a USB disk or e-mails it to someone. If the software prevents this, it will be a major pain in the arse that will cost a lot more than $3 million in lost productivity. If it doesn't, then data will get stolen and everyone will say "no problem, it was encrypted", until massive identity theft cases force them to admit that not all copies were encrypted, but, because the guy in charge spent $3 Million, he'll argue that he did everything reasonable and no one will be held accountable. The real solution is to LIMIT ACCESS TO SENSITIVE DATA TO TRAINED EMPLOYEES WHO ACTUALLY NEED IT TO DO THEIR JOB. I can't imagine that there's 60,000 employees who actually need the personal information of 130,000 Ohio residents. I'm not saying it's obvious who needs what data, but $3 million would buy a lot of manpower to figure it out.
And what happened to Encrypted File System. You know, built-in to NTFS, complete with administrative recovery keys, doesn't cost $3 million? This sounds like just more government waste and McAfee marketing to me.
Ha Ha, jokes on Ahmadinejad. The parallel performance increase of Uranium enrichment algorithms doesn't scale well past 30 processors! They overbought by at least 180 CPUs.
The only question is weather they bowed to pressure from the RIAA/MPAA or if they were just too cheap to actually provide that much online storage and bandwidth. I'm guessing the latter, since the RIAA and MPAA would probably rather let people store "pirated" movies and music so they could collect info about thousands of so-called criminals all in one place.
So how does this make YouTube different from "official" sources of information again? If you remember, the government at one time told us that both Iraq and Iran had or would soon have nuclear weapons. The same government is now telling us the opposite. I'm sure I could come up with plenty more examples, but that was the quick and dirty one.
When the government tells us lies, the message is so overwhelming and echoed so much in the media that the few descenters don't get a voice. With YouTube (as well as other Internet-based communications), at least all voices have a chance to be heard. True, having more choices makes it difficult for the average Joe decide what to believe, but it's better than believing the "official" story because it's the only info out there.
Different voices, including inaccurate ones, simply help people to stop being so conditioned to believe everything they hear and get down to the business of finding the real truth.
That sounds like a great idea! I loved everything he said and support it fully. Now all we need to do is formalize it by committee, get Firefox and IE to both support it, get 95% of users to upgrade to the new versions of browsers, and rewrite all of our existing HTML in this new format. Let's get going.:)
That's what I though at first too, but then I realized that I have a bookmarks toolbar at the top of my browser which I NEVER touch and that I very often find pages over and over by googling them every time I need them. Maybe you have the time to carefully organize your bookmarks, but mine are old, unorganized, and useless because google is so effective that it doesn't make sense to bother with them. I'm guessing I'm not the only one.
What I really want is a personalized filter for all my Google searches. Maybe there is already a way to do this, but I want -site:expertsexchange.com as an argument to every search I do. I don't have an account with them, so I hate it when they appear in search results. And more importantly, I'm only interested in armature sex changes, so I simply never want to see search results from that site.
tjhood@strangeandcarpenter.com bounced, but bstrange@strangeandcarpenter.com seemed to go through. Try that instead of you'd like to let your voice be heard.
Slashdot Mirror
Not so. You could alter the space-time continuum to prevent nuclear fusion from being possible. Of course, you'd shut down the sun, which could be bad, but there wouldn't be any nuclear terror. Besides, we've got enough fossil-fuels and geothermal for at least a generation, especially if we don't have to worry about global warming anymore.
I always thought throwing more resources at a software problem was as likely to slow things down as speed things up. That's what they taught me in CS207. That's what my personal experience has been. That's what dozens of software development methodologies advocate. But then again, this is Bill Gates, expert programmer, talking. Maybe I've been wrong all of these years.
> ...as President
Negatives:
Will hit funding bind (accepted Public Funding)
No, actually, he HASN'T accepted public funding, despite his campaign's financial problems this summer. He has promised to accept public funding in the general election (in support of campaign finance reform) if the democratic nominee does as well.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/2965.html
So how is it they're going to figure out how much money to distribute to each copyright holder? I guess you could try some massive AI that sniffs all internet traffic, identifies copyrighted content, and tracks who's stuff is shared the most, but that would probably cost about $4.99/internet connection. Maybe they're just going to give all copyright holders the same amount. In that case, I think my parents have a wonderful recording of me singing when I was 5, which I should clearly be the copyright holder on. I can have it posted on my website (hosted in the US but accessible in Canada) in a minute or two. How do I tell the Canadian government where to send my check?
> Our only real hope at this point is that they hurry up and release Windows 7, and we can go ahead and stick Vista on the same shelf that ME is using to collect dust.
Windows 7 probably won't really be a new OS. Microsoft has really only release 4 OSs. The dozens of different names are for marketing purposes so they can make you pay again for things that should be released in service packs.
- Dos/Windows 3.1/WFW - Command line OS. 3.1/WFW was a GUI add-on (If they'd stuck with that sensible model, maybe Vista wouldn't crash so much).
- Windows 9x/ME - GUI becomes primary UI. This is where things start to head south. (no offense to Aussies and Kiwis)
- Windows NT/2000/XP/Server 200x - Added true preemptive multi-tasking and NTFS. You shouldn't call any of these distinct OSs because there were no significant differences to OS functions, just features (AD, etc.) that they had to add to keep Linux from taking over, most of which are only useful to some small subset of users, even though all that code bloat gets shoved down everyone's throats.
- Vista - Rewrite the GUI to compete with Apple. Like any new software, it's buggy as hell and crashes often. In fact, the only reason Vista deserves the status of a separate OS is BECAUSE it crashes, indicating they must have made some serious changes from the previous codebase which was finally getting pretty darn stable after about a decade.
Chances are that Windows 7 will just be another (hopefully less buggy) version of Vista. This isn't a bad thing, however, because Windows really is a pretty fully features OS. The only real OS-like thing with any sort of mass appeal that Linux does that Vista doesn't is not crash. (Xwindows still crashes from time to time, of course, but it's back in a second or so without me even pushing a button, whereas Vista starts over from the BIOS after I hold down the power button for 5 seconds.)
> I would wonder how I got a few million people to vote for me, despite the fact that I refused to be controlled by special interest groups.
Wonder, schmunder. Your pondering can be ended with one simple word: diebold.
1. Leave Iraq
2. Provide universal healthcare
3. ????
4. Profit.
That's crap. Ford could easily ask them to simply sign an agreement where Ford gives them the right to use images of their Mustangs for that purpose, no fee involved. This way Ford retains it's rights to the images while the group continues to market their product for free. But they didn't. Instead they gave a cease and desist order. This is simply a case of overpaid lawyers causing trouble. They should all be fired and have their BAR licenses revoked for being asshats.
Hence why I (20 something) have just e-mailed my county commissioner to volunteer next November and asked my boss for that day off. You should all do the same. At least those of you who aren't geriatric (since they've probably already done so).
While the corporate IT department will probably never die, it will shrink. At one time, IT was as competitive advantage because it was so expensive that it didn't make sense for every company to have it. The following things are driving down the cost of IT, however:
- Baby boomer's retiring. If you've got a bunch of very smart old people making 6-figure salaries, paying 1 IT guy per 10 employees isn't that expensive if that's what you need to walk them through checking their e-mail. The next generation of workers will be far more computer savvy, however, so many of the IT guys who get by on just knowing the basics will be out of a job.
- Development getting easier - Languages like Java, PHP, and Ruby greatly improved development by taking care of memory management. Now if only we could get rid of HTML and Javascript as the only secure, distributed, deployment-free, cross-platform programming paradigm and replace it with something that lets you do a simple gui easily but has fully-featured GUI support, we'll need a whole lot less code jockeys.
- Further standardization - There were days when an IT guy had to be able to smell the ethers, search for tokens that fell out of the ring, and know what BCD stood for. Now, if you're familiar with Ethernet and TCP/IP, you know all you need to know to run a network at just about any company. Further standardization in things like e-mail, file sharing, and other common-to-all technologies will allow IT guys to specialize in a specific technology for each task (because it's the only one anyone uses) and do more more easily, leading to a consolidation in the number of IT people any one company needs.
For example, I know of a company that just outsource Exchange to Intermedia. About 150 mailboxes at $10/ea/mo (Academic) with 4G of storage each. That $18,000/year. Assuming a minimally competent Exchange Admin makes $50,000/year, you need close to 500 users to justify not outsourcing. Granted, your Exchange admin could do other things too, but not while providing the same level of support, and e-mail really does need to be an always-on technology. And you'd need at least 2 admins locally unless you never let them go on vacation or sleep.
The point being, IT will and should shrink, but those who remain in the business will be able to do a lot more with a lot less a lot quicker and more reliably.
It's not, but only because it's illegal to sell unpasteurized milk, thereby providing an illegal, government-supported oligopoly to a few big dairies. Personally, I get unpasteurized milk from my own cow, which I purchased a share of from a local dairy. I pay them a fee to care for my cow and milk it, and I pick up the milk once a week. If you've ever tasted unpasteurized milk, you'll know that although Pasteur was well-intentioned, pasteurization is simply another tool the man uses to keep the people down.
> God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER That's actually not the case. The fortran standard states that any variable starting with one of the letters in INTEGER are integers unless explicitly declared as reals. Of course, programming without 'implicit none' is like visiting a Vegas whore house without a condom...
While we're at it, Emacs, Xemacs, vim, or Gvim (and we could throw nano in just to weed out the unqualified).
Ah, I remember the good ol' days when people would ask me about system requirements and I'd tell them to just ignore them because your program would run just fine anyway, and even if it was theoretically slower, you probably won't notice the different. Vista, which seems to use .5G all by its little lonesome, sure put the last nail in that coffin. I have to admit, it's plenty fast on an appropriately spec'd machine though. Now if only I could get it to stop crashing. Why in the wide world of sports Microsoft sacrificed stability for eye-candy is beyond me. Just so long as there's never any such thing as Vista Server, I guess I (well other users, actually, I'm still on Linux and XP) can live with a desktop crash every few days.
Yes, to assume is to make ASs out of U and ME. But my point isn't in contradiction to yours. I AGREE it's difficult train non-technical employees and I'm sure they're not going to train 60,000 of them. They should LIMIT who accesses sensitive data and take extra effort to train those few employees to use encrypted disks, e-mail, network connections, and USB drives. Like you said, all the effort and software in the world isn't going to prevent 100% of employees from using unencrypted forms of data storage and transfer. %0.001 of 60,000 people still rounds to 1. %0.001 of 1000 people rounds to 0. The point is that it doesn't mater if the software also provides encrypted USB disk and e-mail, employees will find a way around it if it makes it easier to do their job, so the better solution is to limit access to a smaller number of employees who can be trusted to use the tools.
Pardon the tinfoil hat, but this is clearly a ruse to force ISPs to put in a Chinese-style, government-controlled way to limit free speech. Even if you don't have any interest in stealing the crap that Hollywood and the record companies spew out, you should be very concerned about this bill. I've sent my representative and both of my senators the letter blow. Feel free to copy and modify it as you like if you'd like to write to congress as well.
Dear <Fill in the blank>,
I understand that the House Judiciary Committee recently introduced the PRO-IP act. I've read that Representative Berman of California has even discussed a congressional mandate of filtering technology. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071213-time-to-revisit-the-dmca.html)
As a computer programmer, I generate intellectual property and I am all for tough laws to protect my rights. However, as a citizen, I am far more concerned about laws that force companies to raise their prices without benefiting their consumers (which is simply the equivalent of a tax on everyone that's spent on projects benefiting only a very few) and my personal freedoms.
The success of the Internet is entirely due to the ability of telecom providers to do their job: facilitate communication. They are not liable if a telephone or internet connection is used for committing a crime. The actual criminal is. As a consumer, I don't want to pay more for telecommunications because hollywood is too cheap to pursue legal action against pirates. After all, I don't ask the government to pay to put an alarm system on my home or car. Hollywood should bear the expense of protecting their intellectual property and pass that on to their customers so we all pay for the cost of producing movies and music based on how much of it we consume.
Furthermore, I have a much deeper concern about a congressional requirement for filtering technology. It is simply one more step towards a totalitarian state of big government with too much power. In America, we enjoy freedom of speech and press not only because our constitution mandates it, but because the free market has created the technology to facilitate it. Unlike in other countries such as China or North Korea, the government simply can't restrict speech because no one in America would obey such unconstitutional laws or policies. If the government puts in place a system that can limit what information can flow freely over the Internet, we're simply one law or government policy away from destroying the first amendment. Free speech is far to important to the American way of life to wait for the courts to declare such a thing unconstitutional.
Whether the technology is there or not, please vote against any legislation that attempts to mandate that internet service providers and/or telecommunications companies filter the information they are charged with transmitting on behalf of their customers. Such a policy would be devastating to both our economy and our democracy.
Sincerely,
Adam Carheden
Encryption is crap unless it's used by those trained to understand how it works and what it's limitations are, which I'm sure 60,000 employees will not be. What happens when an employee copies data to a USB disk or e-mails it to someone. If the software prevents this, it will be a major pain in the arse that will cost a lot more than $3 million in lost productivity. If it doesn't, then data will get stolen and everyone will say "no problem, it was encrypted", until massive identity theft cases force them to admit that not all copies were encrypted, but, because the guy in charge spent $3 Million, he'll argue that he did everything reasonable and no one will be held accountable. The real solution is to LIMIT ACCESS TO SENSITIVE DATA TO TRAINED EMPLOYEES WHO ACTUALLY NEED IT TO DO THEIR JOB. I can't imagine that there's 60,000 employees who actually need the personal information of 130,000 Ohio residents. I'm not saying it's obvious who needs what data, but $3 million would buy a lot of manpower to figure it out.
And what happened to Encrypted File System. You know, built-in to NTFS, complete with administrative recovery keys, doesn't cost $3 million? This sounds like just more government waste and McAfee marketing to me.
Ha Ha, jokes on Ahmadinejad. The parallel performance increase of Uranium enrichment algorithms doesn't scale well past 30 processors! They overbought by at least 180 CPUs.
I see South Park has caught on in Japan.
The only question is weather they bowed to pressure from the RIAA/MPAA or if they were just too cheap to actually provide that much online storage and bandwidth. I'm guessing the latter, since the RIAA and MPAA would probably rather let people store "pirated" movies and music so they could collect info about thousands of so-called criminals all in one place.
So how does this make YouTube different from "official" sources of information again? If you remember, the government at one time told us that both Iraq and Iran had or would soon have nuclear weapons. The same government is now telling us the opposite. I'm sure I could come up with plenty more examples, but that was the quick and dirty one.
When the government tells us lies, the message is so overwhelming and echoed so much in the media that the few descenters don't get a voice. With YouTube (as well as other Internet-based communications), at least all voices have a chance to be heard. True, having more choices makes it difficult for the average Joe decide what to believe, but it's better than believing the "official" story because it's the only info out there.
Different voices, including inaccurate ones, simply help people to stop being so conditioned to believe everything they hear and get down to the business of finding the real truth.
That sounds like a great idea! I loved everything he said and support it fully. Now all we need to do is formalize it by committee, get Firefox and IE to both support it, get 95% of users to upgrade to the new versions of browsers, and rewrite all of our existing HTML in this new format. Let's get going. :)
That's what I though at first too, but then I realized that I have a bookmarks toolbar at the top of my browser which I NEVER touch and that I very often find pages over and over by googling them every time I need them. Maybe you have the time to carefully organize your bookmarks, but mine are old, unorganized, and useless because google is so effective that it doesn't make sense to bother with them. I'm guessing I'm not the only one.
What I really want is a personalized filter for all my Google searches. Maybe there is already a way to do this, but I want -site:expertsexchange.com as an argument to every search I do. I don't have an account with them, so I hate it when they appear in search results. And more importantly, I'm only interested in armature sex changes, so I simply never want to see search results from that site.
tjhood@strangeandcarpenter.com bounced, but bstrange@strangeandcarpenter.com seemed to go through. Try that instead of you'd like to let your voice be heard.