I'm currently showing 4 people with incomplete referrals "Joined pending offer" and one "Referral not valid". As soon as any referrals complete I'll contact them. If you have a problem, feel free to email me and mention the address you signed up to the site with.
Assuming 1G and 1atm that's approximately 3750 litres of O2 (I think my calculations are correct. If they aren't I'm sure someone will be quick to point out); to me at least that sounds a lot for a tech demo, I'd think you'd need some heavy and therefore expensive equipment to produce that much oxygen, which could also make a fair dent in how much of the prize is taken home.
Any company funding this is probably going to want patents. Maybe that's NASA's plan: convince researchers who want to take the prize home themselves to try this with company funding, give the prize to the researchers, license the patent from the company at a cost lower than doing the work themselves, leave the company to make money from other commercial spacefaring entities. It could work...
Re:I applaud Vodafone.
on
Just a Phone?
·
· Score: 1
Nokia 6310i
I'm 99% sure it does everything you said. The only one I'm not positive about is speakerphone, but you can always use a bluetooth (or even wired) headset for handsfree.
As I've said in other posts in this thread, these phones ARE out there, just not advertised. This Vodafone "basic" model is nothing new, it's just hyping it that is. I'd also strongly reccomend against Sagem phones (which this Vodafone one is) since I hate their menus and find the build quality severly lacking.
Why not use your 3390? Or buy another one? Or if you can't find a 33xx new, buy something like an 1100 which was released last year IIRC and is essentially the same but with a long-life lithium battery.
Re:it's simple, but...
on
Just a Phone?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I agree, and WTF is up with a battery sucking colour screen on a "basic" phone that doesn't take pictures or recieve media messages - what the hell do they expect it to be useful for?
I really don't get why people are always bitching about the lack of basic phones anyway. You want basic, you can buy a brand new, SIM free Nokia 1100 for less than £30 (below half the price of this new one from Voda, and in my experience Sagems are shit anyway although that's just personal preference). Alternatively, buy any other older model phone from eBay - they're not expensive.
Alternatively you could by a Sega Dreamcast copy for about $5 and get a Dreamcast and keyboard to go with it for another $25 (those prices are currently available on eBay "Buy It Now" listings). Plus you get a cool Dreamcast rather than a very expensive Windows game.
Re:Have any freenet users ever been sued?
on
Revamping Freenet
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I haven't used Freenet in a long time, and only really used it briefly when I did because I needed to fulfill my geeklike curiosity in the system, but I didn't see many music files on it at all; I would assume that this is because the slow transfer speeds make it completely unfeasible for a few megs of data that could be found easily enough on 'open' P2P networks. There were some movie repositories, but again the time and effort are probably only worthwhile if there's a real reason that the movie isn't available on normal P2P (I wouldn't be entirely surprised if 'high sensetivity' leaks hit Freenet first). I think there was a site full of MS software and cracks too. Nothing like the scale of a big torrent site or the eDonkey network though.
The small scale of copyright violation combined with the massive amount of work it would take to track down any Freenet user (it's more or less impossible for anyone to do without informants and the right to confiscate equipment on your side) mean that the providers probably won't bother tracking down users, and would be unlikely to bother even if copyright infringement on Freenet reached Suprnova proportions - at that point I guess that they would try the 'child porn' card to get Freenet itself outlawed since doing so would take much less time, money and effort than tracking people in a network specifically designed to avoid tracking.
If you recall the "leaked" pre-release first episode of Doctor Who, you'll remember the fact that it wasn't your standard TV rip and it had quite a few pointers to the fact that it was intentionally leaked to create buzz.
Assuming this is true (which I believe it is) it would appear that the BBC realises that net distribution is a Good Thing(tm) in many cases and they don't have any advertisers to piss off by trying it. They can't do it openly, however, due to the web of interlinked copyright and license issues for each piece of sound, artwork and script that are used within the show and which may not be owned by them. That's why it was an anonymous torrent; you probably have a legal right to the show your license money funded, but the lawyers for the others whose work has been used within the show are probably not so happy about that. </conspiracy>
I'm seriously wondering if we can turn this around on them. If I were to make a film and make it available publically under some form of open content license at the same time as submitting it to MS, would they be able to revoke the license on the copies already distributed? If they could, wouldn't it demonstrate that their own EULA's are just as easily revoked?
I love the title "Thought Thieves" though. I'm actually very tempted to make a film with that title now, although I don't know if it'd be approved of by the judges...
Interestingly enough, I'm accepted when I spoof myself as IE6 but not when I'm spoofed as GoogleBot, so not only are they turning away valuable customers, they appear to be turning away valuable PageRank (although looking at the Google listing for weightwatchers.com it would appear that GoogleBot's smart enough to just follow the links at the bottom of the page).
I think that's worth mentioning to them, as is the fact that they don't need to "support" Firefox, it'd just be appreciated if they didn't explicitly block it.
I stand corrected. In that case I hope they follow the precident set by most of their other services in remaining ad free.
Re:Extract from the Api
on
BBC Launches APIs
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Funny, but it's worth mentioning that the BBC have no ads on their TV channels, radio stations or website. That's not likely to change since they're funded by the license fee and as such we own them MWAHAHAHAHAHA...
Once again, it's time for the "-1, Incorrect" moderation.
IE is not faster or smaller overall; it's preloaded and non-removable on Windows, so at least some of the space and memory is taken whether you like it or not. If you're interested, the IE package is several megs larger than the Firefox package on my Mac. While I will concede that the upshot of this is faster start times on Windows, I really don't think that waiting for FF to start is that much trouble (less than 3 seconds on my machine - I can live with that and I can't imagine it's much different on Windows machines).
As for rendering, as others have mentioned, FF is pretty close to W3C valid whereas IE is not even close. Neither are perfect, but in 95% of cases where Firefox doesn't render a page properly it's because that page uses proprietary, non-standard, IE only markup.
Well the fact that the researchers from number 1 stated that the factorising took 55 CPU years (based on a 2.2GHz Opteron) pretty much sorts things out for the others. We can realistically assume that anyone with a few-million-$ reason could devote 100+ CPUs to this so basically you have to hope that your data will be outdated in 6 months or so.
Alternatively if you take advantage of Sun's rent-a-cluster for $1/CPU hour you'd get change from $500,000 and get your results faster too, but then you have to pay again for the next problem that needs cracking, so it's probably more economical to purchase a smaller cluster.
There are *free* roms available for GBA so I guess the GBA emulator isn't TOTALLY copywrite infringment facilitating software....:-)
Even if there weren't free ROMs, it's perfectly possible to use an emulator legally - say I have a whole stack of old Gameboy games but my Gameboy broke and now I only carry my shiny new PSP around. AFAIK it's fair use for me to shift the games from separate GB carts to a folder of ROM dumps that run on my PSP.
Slightly off at a tangent here, but I feel the need to ask: is there anything to read into the fact that the new iTunes wasn't rolled out on Tiger software update? Is there a big evil scheme or is it just not up on the servers yet?
Either way, I'm happy that I don't have to shell out yet more cash just to watch 1080i videos in fullscreen - when I found out that QuickTime 7 didn't do borderless playback I wondered what the deal was. Glad to see you guys are still playing nicely.
If you're interested in any of the deeper techie/political details that other users haven't mentioned, I can reccomend the ADSLGuide Q&A - the first few pages are newbie oriented but the later parts helped me alot when I was working out the quirks with various provider's services.
The other notable fact is the recent (as in last 6 months) change in how BT wholesale deal with ADSL provision - essentially it encourages resellers to offer much faster speeds (previously 512kbps was standard, now it's about 1-3mbps) but also encourages bandwidth caps.
As a result, you can now pay £29.99/month for capped 8mbps DSL (currently a very nice 500GB cap, but I don't trust that to last) or roughly the same for uncapped 2mbps with no port blocking or anything nasty like that. Personally I'm out of range for 8mbps, so that kinda made the decision for me, but many users are picking up on 1mbps for very little cash and then finding themselves subject to caps as low as 5GB with various nasty locks on what you can and can't do on the network, and that's roughly the same for cable AFAIK.
To summarise: we have fast, affordable broadband with crap service and crap TOS or we have to pay disproportionately for quality service. And God forbid you want anything not specified by BT Wholesale, you'll be paying 10x over the odds for that.
How many people can you name that fit the following criteria:
1) Know what a referrer header is 2) Need/want to disable the sending of the referrer for whatever reason 3) Are incapable of following simple instructions in order to change a hidden setting
I can't think of any. While I'm all for ease of use (hey, I'm a Mac user) I don't see why it's always a bad thing to keep _advanced_ settings hidden. It's not like Firefox lacks the feature (and I would be annoyed if it did; as it happens I disabled referrer sending a while back for privacy reasons and only remembered now when I wasn't blocked from Bugzilla) it's just that Firefox makes 'normal user' features accessible from normal menus while keeping 'advanced' features safely in a separate pane which allows the kind of fine grained control that overwhelms those who don't want to see it.
Run your serial number into Apple's up-to-date program (http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/) and you might get lucky with a £10 upgrade. If the previous user didn't register their copy of Panther for whatever reason, I hear that they're fairly good on giving out the new copies.
I know you'll probably never see this since you posted AC, but you are just as guilty of making assumptions by saying that I'm American when I am in fact English. My post was based on personal experience with people's disappointment that their new 'MP3 player' has a long, restrictive transfer process to deal with. Since Sony now makes players that accept (almost) standard MP3s rather than ATRACs that would imply that they are correcting what they consider a mistake, wouldn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm currently showing 4 people with incomplete referrals "Joined pending offer" and one "Referral not valid". As soon as any referrals complete I'll contact them. If you have a problem, feel free to email me and mention the address you signed up to the site with.
Assuming 1G and 1atm that's approximately 3750 litres of O2 (I think my calculations are correct. If they aren't I'm sure someone will be quick to point out); to me at least that sounds a lot for a tech demo, I'd think you'd need some heavy and therefore expensive equipment to produce that much oxygen, which could also make a fair dent in how much of the prize is taken home.
Any company funding this is probably going to want patents. Maybe that's NASA's plan: convince researchers who want to take the prize home themselves to try this with company funding, give the prize to the researchers, license the patent from the company at a cost lower than doing the work themselves, leave the company to make money from other commercial spacefaring entities. It could work...
Nokia 6310i
I'm 99% sure it does everything you said. The only one I'm not positive about is speakerphone, but you can always use a bluetooth (or even wired) headset for handsfree.
As I've said in other posts in this thread, these phones ARE out there, just not advertised. This Vodafone "basic" model is nothing new, it's just hyping it that is. I'd also strongly reccomend against Sagem phones (which this Vodafone one is) since I hate their menus and find the build quality severly lacking.
Why not use your 3390? Or buy another one? Or if you can't find a 33xx new, buy something like an 1100 which was released last year IIRC and is essentially the same but with a long-life lithium battery.
I agree, and WTF is up with a battery sucking colour screen on a "basic" phone that doesn't take pictures or recieve media messages - what the hell do they expect it to be useful for?
I really don't get why people are always bitching about the lack of basic phones anyway. You want basic, you can buy a brand new, SIM free Nokia 1100 for less than £30 (below half the price of this new one from Voda, and in my experience Sagems are shit anyway although that's just personal preference). Alternatively, buy any other older model phone from eBay - they're not expensive.
Alternatively you could by a Sega Dreamcast copy for about $5 and get a Dreamcast and keyboard to go with it for another $25 (those prices are currently available on eBay "Buy It Now" listings). Plus you get a cool Dreamcast rather than a very expensive Windows game.
I haven't used Freenet in a long time, and only really used it briefly when I did because I needed to fulfill my geeklike curiosity in the system, but I didn't see many music files on it at all; I would assume that this is because the slow transfer speeds make it completely unfeasible for a few megs of data that could be found easily enough on 'open' P2P networks. There were some movie repositories, but again the time and effort are probably only worthwhile if there's a real reason that the movie isn't available on normal P2P (I wouldn't be entirely surprised if 'high sensetivity' leaks hit Freenet first). I think there was a site full of MS software and cracks too. Nothing like the scale of a big torrent site or the eDonkey network though.
The small scale of copyright violation combined with the massive amount of work it would take to track down any Freenet user (it's more or less impossible for anyone to do without informants and the right to confiscate equipment on your side) mean that the providers probably won't bother tracking down users, and would be unlikely to bother even if copyright infringement on Freenet reached Suprnova proportions - at that point I guess that they would try the 'child porn' card to get Freenet itself outlawed since doing so would take much less time, money and effort than tracking people in a network specifically designed to avoid tracking.
If you recall the "leaked" pre-release first episode of Doctor Who, you'll remember the fact that it wasn't your standard TV rip and it had quite a few pointers to the fact that it was intentionally leaked to create buzz.
Assuming this is true (which I believe it is) it would appear that the BBC realises that net distribution is a Good Thing(tm) in many cases and they don't have any advertisers to piss off by trying it. They can't do it openly, however, due to the web of interlinked copyright and license issues for each piece of sound, artwork and script that are used within the show and which may not be owned by them. That's why it was an anonymous torrent; you probably have a legal right to the show your license money funded, but the lawyers for the others whose work has been used within the show are probably not so happy about that.
</conspiracy>
I'm seriously wondering if we can turn this around on them. If I were to make a film and make it available publically under some form of open content license at the same time as submitting it to MS, would they be able to revoke the license on the copies already distributed? If they could, wouldn't it demonstrate that their own EULA's are just as easily revoked?
I love the title "Thought Thieves" though. I'm actually very tempted to make a film with that title now, although I don't know if it'd be approved of by the judges...
Interestingly enough, I'm accepted when I spoof myself as IE6 but not when I'm spoofed as GoogleBot, so not only are they turning away valuable customers, they appear to be turning away valuable PageRank (although looking at the Google listing for weightwatchers.com it would appear that GoogleBot's smart enough to just follow the links at the bottom of the page).
I think that's worth mentioning to them, as is the fact that they don't need to "support" Firefox, it'd just be appreciated if they didn't explicitly block it.
I stand corrected. In that case I hope they follow the precident set by most of their other services in remaining ad free.
Funny, but it's worth mentioning that the BBC have no ads on their TV channels, radio stations or website. That's not likely to change since they're funded by the license fee and as such we own them MWAHAHAHAHAHA...
Once again, it's time for the "-1, Incorrect" moderation.
IE is not faster or smaller overall; it's preloaded and non-removable on Windows, so at least some of the space and memory is taken whether you like it or not. If you're interested, the IE package is several megs larger than the Firefox package on my Mac. While I will concede that the upshot of this is faster start times on Windows, I really don't think that waiting for FF to start is that much trouble (less than 3 seconds on my machine - I can live with that and I can't imagine it's much different on Windows machines).
As for rendering, as others have mentioned, FF is pretty close to W3C valid whereas IE is not even close. Neither are perfect, but in 95% of cases where Firefox doesn't render a page properly it's because that page uses proprietary, non-standard, IE only markup.
I'm tempted to make a dry-ice cooled block
Too late
Well the fact that the researchers from number 1 stated that the factorising took 55 CPU years (based on a 2.2GHz Opteron) pretty much sorts things out for the others. We can realistically assume that anyone with a few-million-$ reason could devote 100+ CPUs to this so basically you have to hope that your data will be outdated in 6 months or so.
Alternatively if you take advantage of Sun's rent-a-cluster for $1/CPU hour you'd get change from $500,000 and get your results faster too, but then you have to pay again for the next problem that needs cracking, so it's probably more economical to purchase a smaller cluster.
There are *free* roms available for GBA so I guess the GBA emulator isn't TOTALLY copywrite infringment facilitating software.... :-)
Even if there weren't free ROMs, it's perfectly possible to use an emulator legally - say I have a whole stack of old Gameboy games but my Gameboy broke and now I only carry my shiny new PSP around. AFAIK it's fair use for me to shift the games from separate GB carts to a folder of ROM dumps that run on my PSP.
Slightly off at a tangent here, but I feel the need to ask: is there anything to read into the fact that the new iTunes wasn't rolled out on Tiger software update? Is there a big evil scheme or is it just not up on the servers yet?
Either way, I'm happy that I don't have to shell out yet more cash just to watch 1080i videos in fullscreen - when I found out that QuickTime 7 didn't do borderless playback I wondered what the deal was. Glad to see you guys are still playing nicely.
If you're interested in any of the deeper techie/political details that other users haven't mentioned, I can reccomend the ADSLGuide Q&A - the first few pages are newbie oriented but the later parts helped me alot when I was working out the quirks with various provider's services.
The other notable fact is the recent (as in last 6 months) change in how BT wholesale deal with ADSL provision - essentially it encourages resellers to offer much faster speeds (previously 512kbps was standard, now it's about 1-3mbps) but also encourages bandwidth caps.
As a result, you can now pay £29.99/month for capped 8mbps DSL (currently a very nice 500GB cap, but I don't trust that to last) or roughly the same for uncapped 2mbps with no port blocking or anything nasty like that. Personally I'm out of range for 8mbps, so that kinda made the decision for me, but many users are picking up on 1mbps for very little cash and then finding themselves subject to caps as low as 5GB with various nasty locks on what you can and can't do on the network, and that's roughly the same for cable AFAIK.
To summarise: we have fast, affordable broadband with crap service and crap TOS or we have to pay disproportionately for quality service. And God forbid you want anything not specified by BT Wholesale, you'll be paying 10x over the odds for that.
How many people can you name that fit the following criteria:
1) Know what a referrer header is
2) Need/want to disable the sending of the referrer for whatever reason
3) Are incapable of following simple instructions in order to change a hidden setting
I can't think of any. While I'm all for ease of use (hey, I'm a Mac user) I don't see why it's always a bad thing to keep _advanced_ settings hidden. It's not like Firefox lacks the feature (and I would be annoyed if it did; as it happens I disabled referrer sending a while back for privacy reasons and only remembered now when I wasn't blocked from Bugzilla) it's just that Firefox makes 'normal user' features accessible from normal menus while keeping 'advanced' features safely in a separate pane which allows the kind of fine grained control that overwhelms those who don't want to see it.
Hitting the 'Software Update' button on Tiger tells me there are no patches available, so I guess (or at least really hope) it's not neccessary.
Don't worry, there's no need for a detector - simply take pre-emptive action against any cameras that might be around with one of these.
2*256 + 2*128 = 768
FWIW, my PowerMac came with its 1GB configured as 4*256, although it wasn't direct from Apple.
Run your serial number into Apple's up-to-date program (http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/) and you might get lucky with a £10 upgrade. If the previous user didn't register their copy of Panther for whatever reason, I hear that they're fairly good on giving out the new copies.
Allow me to be the first to say "HOLY FLYING SHIT THAT SCREENSAVER LOOKS COOL". That will be all. Scheduled programming will now resume...
I know you'll probably never see this since you posted AC, but you are just as guilty of making assumptions by saying that I'm American when I am in fact English. My post was based on personal experience with people's disappointment that their new 'MP3 player' has a long, restrictive transfer process to deal with. Since Sony now makes players that accept (almost) standard MP3s rather than ATRACs that would imply that they are correcting what they consider a mistake, wouldn't it?