Just OOC, what infrastructure do those small providers use? Are they putting up their own cells
IIRC, they are both putting up their own CDMA networks. Because of this, they have a limited number of cities where they have coverage right now, but from what I've read and the people I've talked to, service seems to be good within those areas. The 2 companies are MetroPCS and Cricket if you want to check them out any further.
While the big boys are charging $100 or more for their unlimited calling plans, there are a couple smaller providers that offer unlimited calling and texting and everything else for less than $50 (even down to $30 if you just want unlimited talk). And more importantly, there are no contracts involved. Hell, here (in Vegas) they're even offering the first month or two free (depending on which provider).
It took a while, but the general populace is finally getting fed up with the nickel-and-diming that the big wireless companies are so fond of, and the small providers out there selling unlimited services at a reasonable price are growing by leaps and bounds because of it.
Shop went the way of the dodo (I wonder how many lobbies benefitted from that), and now PE and art are following.
I'm not sure what school district you happen to be part of, but I sure wouldn't want to be there.
The high school my kids are zoned for still has shop (wood, metal, AND auto) classes (multiple levels, in fact), so while I don't know for sure, I would figure that most of the other (if not all) high schools here have it as well. And PE is still a daily required class for 2 years of high school (as it has been for 20+ years). And as far as art, there are more art-related classes than ever before. In fact, there are more classes of just about all types. And this is at one of the oldest high schools in one of the largest school districts in the country, so my instinct tells me that the majority of other high schools are able to pull off the same things.
.... or the Visual Studio tools for UI design are on-par with IB,....
I'm curious to know what you think makes IB so superior to the Visual Studio (particularly 2008, but even 2005) interface designer. I use both on an almost daily basis, and, to me at least, the main differences to me come down to how the code and interface interact. IOW, they are both equally powerful and capable as UI design tools. Personally, I've had more frustrating moments using IB than I have using the VS designer, but I'm sure thats a matter of personal preference. So I was just trying to figure out if your penchant for IB is just a matter of personal preference, or if IB has some secret powers I've been missing all this time.
How about just not using it? Many, many people have gotten along just fine without XP, and you can do it too!
You aren't entitled to XP, so if Microsoft doesn't want to license it to you, you're up shit creek without a paddle. Or, you should be, at least. In the long run, you'll probably thank them for it anyway.
GP was entirely correct. Because you personally know 1 person that did something stupid while under the influence, that somehow means that it affects everyone the same? Nevermind the millions of people all over the world that partake on a daily basis, the vast majority of whom are decent, honest, law-abiding citizens whose only "crime" is smoking a plant whose criminalization is dubious at best. What's next, alcohol? How about chocolate? While you're at it, you might as well set yourself up to get rid of every substance on earth that might make "stupid people even stupider". Personally, I don't see it that way, and never will.
I think maybe you are viewing my post as a consumer, rather than as a merchant.
While my comments were certainly from a consumer's point of view, the reasoning behind them is rooted in a little over 10 years experience in the banking industry.
Oh really? How is your score calculated? Where do the data points come from to calculate my score? How were they collected?
A few minutes with your good friend Google would answer all of these questions.
Anyone high-enough in the banking industry food chain would tell you otherwise.
Bzzt, wrong again, sir. I'm not sure where you got your information, but it is either misquoted or misguided. While I cannot get into specifics, I will reiterate the same comment I made originally and point out that it is from personal experience inside the banking industry.
You seriously think banks make money on identity theft? You're either deluded or confused, or perhaps, both.
#1. Banks make money when your identity is stolen The profit comes in the form of transaction penalties when you start reversing the charges and possibly the bank's "identity theft services."
I haven't seen a major bank EVER charge for "transaction penalties" when it comes to cleaning up after fraud. And I only say "major" banks because I havent personally dealt with every little bank across the country. Even 10 years ago, before identity theft was even close to the problem it is today, the only cost incurred by consumers was typically the time to make the phone calls (and sometimes, write letters). Back then, many banks still had $50 fraud liability clauses, but even then they rarely enforced them. Today, it is quite common for banks to specifically advertise that they have a $0 fraud liability. And those "identity theft services" are never compulsory, and almost always just amount to saving you the effort of all the phone calls and letters you would have to otherwise take care of yourself.
#2. No one seems to have any interest at all in shedding some light on the credit process. Why isn't it quite transparent to all consumers?
Really? Have you been living under a rock for the last 5 years? The credit process is easier and more transparent today than it has ever been. The only consumers that it is not transparent to are the ones who are too lazy to do something as simple as obtaining their own credit report.
The entire "identity theft" scheme works is overwhelmingly favors the banking industry and it's no one's fault but ours.
Nevermind that fraud prevention and detection is the #1 security-related cost for any bank. I fail to see how a system where banks must spend millions of dollars a month and employ thousands of people favors those banks, when there is no back-end profit to make up for it.
We end up using the system/interface/whatever that allows us to get the most done with the least effort.
Most people call that efficiency, not laziness. I suppose, to some people, they are one and the same. But I guess I figured laziness was something more along the lines of what allows use to get the least done. At least, thats the laziness code I've always followed.
.... Most criminal cases involve coercion or entrapment.
It is truly unfortunate that people make up their minds with ridiculous assertions based on anecdotal evidence. And yes, your personal bad experience with law enforcement does count as anecdotal evidence.
Fortunately, most criminal cases do NOT involve coercion or entrapment. I have been around lawyers long enough and participated in enough criminal trials to know that even the most inexperienced lawyer is much more likely than not going to be able to have charges dismissed if there was any sort of coercion or entrapment going on. And this isn't to say coercion and entrapment don't happen, or that some rogue cops don't get away with it on occasion. But this is to say that those instances are much, much farther and few between than you seem to believe.
The system isn't perfect, to be sure. But the bottom line is, it is a system run by humans with their inherent faults, and because of that, it is probably about as good as it is going to get. By all means though, if you have any feasible suggestions, do feel free to bring them up.
Are you at all surprised that, here on/., security vulnerabilities in MS products are always much more severe and worthy of ridicule than those in open source products?
It was first used for the early 90's Acura Vigor/Honda Accord. I wanna say 93 but probably 92 or 91 knowing my awesome memory. Beyond that, they also used it for a couple years in the Acura TL in the late 90's.
I was completely with you on this one, right up until:
However, most people can tell the difference in a blind test.
That really should read:
However, most people with expensive stereos that consider themselves 'audiophiles' can tell the difference in a blind test.
People with expensive stereos that consider themselves 'audiophiles', however, do not constitute "most people". And everything I've ever seen or read doing any kind of blind test came to essentially the same conclusion: that "most people" simply cannot tell the difference. If you've seen or read otherwise, I'd love to see it myself.
Personally, I'm basically in the same boat as you. If I pay attention, I can (usually) hear distinguishing bits to where I can tell. But I noticed too that if I'm just listening to the song as the whole, rather than the individual components, I rarely ever notice a difference. And I think that is more than likely why most people never notice a difference, either.
Granted, they might have got more foot traffic from the LV Blvd/Charleston location, or the LV Blvd/Fremont location, but I have a feeling they chose the location they did for a good reason--that place is always busy. I'm in there 5-6x a week, and its always busy. Beyond that, its in a nicer neighborhood than most busy 7-11's in the Vegas area, so I figure that made it a solid choice in the Vegas valley.
...seems to be the main complaint among the bits I've read. And after having used it now myself, I'd have to agree.
Personally, I like the new look of the dock. The menu bar, however, is something I really hope they make an option. For the same reason that I (and many others) don't want or use semi-transparent windows, I don't want a semi-transparent menu bar. It's like they threw readability and usability out the window, all in the name of looking "cool".
Is it just me, or is the "timeline" the article talks about not just something you could reasonably deduce, knowing where Leopard is at right now and when they plan to release it?
Didn't seem like there was any real new info here, but maybe it's just me.
Whether or not it was intended, NAT *is* a security mechanism. Obviously not the best or the prettiest, but to say it provides no additional security is just ignorant.
Th "security" of NAT is a side effect of it BREAKING the peer to peer model of the internet.
Side effect or not, it provides additional security no matter how you look at it. From a purist's point of view, it certainly does break the peer to peer model of the internet. But from a practical user's standpoint, it rarely if ever breaks anything, provides additional functionality and security, and is usually brain-dead simple to implement.
Slashdot Mirror
Just OOC, what infrastructure do those small providers use? Are they putting up their own cells
IIRC, they are both putting up their own CDMA networks. Because of this, they have a limited number of cities where they have coverage right now, but from what I've read and the people I've talked to, service seems to be good within those areas. The 2 companies are MetroPCS and Cricket if you want to check them out any further.
MetroPCS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroPCS / http://www.metropcs.com/
Cricket: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_Communications / http://www.mycricket.com/
You won't get free nationwide roaming with these providers, but for the vast majority of people, this isn't a deal-breaker.
While the big boys are charging $100 or more for their unlimited calling plans, there are a couple smaller providers that offer unlimited calling and texting and everything else for less than $50 (even down to $30 if you just want unlimited talk). And more importantly, there are no contracts involved. Hell, here (in Vegas) they're even offering the first month or two free (depending on which provider).
It took a while, but the general populace is finally getting fed up with the nickel-and-diming that the big wireless companies are so fond of, and the small providers out there selling unlimited services at a reasonable price are growing by leaps and bounds because of it.
Shop went the way of the dodo (I wonder how many lobbies benefitted from that), and now PE and art are following.
I'm not sure what school district you happen to be part of, but I sure wouldn't want to be there.
The high school my kids are zoned for still has shop (wood, metal, AND auto) classes (multiple levels, in fact), so while I don't know for sure, I would figure that most of the other (if not all) high schools here have it as well. And PE is still a daily required class for 2 years of high school (as it has been for 20+ years). And as far as art, there are more art-related classes than ever before. In fact, there are more classes of just about all types. And this is at one of the oldest high schools in one of the largest school districts in the country, so my instinct tells me that the majority of other high schools are able to pull off the same things.
When your usage is caped, you start to realize that you are _PAYING_ to view those annoying banners.
Perhaps, at the same time, you could realize that you are _NOT PAYING_ to view the website those annoying banners are hosted on.
Those banners were put there to keep the site that you're viewing up and running, not to annoy you.
.... or the Visual Studio tools for UI design are on-par with IB, ....
I'm curious to know what you think makes IB so superior to the Visual Studio (particularly 2008, but even 2005) interface designer. I use both on an almost daily basis, and, to me at least, the main differences to me come down to how the code and interface interact. IOW, they are both equally powerful and capable as UI design tools. Personally, I've had more frustrating moments using IB than I have using the VS designer, but I'm sure thats a matter of personal preference. So I was just trying to figure out if your penchant for IB is just a matter of personal preference, or if IB has some secret powers I've been missing all this time.
How about just not using it? Many, many people have gotten along just fine without XP, and you can do it too!
You aren't entitled to XP, so if Microsoft doesn't want to license it to you, you're up shit creek without a paddle. Or, you should be, at least. In the long run, you'll probably thank them for it anyway.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211244
and
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822998003
Hah, ok, so its a 32GB CF card and a CF->IDE adapter. But regardless, the combo works remarkably well, today, for tolerable prices.
Enough with the anecdotal evidence.
GP was entirely correct. Because you personally know 1 person that did something stupid while under the influence, that somehow means that it affects everyone the same? Nevermind the millions of people all over the world that partake on a daily basis, the vast majority of whom are decent, honest, law-abiding citizens whose only "crime" is smoking a plant whose criminalization is dubious at best. What's next, alcohol? How about chocolate? While you're at it, you might as well set yourself up to get rid of every substance on earth that might make "stupid people even stupider". Personally, I don't see it that way, and never will.
"Selling is legal; fucking is legal; why isn't selling fucking legal?"
I think maybe you are viewing my post as a consumer, rather than as a merchant.
While my comments were certainly from a consumer's point of view, the reasoning behind them is rooted in a little over 10 years experience in the banking industry.
Oh really? How is your score calculated? Where do the data points come from to calculate my score? How were they collected?
A few minutes with your good friend Google would answer all of these questions.
Anyone high-enough in the banking industry food chain would tell you otherwise.
Bzzt, wrong again, sir. I'm not sure where you got your information, but it is either misquoted or misguided. While I cannot get into specifics, I will reiterate the same comment I made originally and point out that it is from personal experience inside the banking industry.
You seriously think banks make money on identity theft? You're either deluded or confused, or perhaps, both.
#1. Banks make money when your identity is stolen The profit comes in the form of transaction penalties when you start reversing the charges and possibly the bank's "identity theft services."
I haven't seen a major bank EVER charge for "transaction penalties" when it comes to cleaning up after fraud. And I only say "major" banks because I havent personally dealt with every little bank across the country. Even 10 years ago, before identity theft was even close to the problem it is today, the only cost incurred by consumers was typically the time to make the phone calls (and sometimes, write letters). Back then, many banks still had $50 fraud liability clauses, but even then they rarely enforced them. Today, it is quite common for banks to specifically advertise that they have a $0 fraud liability. And those "identity theft services" are never compulsory, and almost always just amount to saving you the effort of all the phone calls and letters you would have to otherwise take care of yourself.
#2. No one seems to have any interest at all in shedding some light on the credit process. Why isn't it quite transparent to all consumers?
Really? Have you been living under a rock for the last 5 years? The credit process is easier and more transparent today than it has ever been. The only consumers that it is not transparent to are the ones who are too lazy to do something as simple as obtaining their own credit report.
The entire "identity theft" scheme works is overwhelmingly favors the banking industry and it's no one's fault but ours.
Nevermind that fraud prevention and detection is the #1 security-related cost for any bank. I fail to see how a system where banks must spend millions of dollars a month and employ thousands of people favors those banks, when there is no back-end profit to make up for it.
...I'll believe it when I see it.
Until then, it's snake oil, as far as I'm concerned.
We end up using the system/interface/whatever that allows us to get the most done with the least effort.
Most people call that efficiency, not laziness. I suppose, to some people, they are one and the same. But I guess I figured laziness was something more along the lines of what allows use to get the least done. At least, thats the laziness code I've always followed.
That was the sound of the joke passing you by.
.... Most criminal cases involve coercion or entrapment.
It is truly unfortunate that people make up their minds with ridiculous assertions based on anecdotal evidence. And yes, your personal bad experience with law enforcement does count as anecdotal evidence.
Fortunately, most criminal cases do NOT involve coercion or entrapment. I have been around lawyers long enough and participated in enough criminal trials to know that even the most inexperienced lawyer is much more likely than not going to be able to have charges dismissed if there was any sort of coercion or entrapment going on. And this isn't to say coercion and entrapment don't happen, or that some rogue cops don't get away with it on occasion. But this is to say that those instances are much, much farther and few between than you seem to believe.
The system isn't perfect, to be sure. But the bottom line is, it is a system run by humans with their inherent faults, and because of that, it is probably about as good as it is going to get. By all means though, if you have any feasible suggestions, do feel free to bring them up.
Are you seriously asking this question?
/., security vulnerabilities in MS products are always much more severe and worthy of ridicule than those in open source products?
Are you at all surprised that, here on
It was first used for the early 90's Acura Vigor/Honda Accord. I wanna say 93 but probably 92 or 91 knowing my awesome memory. Beyond that, they also used it for a couple years in the Acura TL in the late 90's.
;-)
Next question please...
I was completely with you on this one, right up until:
However, most people can tell the difference in a blind test.
That really should read:
However, most people with expensive stereos that consider themselves 'audiophiles' can tell the difference in a blind test.
People with expensive stereos that consider themselves 'audiophiles', however, do not constitute "most people". And everything I've ever seen or read doing any kind of blind test came to essentially the same conclusion: that "most people" simply cannot tell the difference. If you've seen or read otherwise, I'd love to see it myself.
Personally, I'm basically in the same boat as you. If I pay attention, I can (usually) hear distinguishing bits to where I can tell. But I noticed too that if I'm just listening to the song as the whole, rather than the individual components, I rarely ever notice a difference. And I think that is more than likely why most people never notice a difference, either.
Is this story about hard drives or a porno?
Huh?!
A location in a growing and upcoming area??
Granted, they might have got more foot traffic from the LV Blvd/Charleston location, or the LV Blvd/Fremont location, but I have a feeling they chose the location they did for a good reason--that place is always busy. I'm in there 5-6x a week, and its always busy. Beyond that, its in a nicer neighborhood than most busy 7-11's in the Vegas area, so I figure that made it a solid choice in the Vegas valley.
...seems to be the main complaint among the bits I've read. And after having used it now myself, I'd have to agree.
Personally, I like the new look of the dock. The menu bar, however, is something I really hope they make an option. For the same reason that I (and many others) don't want or use semi-transparent windows, I don't want a semi-transparent menu bar. It's like they threw readability and usability out the window, all in the name of looking "cool".
Is it just me, or is the "timeline" the article talks about not just something you could reasonably deduce, knowing where Leopard is at right now and when they plan to release it?
Didn't seem like there was any real new info here, but maybe it's just me.
My parents made me pay for it, of course.
And here, we have the difference between good parents (yours) and bad parents (see article).
NAT is *not* a security mechanism.
Whether or not it was intended, NAT *is* a security mechanism. Obviously not the best or the prettiest, but to say it provides no additional security is just ignorant.
Th "security" of NAT is a side effect of it BREAKING the peer to peer model of the internet.
Side effect or not, it provides additional security no matter how you look at it. From a purist's point of view, it certainly does break the peer to peer model of the internet. But from a practical user's standpoint, it rarely if ever breaks anything, provides additional functionality and security, and is usually brain-dead simple to implement.