Launch is $3 or $4 a month for streaming radio and has a ton of users (I've been a user for abour 4 years but never sprung for the pay version).
Rhapsody is $10/month with unlimited streaming stations and unlimited on-demand. This is the greatest thing to ever happen to me since my first cassette player. Why would I pay $8 a month for XM when I get as many stations and as much variety from Rhapsody PLUS the ability to listen to damn near anything I want within about 2 seconds of deciding I want to hear it? Rhapsody allows me to listen to full CDs that I would never buy, just to verify that I don't like them. And it allows me to listen to a full CD 3 times and have it grow into my favorite band this year. And make playlists that rival anything anyone would ever dare play on the radio.
Streaming radio is great, I am a fan. On-demand is heaven. Unless XM is on-demand, that price will never suceed.
The info bar is copied, the devs stated that fact. Like many (including myself), they saw the info bar in IE and saw the benefits vs the way firefox previously handled it.
Companies like Duke Energy are struggling and constantly in the news due to their efforts to scrape a more dollars out by any means possible. Why, then, aren't they pushing for things like this? Why aren't they pushing electric cars? Not only would these technologies help increase their profits and their standing (in most people's eyes), but would (in the case of electric cars) increase the demand for their product. I would think that would be the ultimate goal for the energy companies: to safely produce clean power AND make us rely on that instead of fossil fuels.
"Let's take the typical Windows Media Player user and say they want to play some ogg files"
The typical Windows Media Player user doesn't want to play some ogg files, doesn't need to play some ogg files, and probably have never heard of ogg files. I am FAR from a typical user and I have only ran into the need 1 time and that was more curiosity than anything. The downloads were offereing in flac, shn, ogg vorbis, and mp3, I decided to give ogg a spin (and ended up using Winamp to do so).
All of the examples on that page work with Opera. Opera does have a problem with the page itself, though. I don't think "doesn't seem to work" is an accurate analysis.
Reality check: Read the headline ("Get Rid of IE..."). Read the article summary (and note that IE is mentioned 3 times in the 2 sentences). Visit the site and notice that every page revolves around "IE is unsafe". The site is based on little more than "IE is unsafe". If it were actually a site against virus writers, it would mention SOMETHING other than "IE is bad".
Firefox is my default browser and has been for quite a while, so don't think I'm sticking up for IE at all. I'm not. I don't recommend IE to anyone. But that doesn't change the facts.
1MB is NOT very high bandwidth. The slowest broadband in my area was over 1MB in 1999. My current cable modem gives me 2.5MB on an average day, 3MB on a good day.
Untrue unless you're talking about outgoing traffic only. If that is the case, why mention it at all since ICF doesn't block any outgoing traffic?
Incoming traffic hits the ICF firewall and is only allowed in if you have the port open. If you have ICS on, you also have to specify where machine the port routes to.
a password like "Your Mom Likes 2 dance! But Why?!?!" (without quotes) is not only easy to remember, it's damn hard to crack. The problem with "tough" passwords is that people don't want to remember something like "adfh93#$" as their passwords.
"Your Mom Likes 2 dance! But Why?!?!" is a bit long if you're typing it more than 1 or 2 times a day, in cases where passwords actually matter, a sentence makes more sense than a random password.
I will assume you're just joking, but in case you're not, then I have to mention that your description of Joe Sixpack is way off base.
Joe Sixpack is the guy that does manual labor. Like welding. And soldering. Hell, he even knows how to pronounce the word. He can change his own oil and he does so. Consumer electronics are more likely to be soldered in his home because he knows how (unlike most geeks and anyone that wears a tie to work). He may be an electrician, even. Or a plumber. Or a machinist. Or any of the millions of other non-IT, non-service jobs in the US.
He is mad about the chips in his car's engine because he is not allowed to buy the tools to work on them. He may not own a Playstation, but, as the grandparent said, he'll be pissed when he finds out there is a law against modding it. He didn't have a Playstation when he grew up but he modded everything from his bike (with playing cards and clothespins) to his cars.
Is PABD cheaper than CafePress's Self Publish Books? If so, they should probably stop making you register for a membership before allowing you to see what the prices are. Like most people, I'm not going to sign up for a membership just to see if the cost is inline with what I want.
Almost everything is said in a joking/sarcastic manner in F9/11. If you want to say that true jokes are facts but untrue jokes are just jokes, that's fine. I choose not to.
he kinda sorta admits to some of the accusation and only corrected part of the problem with the scene in question (the added text and mistaken narration over the "Willie Horton Ad"). I don't know that I would call it a "small factual error" and I certainly wouldn't call it the only small factual error in the film.
This is a typical problem I have with Mooore: I refuse to differentiate between him lying to me and him trying to trick me.
"FAHRENHEIT 9/11: The security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001, said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes."
The problem here is that he misquotes the movie and the assertion in the movie. In the actual quote from the movie, Moore says: "Or perhaps he just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes." Emphasis mine.
Moores leaves out the important part of that sentence because He forgot the important first part of that sentence when he put it on his site. That is probably because, on the same page on his site (up a few "facts"), he says
"NOTE: It should be emphasized that at the time Bush was notified of the first plane attack, he (unlike the rest of America) was already aware that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes, per the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB)."
So in the movie he says that the report was there and he didn't read it, on his site he says the report was there and that he had read it. He is easily able to hide the contradiction on his site by editing the quote to leave out the real implication of his statement in the movie. He can't say both, at least not on the same page.
Of course, he would combat this by saying "no, it doesn't say that he read it, it says that he was aware of it." But like I said, I don't see any meaningful difference between trying to trick me and lying to me.
Admits to it? Only in principle. He will defend his slants, "lies by ommission" and mistakes tooth-and-nail. I have yet to see him admit to a specific lie, lie by omission, or severe slant when challenged on a point.
I had the same problem with one of my domains. Every 5 minutes, Outlook would check my email and I could tell I had new mail. There would be between 10 and 50 new emails and I would watch them come into my inbox and then Outlook would route them all to the junk box. I was getting over 1000 a day, all to random addresses in the form of [firstname]@[domain.com], all for the same domain.
They weren't exactly spam, though, they were virus/worm emails.
I eventually got tired of the letdown when all my new emails were sent to the junk box, so I turned off the catch-all.
This has not happened to my other domains, so I still have catch-alls for them. I use site-specific email addresses when I register for things (like nyt@[domain.com] when I registered at newyorktimes.com, amazon@[domain.com] when I registered at amazon.com) in order to track who sells/gives away my email address.
Slashdot Mirror
Launch is $3 or $4 a month for streaming radio and has a ton of users (I've been a user for abour 4 years but never sprung for the pay version).
Rhapsody is $10/month with unlimited streaming stations and unlimited on-demand. This is the greatest thing to ever happen to me since my first cassette player. Why would I pay $8 a month for XM when I get as many stations and as much variety from Rhapsody PLUS the ability to listen to damn near anything I want within about 2 seconds of deciding I want to hear it? Rhapsody allows me to listen to full CDs that I would never buy, just to verify that I don't like them. And it allows me to listen to a full CD 3 times and have it grow into my favorite band this year. And make playlists that rival anything anyone would ever dare play on the radio.
Streaming radio is great, I am a fan. On-demand is heaven. Unless XM is on-demand, that price will never suceed.
The info bar is copied, the devs stated that fact. Like many (including myself), they saw the info bar in IE and saw the benefits vs the way firefox previously handled it.
Companies like Duke Energy are struggling and constantly in the news due to their efforts to scrape a more dollars out by any means possible. Why, then, aren't they pushing for things like this? Why aren't they pushing electric cars? Not only would these technologies help increase their profits and their standing (in most people's eyes), but would (in the case of electric cars) increase the demand for their product. I would think that would be the ultimate goal for the energy companies: to safely produce clean power AND make us rely on that instead of fossil fuels.
That is a cool-azz feature. Thanks for the info.
"Let's take the typical Windows Media Player user and say they want to play some ogg files"
The typical Windows Media Player user doesn't want to play some ogg files, doesn't need to play some ogg files, and probably have never heard of ogg files. I am FAR from a typical user and I have only ran into the need 1 time and that was more curiosity than anything. The downloads were offereing in flac, shn, ogg vorbis, and mp3, I decided to give ogg a spin (and ended up using Winamp to do so).
All of the examples on that page work with Opera. Opera does have a problem with the page itself, though. I don't think "doesn't seem to work" is an accurate analysis.
The post said "asp", not asp.net, so the validator issue (though true) isn't applicable unless the guy made a mistake in his post.
regarding your CSS question:
Getting your DIVs to behave like TABLEs
and
Designing a CSS-based Template Part I - Part II - Part III - Part IV - Part V
those might help.
Reality check: Read the headline ("Get Rid of IE..."). Read the article summary (and note that IE is mentioned 3 times in the 2 sentences). Visit the site and notice that every page revolves around "IE is unsafe". The site is based on little more than "IE is unsafe". If it were actually a site against virus writers, it would mention SOMETHING other than "IE is bad".
Firefox is my default browser and has been for quite a while, so don't think I'm sticking up for IE at all. I'm not. I don't recommend IE to anyone. But that doesn't change the facts.
this may not be new, but I've never seen it before: http://services.google.com/inquiry/gmail_suggest/
And I meant actual download speeds of 2.5MB or better which I see every time I download from sites equipped/kind enough to pump out at that rate.
1MB is NOT very high bandwidth. The slowest broadband in my area was over 1MB in 1999. My current cable modem gives me 2.5MB on an average day, 3MB on a good day.
nothing at all. It is my default browser and the only one I have used GMail with. No reason to use IE at all, as far as GMail is concerned.
They say they are working on it.
"ICS traffic bypasses any ICF filters"
Untrue unless you're talking about outgoing traffic only. If that is the case, why mention it at all since ICF doesn't block any outgoing traffic?
Incoming traffic hits the ICF firewall and is only allowed in if you have the port open. If you have ICS on, you also have to specify where machine the port routes to.
"I think so and hope so."
I hope so but I don't think so. Have you seen/heard otherwise?
"harassing me left and right about programs connecting to the internet."
I was told that the firewall only detects/blocks/prompts regarding incoming traffic, not outgoing.
Did they change this?
a password like "Your Mom Likes 2 dance! But Why?!?!" (without quotes) is not only easy to remember, it's damn hard to crack. The problem with "tough" passwords is that people don't want to remember something like "adfh93#$" as their passwords.
"Your Mom Likes 2 dance! But Why?!?!" is a bit long if you're typing it more than 1 or 2 times a day, in cases where passwords actually matter, a sentence makes more sense than a random password.
I will assume you're just joking, but in case you're not, then I have to mention that your description of Joe Sixpack is way off base.
Joe Sixpack is the guy that does manual labor. Like welding. And soldering. Hell, he even knows how to pronounce the word. He can change his own oil and he does so. Consumer electronics are more likely to be soldered in his home because he knows how (unlike most geeks and anyone that wears a tie to work). He may be an electrician, even. Or a plumber. Or a machinist. Or any of the millions of other non-IT, non-service jobs in the US.
He is mad about the chips in his car's engine because he is not allowed to buy the tools to work on them. He may not own a Playstation, but, as the grandparent said, he'll be pissed when he finds out there is a law against modding it. He didn't have a Playstation when he grew up but he modded everything from his bike (with playing cards and clothespins) to his cars.
Cool. Thanks. For the record, the answer is "no", Cafe Press may be overpriced but is cheaper than the alternative that the poster listed.
Is PABD cheaper than CafePress's Self Publish Books? If so, they should probably stop making you register for a membership before allowing you to see what the prices are. Like most people, I'm not going to sign up for a membership just to see if the cost is inline with what I want.
First off, try not launching the idea as "let's prove MS wrong".
Almost everything is said in a joking/sarcastic manner in F9/11. If you want to say that true jokes are facts but untrue jokes are just jokes, that's fine. I choose not to.
This is a typical problem I have with Mooore: I refuse to differentiate between him lying to me and him trying to trick me.
While reading the F9/11 facts page on his site, I found this example:
The problem here is that he misquotes the movie and the assertion in the movie. In the actual quote from the movie, Moore says: "Or perhaps he just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes." Emphasis mine.
Moores leaves out the important part of that sentence because He forgot the important first part of that sentence when he put it on his site. That is probably because, on the same page on his site (up a few "facts"), he says
So in the movie he says that the report was there and he didn't read it, on his site he says the report was there and that he had read it. He is easily able to hide the contradiction on his site by editing the quote to leave out the real implication of his statement in the movie. He can't say both, at least not on the same page.
Of course, he would combat this by saying "no, it doesn't say that he read it, it says that he was aware of it." But like I said, I don't see any meaningful difference between trying to trick me and lying to me.
Admits to it? Only in principle. He will defend his slants, "lies by ommission" and mistakes tooth-and-nail. I have yet to see him admit to a specific lie, lie by omission, or severe slant when challenged on a point.
I had the same problem with one of my domains. Every 5 minutes, Outlook would check my email and I could tell I had new mail. There would be between 10 and 50 new emails and I would watch them come into my inbox and then Outlook would route them all to the junk box. I was getting over 1000 a day, all to random addresses in the form of [firstname]@[domain.com], all for the same domain.
They weren't exactly spam, though, they were virus/worm emails.
I eventually got tired of the letdown when all my new emails were sent to the junk box, so I turned off the catch-all.
This has not happened to my other domains, so I still have catch-alls for them. I use site-specific email addresses when I register for things (like nyt@[domain.com] when I registered at newyorktimes.com, amazon@[domain.com] when I registered at amazon.com) in order to track who sells/gives away my email address.