I thought that modern cellphones (at least some) had data ports. If they have data ports, they must be to plug into a computer, there's little else they'd be for.
Um... yes. Whiplash is merely the result your head being thrust back too quickly whilst your body is held stationery, causing damage to your neck. It has nothing to do with gravity at all.
I've never quite understood this. If your cellphone deals in America are so good (over here, landlines are actually still cheaper to dial out on - no unmetered call options for mobiles), and quality is about as good as a 28.8k line (it is, isn't it?), then why not use the *cellphone* for dialup internet access? Need a dedicated talkie phone? Get 2 cellphones?
"A car has veered off route 66 and the driver's 2 children were killed. According to sources, the driver claims that she didn't realise the car didn't have an autopilot system, and by the time she got up from vacuuming the floor it was too late..."
That's good; we rather urgently need a bit of a negative populaton trend. Already, the 6 billion or so we have on the planet is too much. Things would be much more comfortable for humans if it stabled out at about 4 billion; the planet could comfortably handle that. For some inexplicible reason, certain people seem to start panicing when there is negative population growth and tell people to have more children!!! It's not like inflation, you know. It doesn't HAVE to keep going up.
Surely, hydrogen IS a source of energy. Sure, it doesn't occur naturally in its pure form on Earth, but is that how you define a source of energy? For me, a source of energy is something you can use to create energy... and you can do that with pure hydrogen.
Actually, I think this means fuck all for the individual citizen's privacy. As it requires an unbroken fibre all the way from party A to party B, it would indeed only be appropriate for things like banks to use. Big deal. Think the government wants to spy on the minutia of your bank account? Think that, if they did, they'd have to hack the bank's network to do so, rather than just requiring it in law?
Where it may have helped is over something like the internet... if an 'unhackable' transport method could be developed, privacy would greatly be benefitted. But as the internet inherently requires data streams to be intercepted and forwarded, usually many times over, this method will do nothing to help regular privacy.
Why??? Maybe times have moved on, and people are too busy trying to code viable opensource alternatives to Windows before vendor lock-in ensues. I think that's a far more vital issue that circuitboards. Let's face it, you're not gonna take down the Intel/AMD duopoly, and modern PCs are orders of magnitude more useful than any home-brewed cirtuitboard. Put simply: why code for a circuitboard when you can code for a PC?
I suggest moving your business elsewhere. There's nothing that will get dumb draconian laws repealed faster than all websites operations moving overseas, where (hopefully) the grubby hands of the DMCA et al can't reach them. The American govt care about the economy more than anything else, and if they see an e-commerce drain to other countries, they might be prepared to change the situation. But whilst all you entrepreneurs are still starting up in the good old U S of A, why would they bother to change anything?
I'm afraid you just come over to me as a BBC zealot. Other news organisations that are impartial enough for me include CBC, CNN, ITV News, Euronews and Yahoo! news. That's just a few I've read off the top of my head, all of which are as unbiased as the BBC is. If one is impartial on a story, I can always check a few others to compare it with. I'm not limited to one, unlike BBC viewers seem to be.
I'd like to finish by suggesting that you turn off Sky for anything other than trivial drama etc
TV is mostly about trivial stuff like drama and comedy. The BBC spends most of its time (and our money) on stuff like this. If you want really good news, you need to check out many sources, and not rely on one, because I don't think you'll find a 100% impartial news source anywhere. Face it, you can't defend the BBC's licence fee completely, because it's no longer unique, and it's no longer needed. Sure, it's better than Fox News, but a lot of places are. Just because something worse exists doesn't justify the BBC's existance.
It forces me to pay for TV channels I don't watch, because I watch TV. BTW we Brits spell it "licence".
It's the only thing that stops one of the worlds greatest, and most impartial, news networks becoming yet another mouthpiece for corporate greed.
There are plenty of news networks out there that are as impartial as the BBC (the BBC is not 100% impartial) that are not funded by a licence fee.
At the moment the BBC is owned by the nation.
The BBC is owned by no one. It has no accountability, and faces no loss of funding if it produces utter crap. The government 'review' soon to come will no doubt continue to give the BBC carte blanche to carry on producing what they want, with MY money.
If it was forced to get revenue from advertising it would inevitably start down the slope towards selling it's soul, and it's integrity to the highest bidder.
We're not Americans. We have more morals. That's not necessarily going to happen, and besides, advertising isn't the only revenue model for a TV station. I would support partial government (taxation) funding, but not 100% licence fee funding.
I'd hate to see the BBC go commercial.
A valid opinion, but not mine. Therefore, why should I be forced to pay for it? And, BTW, are you British? If not, you're benefitting from OUR money being paid, whilst paying nothing towards it yourself. Wholly unfair.
of the cost of the license fee when you compare it to a Sky subscription, and compare the quality.
The cheapest Sky subscription is roughly the same as the licence fee, and the quality is far better (in *my* opinion). I watched much more Sky channels than I ever do of the BBC. There is far, far, far more choice on Sky than on the BBC, because there are far more specialist channels.
On one hand you have a not for profit QUANGO
No, the BBC isn't funded at all by the government, it's funded by the licence fee payer.
and on the other you have Rupert Murdock, the most dangerous man in the world.
Rupert Murdoch owns Sky, but not all the channels that broadcast OVER Sky. Besides, Sky isn't the only competitor to the BBC. Cable and, in future, internet broadcasting are both worthy too. But I agree about Rupert Murdoch being an asshole. However, I have no complaints about Sky itself. Seems fine to me.
If MS decides to make the same mistake IBM did, then someone else, a new Bill Gates, will come up with another, brand-new, computing platform that will be open.
Actually, hopefully no. The best thing would be for a community of people (OSS movement) to come up with another, traditional, computing platform that will be open. But crucially, it will not just be open in the sense of user rights, but in the sense of being able to view and modify the source code as a matter of policy. That way, there shouldn't ever be any more Bill Gates's, because nobody could every achieve such dominance of the computing sector again (at least in the OS department). Well, that's what I hope anyway.
Just crappy software I think. I've tried with 2 decent dialup ISPs, and no luck, so it's very unlikely to be a ports blocking problem. I use no firewall, and connect in a very standard way, using Windows dial-up networking. It pops up the error message so instantaneously that it doesn't even seem to be *trying* to connect to the internet. In fact if I didn't know better, I'd say this was just a quick mock-up of a program done in VB, whose internet code hadn't been written yet!
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that modern cellphones (at least some) had data ports. If they have data ports, they must be to plug into a computer, there's little else they'd be for.
And they will.
Um... yes. Whiplash is merely the result your head being thrust back too quickly whilst your body is held stationery, causing damage to your neck. It has nothing to do with gravity at all.
I've never quite understood this. If your cellphone deals in America are so good (over here, landlines are actually still cheaper to dial out on - no unmetered call options for mobiles), and quality is about as good as a 28.8k line (it is, isn't it?), then why not use the *cellphone* for dialup internet access? Need a dedicated talkie phone? Get 2 cellphones?
Seems like if a goverment wants to gain trust and credibility, they should flat-out tell the truth sometimes.
Yep. The Americans should try it sometime.
How about
(politeness - ignorance) * charm == popularity?
Or "car... drive for me".
10 minutes later...
"A car has veered off route 66 and the driver's 2 children were killed. According to sources, the driver claims that she didn't realise the car didn't have an autopilot system, and by the time she got up from vacuuming the floor it was too late..."
That's good; we rather urgently need a bit of a negative populaton trend. Already, the 6 billion or so we have on the planet is too much. Things would be much more comfortable for humans if it stabled out at about 4 billion; the planet could comfortably handle that. For some inexplicible reason, certain people seem to start panicing when there is negative population growth and tell people to have more children!!! It's not like inflation, you know. It doesn't HAVE to keep going up.
Surely, hydrogen IS a source of energy. Sure, it doesn't occur naturally in its pure form on Earth, but is that how you define a source of energy? For me, a source of energy is something you can use to create energy... and you can do that with pure hydrogen.
Actually, I think this means fuck all for the individual citizen's privacy. As it requires an unbroken fibre all the way from party A to party B, it would indeed only be appropriate for things like banks to use. Big deal. Think the government wants to spy on the minutia of your bank account? Think that, if they did, they'd have to hack the bank's network to do so, rather than just requiring it in law?
Where it may have helped is over something like the internet... if an 'unhackable' transport method could be developed, privacy would greatly be benefitted. But as the internet inherently requires data streams to be intercepted and forwarded, usually many times over, this method will do nothing to help regular privacy.
Why??? Maybe times have moved on, and people are too busy trying to code viable opensource alternatives to Windows before vendor lock-in ensues. I think that's a far more vital issue that circuitboards. Let's face it, you're not gonna take down the Intel/AMD duopoly, and modern PCs are orders of magnitude more useful than any home-brewed cirtuitboard. Put simply: why code for a circuitboard when you can code for a PC?
I suggest moving your business elsewhere. There's nothing that will get dumb draconian laws repealed faster than all websites operations moving overseas, where (hopefully) the grubby hands of the DMCA et al can't reach them. The American govt care about the economy more than anything else, and if they see an e-commerce drain to other countries, they might be prepared to change the situation. But whilst all you entrepreneurs are still starting up in the good old U S of A, why would they bother to change anything?
You are wrong. I'm on a dialup DUN connection, Windows XP, no firewall, and it says i'm "not connected to the internet". Pah.
Michael R. Sweet mannnnn, Michael R. Sweet!!!!
It's not Win98-specific. I'm running XP and get that same error.
I'm afraid you just come over to me as a BBC zealot. Other news organisations that are impartial enough for me include CBC, CNN, ITV News, Euronews and Yahoo! news. That's just a few I've read off the top of my head, all of which are as unbiased as the BBC is. If one is impartial on a story, I can always check a few others to compare it with. I'm not limited to one, unlike BBC viewers seem to be.
I'd like to finish by suggesting that you turn off Sky for anything other than trivial drama etc
TV is mostly about trivial stuff like drama and comedy. The BBC spends most of its time (and our money) on stuff like this. If you want really good news, you need to check out many sources, and not rely on one, because I don't think you'll find a 100% impartial news source anywhere. Face it, you can't defend the BBC's licence fee completely, because it's no longer unique, and it's no longer needed. Sure, it's better than Fox News, but a lot of places are. Just because something worse exists doesn't justify the BBC's existance.
why do you want to get rid of the TV license fee?
It forces me to pay for TV channels I don't watch, because I watch TV. BTW we Brits spell it "licence".
It's the only thing that stops one of the worlds greatest, and most impartial, news networks becoming yet another mouthpiece for corporate greed.
There are plenty of news networks out there that are as impartial as the BBC (the BBC is not 100% impartial) that are not funded by a licence fee.
At the moment the BBC is owned by the nation.
The BBC is owned by no one. It has no accountability, and faces no loss of funding if it produces utter crap. The government 'review' soon to come will no doubt continue to give the BBC carte blanche to carry on producing what they want, with MY money.
If it was forced to get revenue from advertising it would inevitably start down the slope towards selling it's soul, and it's integrity to the highest bidder.
We're not Americans. We have more morals. That's not necessarily going to happen, and besides, advertising isn't the only revenue model for a TV station. I would support partial government (taxation) funding, but not 100% licence fee funding.
I'd hate to see the BBC go commercial.
A valid opinion, but not mine. Therefore, why should I be forced to pay for it? And, BTW, are you British? If not, you're benefitting from OUR money being paid, whilst paying nothing towards it yourself. Wholly unfair.
of the cost of the license fee when you compare it to a Sky subscription, and compare the quality.
The cheapest Sky subscription is roughly the same as the licence fee, and the quality is far better (in *my* opinion). I watched much more Sky channels than I ever do of the BBC. There is far, far, far more choice on Sky than on the BBC, because there are far more specialist channels.
On one hand you have a not for profit QUANGO
No, the BBC isn't funded at all by the government, it's funded by the licence fee payer.
and on the other you have Rupert Murdock, the most dangerous man in the world.
Rupert Murdoch owns Sky, but not all the channels that broadcast OVER Sky. Besides, Sky isn't the only competitor to the BBC. Cable and, in future, internet broadcasting are both worthy too. But I agree about Rupert Murdoch being an asshole. However, I have no complaints about Sky itself. Seems fine to me.
This approach has been clearly demonstrated with Apple's iTunes product.
You mean the iTunes Music Store. It's statements like these that got me confused between the two in the first place.
iTunes == crappy Apple 'jukebox' software.
iTunes Music Store == cool (cooler than most) online music store
If MS decides to make the same mistake IBM did, then someone else, a new Bill Gates, will come up with another, brand-new, computing platform that will be open.
Actually, hopefully no. The best thing would be for a community of people (OSS movement) to come up with another, traditional, computing platform that will be open. But crucially, it will not just be open in the sense of user rights, but in the sense of being able to view and modify the source code as a matter of policy. That way, there shouldn't ever be any more Bill Gates's, because nobody could every achieve such dominance of the computing sector again (at least in the OS department). Well, that's what I hope anyway.
I know 99% of people reading this probably shouted it out immediately, but: Windows 95.
That's better than RIAA/Microsoft scorekeeping where keeping the law is bad and enforcing an anti-competetive monopoly is good.
Just crappy software I think. I've tried with 2 decent dialup ISPs, and no luck, so it's very unlikely to be a ports blocking problem. I use no firewall, and connect in a very standard way, using Windows dial-up networking. It pops up the error message so instantaneously that it doesn't even seem to be *trying* to connect to the internet. In fact if I didn't know better, I'd say this was just a quick mock-up of a program done in VB, whose internet code hadn't been written yet!
I think this picture might give you some better quality pics of those 'ideal scenario' females :-)
"You are currently not connected to the Internet. Please take the appropriate steps and try again."
Oh well, I guess that means I won't be able to post this. Wonderful technology!!
But 'iabervon' was comparing it directly with Word, so I thought it was reasonable to compare the features of both.