I found dozens of tests where it ranked right up there with the V 1. I bought it based on all those comparisons and it does very well for me.
It once spotted the Ka radar of a state trooper on the other side of a hill a mile away (Hwy 292, Tattnall Cty, Georgia). Which was a good thing because I was in a hurry that day.....
I think my city has it backwards in one case. At night, the main highway through town stays red at a particular intersection with a far, FAR less heavily trafficked highway until you drive up to the light and stop. Not five seconds after driving through the intersection, the light goes back to red.
Considering that I have a vampire's sleep schedule (sleep during the day, up all night), that is *really* annoying to just sit there for no reason.
As for your radar detector, that seems like something they would filter out, not fire off an alert about. If you're going to spend money for a radar detector at all, don't waste it on a cheap one. Get a Valentine One or an Escort Passport.
"If the traffic is light enough, you can usually drive from the 118 to the 101 at the speed limit and never hit a red. Of course the speed limit is generally an annoying 35mph."
If it is timed to a certain speed, oh, let's say, THE SPEED LIMIT, then you should be able to drive green all the way down the street if you drive at the speed limit.
I love it when I come across lights synchronized that way. If traffic is light enough, you can just hit cruise control and sail across town. Driving faster in a dense city doesn't get you there any faster. You just hit the slower drivers, red lights and stop signs sooner than the people half a mile behind you.
I don't know anything about that particular company you're talking about. I do have business with several software companies, most of whom have the problem of people signing up as an affiliate or reseller, then sending spam for their product.
It is in clear violation of their affiliate/reseller policy and when those companies find out about the spamming, they all A.) cancel that company's account and B.) refuse to pay them their commissions. Still, people do it anyway thinking they can get away with it.
One antispyware company was even joe jobbed by a spyware maker when he started installing spyware that hawked the antispyware. When they found out about it, they canceled his account, refused to pay him and then changed their policy to prohibit ANY affiliate from using email to promote their program.
The spammer is using a 302 (temporarily moved) server redirect. The log below is from Firefox, not the screensaver. I don't have the screensaver, so I can't say if it follows the redirect or if it just ends at the spammer's server.
Although cute, all the spammer is doing is redirecting the few people who would have responded to their spam to a site dedicated to knocking them off the web.
HTTP log:
http://www.moretgage.info/
GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: www.moretgage.info User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041001 Firefox/0.10.1 blah blah blah
I'm sorry that you think that. The fact is that we paid anyone willing to work the same wages, irregardless of their address, or lack thereof. I don't work there anymore, so I can't produce the financial records from 1994-96 but I assure you that what I said is true.
> Oh and unions that don't strike are not looking out for their members. Unions that don't object to non union people working in their shops are not looking out for their members.
I can't even imagine what would lead someone to say something like that. Unions don't strike when there is no need to strike. Or maybe you were approving of illegal kickbacks to shop bosses and mafia?
As for the 2nd sentence, the union that objects to non-union labor is looking out for their own bank account, not their members. They don't like the loss of influence or the loss of dues-paying members when someone hires non-union labor. So where they have too much influence, they make artificial problems for those employers who do. That is why it is a very good thing all around that they do not have so much influence down here.
The fact of the matter is, even if every single union-member construction worker on planet earth were hired, there still would not be enough workers for the construction and farm jobs in the south. If the people running those businesses didn't find workers wherever they were available, it would slow those projects and hurt the national and regional economies.
I still don't understand where your objection is to hiring people who desperately need money. The goal of any responsible society is to help people on the street come off the street. The goal is not to make their lives on the street more pleasant. Maybe where you live people treat the homeless as slaves or irritatants or as a never-ending source of federal money. Here, we try to help them come off the streets so that they can take care of themselves.
> They ARE covered for job-related accidents by the company liability policy (at least where I worked). If they were injured, the boss paid the doctor's bill.
Strike that. The boss didn't pay personally, but his company's insurance did.
> So you have unions but they don't look out for the welfare of their union members.
No, in fact they serve their purpose, managing labor relations. What they do not do is go on strike when kickbacks are not paid and they do not interfere with a contractor's ability to use temporary workers. Unions hate it when someone employs a non-union worker. They don't get their cut and they make trouble about it.
> So you pick up homeless people off the street and then pay them the same amount that you would pay one of your regular crew or a union member.
Glad you're getting it. I wasn't the employer but I was the job site manager for a company. The people picked up at Montgomery Square in the morning got the same wages per hour as a permanent worker, plus a ride to and from work.
> There is nothing wrong with "emplyoying" the poor. There is a lot wrong with picking them up for the day, paying them chicken shit, not providing them any benefits, not covering them under your accident policy and then discarding them at the end of the day when you are done with them.
They're paid whatever the going wage is for whatever work they're doing. That is determined by the local market, not by the worker's address.
They ARE covered for job-related accidents by the company liability policy (at least where I worked). If they were injured, the boss paid the doctor's bill. Normal health insurance was not provided. If they wanted that, they could apply for a permanent job.
> and then discarding them at the end of the day when you are done with them.
That was up to them. If they wanted to come back, they'd arrange to be in the same spot the next day. If they wanted a permanent job, they were hired if they did a good job.
I don't understand your objections. They wanted to work, so they were put to work. Would you rather they stayed on the street with no money at all?
I didn't say there were not unions. They're here, they just don't obstruct things the way they do elsewhere.
I didn't say people weren't paid decent salary. They're paid whatever the fair wage is for whatever work they're doing.
Temporary workers usually don't have benefits like insurance or profit sharing. That's nationwide, not specific to the south. Sorry to interrupt your southbashing.
This has nothing to do with religion and I am atheist myself. Sorry to interrupt your biblebashing. But since you brought it up, what's wrong with employing the poor and desperate? They want work, so they're put to work. Where's the problem here?
Actually, we call "bums" "homeless" or "vagrants".
There are less of them, because the population is not as dense and because we tend to try putting them to work instead of propping them up forever. A lot of field and construction laborers are homeless men picked up on a corner and driven in the back of the boss's pickup truck to the job site. That doesn't happen up north because of all the labor unions.
Rednecks typically work for a living, either at manual labor or one or two steps removed from it. They're usually the ones driving the pickup truck that carry the homeless to a job site. A lot of rednecks own small businesses, usually something to do with farming or construction. They have 2 or 3 kids, watch wrestling, football and nascar and drive pickup trucks. Rednecks tend to be conservative and listen to country music.
- And honestly, does anybody REALLY watch TV when they go to a restaurant?
Yes
- Is the volume ever loud enough to hear anything anyway?
Yes
- Doesn't watching TV as you eat with friends/family reach the same level of rudeness as talking on a cellphone rather than talking with your dining companions?
I'm baffled. Are you really questioning whether someone quietly watching a television is as rude as some idiot jabbering on a cellphone into a restaurant? If this really is something you're unsure of, the answer is no.
It is sarcasm, used to point out retailers do not have a monopoly on the distribution of these games. If they want to make it difficult to purchase the game, that same game usually can be downloaded with no payment necessary and it is usually superior quality (in that they tend to be patched not to require an actual CD).
Or the short version; it shows an insight into the topic at hand. Hence the moderation.
The system is broken and guarantees that either a Democrat or a Republican is going to be president. It's tragic, but your only real choice is to decide who is the lesser of two evils. A vote for an alternate party candidate is a vote for the candidate whose politics is opposite of your guy because it siphons votes from the other.
As you say, don't waste your vote. Save the alternate party voting for Congress where an independent or alternate party candidate has a real chance. Get enough of those in Congress and maybe they can fix that broken system so Naderites can vote for Nader with a clear conscience.
"Interesting how you ignored 90% of the substance of my post and latched on to something that comes down to the standard full-disclosure-or-not argument."
What's your point? So he didn't reply to every point in your post. So? Maybe he agreed with that part and had nothing to say about it. As to the other 10%, I agree with him.
The "security by obscurity doesn't work!!!!" fundamentalists never seem to take into account the fact that users can be and often are harmed by exploited security bugs. I'm sure it's nice for them to think they're sitting smug atop the moral high ground by forcing some developer to fix a bug. Unfortunately, while they're playing king of the hill, they forget that the entire point of finding and fixing bugs is to make sure end users are not harmed by them.
There is no benefit whatsoever to end users when someone announces a bug AND the code needed to exploit it before the developer has the fix nailed down. More than one trojan and trojan dropping method has been released based almost entirely upon exploit code posted to those security lists.
You remember MSBlaster I assume. That was based on exploit code posted by one person to a security list which was later refined and made more dangerous by yet another person on the same list.
If the developer has no plans to fix a security problem, then fine, release an exploit to get him off his ass. Public disclosure is supposed to be a threat/incentive for the developer to fix the problem. If it's going to be disclosed anyway, before he has a chance to fix the problem, it defeats the entire purpose of public disclosure.
"c) Using a credit card improves your credit rating. This is why I pay for everything by credit card, then pay off my bill in full every billing cycle."
Actually, while that is good for your credit, paying it off slower (not in full) looks much better. You're paying the bill (good) but you're also making the lender more money (better), so your credit score goes up further than if you pay the whole thing at once.
Same as a bank loan. It looks better to pay it off according to the schedule than to jump the gun and pay the whole thing off early.
Of course, if your credit is already excellent, there's no need to worry with all that. If you're trying to rebuild bad credit, then slower is better.
Someone in my home illegally has forfeited his right to liberty and, if he is armed, he has forfeited his right to life.
If someone does break into my house, I will have no regrets about filling him with buckshot or with suing his estate for the cost of cleaning his lungs off my walls.
Slashdot Mirror
I found dozens of tests where it ranked right up there with the V 1. I bought it based on all those comparisons and it does very well for me.
It once spotted the Ka radar of a state trooper on the other side of a hill a mile away (Hwy 292, Tattnall Cty, Georgia). Which was a good thing because I was in a hurry that day.....
And as soon as this is implemented, the number of browser hijackers will increase by 10 orders of magnitude.
"AFAIK, the poor yanks still have sodomy laws on the books in some states."
We do. Even sadder is that occasionally they're enforced.
I think my city has it backwards in one case. At night, the main highway through town stays red at a particular intersection with a far, FAR less heavily trafficked highway until you drive up to the light and stop. Not five seconds after driving through the intersection, the light goes back to red.
Considering that I have a vampire's sleep schedule (sleep during the day, up all night), that is *really* annoying to just sit there for no reason.
As for your radar detector, that seems like something they would filter out, not fire off an alert about. If you're going to spend money for a radar detector at all, don't waste it on a cheap one. Get a Valentine One or an Escort Passport.
"If the traffic is light enough, you can usually drive from the 118 to the 101 at the speed limit and never hit a red. Of course the speed limit is generally an annoying 35mph."
;)
So fire up the radar detector and drive 70.
Seems like something a good detector should filter out, not alert on. Is it the exact same K or Ka band radar used by police?
If it is timed to a certain speed, oh, let's say, THE SPEED LIMIT, then you should be able to drive green all the way down the street if you drive at the speed limit.
I love it when I come across lights synchronized that way. If traffic is light enough, you can just hit cruise control and sail across town. Driving faster in a dense city doesn't get you there any faster. You just hit the slower drivers, red lights and stop signs sooner than the people half a mile behind you.
Really? Is that something you heard from someone you think might be right or have you seen it verified in text or by a cop/politician?
Not arguing, just wondering if that's really true.
If it is on your own site, then yes, it is. They are very specific that you are not to click the ads on your own site.
I don't know anything about that particular company you're talking about. I do have business with several software companies, most of whom have the problem of people signing up as an affiliate or reseller, then sending spam for their product.
It is in clear violation of their affiliate/reseller policy and when those companies find out about the spamming, they all A.) cancel that company's account and B.) refuse to pay them their commissions. Still, people do it anyway thinking they can get away with it.
One antispyware company was even joe jobbed by a spyware maker when he started installing spyware that hawked the antispyware. When they found out about it, they canceled his account, refused to pay him and then changed their policy to prohibit ANY affiliate from using email to promote their program.
The spammer is using a 302 (temporarily moved) server redirect. The log below is from Firefox, not the screensaver. I don't have the screensaver, so I can't say if it follows the redirect or if it just ends at the spammer's server.
Although cute, all the spammer is doing is redirecting the few people who would have responded to their spam to a site dedicated to knocking them off the web.
HTTP log:
http://www.moretgage.info/
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.moretgage.info
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041001 Firefox/0.10.1
blah blah blah
HTTP/1.x 302 Moved Temporarily
Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Gentoo/Linux) PHP/4.3.9
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.9
Location: http://www.makelovenotspam.com
blah blah blah
The difference is pretty clear cut to me.
Blockade an intersection and kill soldiers occupying land that doesn't belong to them, you're a freedom fighter.
Walk into an ice cream parlor and blow up toddlers, you're a terrorist - and a coward.
I'm sorry that you think that. The fact is that we paid anyone willing to work the same wages, irregardless of their address, or lack thereof. I don't work there anymore, so I can't produce the financial records from 1994-96 but I assure you that what I said is true.
> Oh and unions that don't strike are not looking out for their members. Unions that don't object to non union people working in their shops are not looking out for their members.
I can't even imagine what would lead someone to say something like that. Unions don't strike when there is no need to strike. Or maybe you were approving of illegal kickbacks to shop bosses and mafia?
As for the 2nd sentence, the union that objects to non-union labor is looking out for their own bank account, not their members. They don't like the loss of influence or the loss of dues-paying members when someone hires non-union labor. So where they have too much influence, they make artificial problems for those employers who do. That is why it is a very good thing all around that they do not have so much influence down here.
The fact of the matter is, even if every single union-member construction worker on planet earth were hired, there still would not be enough workers for the construction and farm jobs in the south. If the people running those businesses didn't find workers wherever they were available, it would slow those projects and hurt the national and regional economies.
I still don't understand where your objection is to hiring people who desperately need money. The goal of any responsible society is to help people on the street come off the street. The goal is not to make their lives on the street more pleasant. Maybe where you live people treat the homeless as slaves or irritatants or as a never-ending source of federal money. Here, we try to help them come off the streets so that they can take care of themselves.
> They ARE covered for job-related accidents by the company liability policy (at least where I worked). If they were injured, the boss paid the doctor's bill.
Strike that. The boss didn't pay personally, but his company's insurance did.
> So you have unions but they don't look out for the welfare of their union members.
No, in fact they serve their purpose, managing labor relations. What they do not do is go on strike when kickbacks are not paid and they do not interfere with a contractor's ability to use temporary workers. Unions hate it when someone employs a non-union worker. They don't get their cut and they make trouble about it.
> So you pick up homeless people off the street and then pay them the same amount that you would pay one of your regular crew or a union member.
Glad you're getting it. I wasn't the employer but I was the job site manager for a company. The people picked up at Montgomery Square in the morning got the same wages per hour as a permanent worker, plus a ride to and from work.
> There is nothing wrong with "emplyoying" the poor. There is a lot wrong with picking them up for the day, paying them chicken shit, not providing them any benefits, not covering them under your accident policy and then discarding them at the end of the day when you are done with them.
They're paid whatever the going wage is for whatever work they're doing. That is determined by the local market, not by the worker's address.
They ARE covered for job-related accidents by the company liability policy (at least where I worked). If they were injured, the boss paid the doctor's bill. Normal health insurance was not provided. If they wanted that, they could apply for a permanent job.
> and then discarding them at the end of the day when you are done with them.
That was up to them. If they wanted to come back, they'd arrange to be in the same spot the next day. If they wanted a permanent job, they were hired if they did a good job.
I don't understand your objections. They wanted to work, so they were put to work. Would you rather they stayed on the street with no money at all?
Sorry, were you replying to a different post?
I didn't say there were not unions. They're here, they just don't obstruct things the way they do elsewhere.
I didn't say people weren't paid decent salary. They're paid whatever the fair wage is for whatever work they're doing.
Temporary workers usually don't have benefits like insurance or profit sharing. That's nationwide, not specific to the south. Sorry to interrupt your southbashing.
This has nothing to do with religion and I am atheist myself. Sorry to interrupt your biblebashing. But since you brought it up, what's wrong with employing the poor and desperate? They want work, so they're put to work. Where's the problem here?
Greetings from Georgia.
Actually, we call "bums" "homeless" or "vagrants".
There are less of them, because the population is not as dense and because we tend to try putting them to work instead of propping them up forever. A lot of field and construction laborers are homeless men picked up on a corner and driven in the back of the boss's pickup truck to the job site. That doesn't happen up north because of all the labor unions.
Rednecks typically work for a living, either at manual labor or one or two steps removed from it. They're usually the ones driving the pickup truck that carry the homeless to a job site. A lot of rednecks own small businesses, usually something to do with farming or construction. They have 2 or 3 kids, watch wrestling, football and nascar and drive pickup trucks. Rednecks tend to be conservative and listen to country music.
What a novel idea. Making improvements in quality in a cd/dvd instead of reducing the quality in the name of stopping piracy.
I predict the MPAA and RIAA will immediately take legal action to stop this subversive activity.
- And honestly, does anybody REALLY watch TV when they go to a restaurant?
Yes
- Is the volume ever loud enough to hear anything anyway?
Yes
- Doesn't watching TV as you eat with friends/family reach the same level of rudeness as talking on a cellphone rather than talking with your dining companions?
I'm baffled. Are you really questioning whether someone quietly watching a television is as rude as some idiot jabbering on a cellphone into a restaurant? If this really is something you're unsure of, the answer is no.
It is sarcasm, used to point out retailers do not have a monopoly on the distribution of these games. If they want to make it difficult to purchase the game, that same game usually can be downloaded with no payment necessary and it is usually superior quality (in that they tend to be patched not to require an actual CD).
Or the short version; it shows an insight into the topic at hand. Hence the moderation.
Hope that answers your question.
The system is broken and guarantees that either a Democrat or a Republican is going to be president. It's tragic, but your only real choice is to decide who is the lesser of two evils. A vote for an alternate party candidate is a vote for the candidate whose politics is opposite of your guy because it siphons votes from the other.
As you say, don't waste your vote. Save the alternate party voting for Congress where an independent or alternate party candidate has a real chance. Get enough of those in Congress and maybe they can fix that broken system so Naderites can vote for Nader with a clear conscience.
"Interesting how you ignored 90% of the substance of my post and latched on to something that comes down to the standard full-disclosure-or-not argument."
What's your point? So he didn't reply to every point in your post. So? Maybe he agreed with that part and had nothing to say about it. As to the other 10%, I agree with him.
The "security by obscurity doesn't work!!!!" fundamentalists never seem to take into account the fact that users can be and often are harmed by exploited security bugs. I'm sure it's nice for them to think they're sitting smug atop the moral high ground by forcing some developer to fix a bug. Unfortunately, while they're playing king of the hill, they forget that the entire point of finding and fixing bugs is to make sure end users are not harmed by them.
There is no benefit whatsoever to end users when someone announces a bug AND the code needed to exploit it before the developer has the fix nailed down. More than one trojan and trojan dropping method has been released based almost entirely upon exploit code posted to those security lists.
You remember MSBlaster I assume. That was based on exploit code posted by one person to a security list which was later refined and made more dangerous by yet another person on the same list.
If the developer has no plans to fix a security problem, then fine, release an exploit to get him off his ass. Public disclosure is supposed to be a threat/incentive for the developer to fix the problem. If it's going to be disclosed anyway, before he has a chance to fix the problem, it defeats the entire purpose of public disclosure.
Not for long I think. Took nearly 60 seconds for the download to start. Download speed is all over the place.
"c) Using a credit card improves your credit rating. This is why I pay for everything by credit card, then pay off my bill in full every billing cycle."
Actually, while that is good for your credit, paying it off slower (not in full) looks much better. You're paying the bill (good) but you're also making the lender more money (better), so your credit score goes up further than if you pay the whole thing at once.
Same as a bank loan. It looks better to pay it off according to the schedule than to jump the gun and pay the whole thing off early.
Of course, if your credit is already excellent, there's no need to worry with all that. If you're trying to rebuild bad credit, then slower is better.
Deep down it's wrong? I don't think so.
Someone in my home illegally has forfeited his right to liberty and, if he is armed, he has forfeited his right to life.
If someone does break into my house, I will have no regrets about filling him with buckshot or with suing his estate for the cost of cleaning his lungs off my walls.