Well, what do you expect for what they charge? So far, the only time I've had an issue, it was because website statistics weren't showing. I sent them an email, they responded that it was a known, system-wide outage and that they were working on it. It took a few days, but I was patient, because my site's mostly a vanity site and not seeing the stats for a few days didn't cost me anything. I can't tell you from personal experience if they're good for a big company, but I can say that they're fine for a personal site, and probably a small business.
When I decided to get a domain, myname.com was already taken, but by a legitimate business. It's a bit odd to see, because my last name isn't exactly common. However, all was not lost: I'm now using myname.us instead.
His sig meets every definition of spam I know of: it's unsolicited, it's commercial in nature, it's an advertisement, it does nothing to enhance the discussion, and it costs the sender nothing or next to nothing. My negative reaction to this sort of pollution is justifiable.
And, it's in my sig, not in the post itself. You not only don't have to read the sig, you can even gasp! turn off sigs in your preferences if you want. Not only that, it doesn't try to trick you into clicking on it. It's an advertisement for the web hosting company I use. Deal with it. It's not supposed to "enhance the discussion," any more than any other sig is. I'm almost certain that the only reason you keep posting this is to trick fools into wasting mod points on you instead of putting them to better use but it's not going to work, because the number of fools with mod points is too high.
You would have the.kids domain restricted by a peer review committee and that's just dandy. But that same philosophical application somehow does not work for.xxx?
The point you're missing is that you couldn't get a kids domain unless a) you asked for it and b) passed the review. If you want to register a.com with kids content only, there'd be nothing stopping you; it would be strictly opt-in with review. Most of the suggested implementations of.xxx imply that adult content would be forced onto.xxx either by law or market forces, and that's unlikely to work. See the difference?
I seem to be several other people including a graphics designer, and, for a while, an editor of a major newspaper. There was a time that I was also a respected actor in adult films with an all-male cast, but as far as I can tell, I don't seem to be doing that any more. I can say this safely, because there are enough graphics designers out there that figuring out which one is my clone is next to impossible.
I highly doubt someone would go through the trouble of searching for specific file types (videos/jpegs) if it weren't for harvesting data.
I get the impression (Yes, I did RTFA.) that they were planning to burn a video, then play it back to make sure everything worked. When they searched for something appropriate, the name of one of the files made it look like it was about an underage boy, and they decided to look at enough of it to make sure. (Doing this was a tad questionable, but probably better than calling the cops without making sure.) Once they'd seen enough to know that it was, in fact, kiddy porn, they reported it.
Probably better would have been either to copy a video from a CD they kept for the purpose onto the customer's desktop and use that for a sample, but once they'd found the files I'd find it hard to justify their doing anything but call the cops in.
As for all the extra "eye candy"... yeah, it's probably a little over the top.
Well, what else did you expect? The word "vista" means "view," so it's not like they weren't telling us right up front that their New! Shiny! OS is all about eye candy.
Not so. As I've explained before, at the peace conference, the anti-war fanatics gave the North everything they could never have won on the field of battle.
If you could leave the US (like you told another person to do), I'd be happy. Then I could start working on improving the country which I love.
How? By teaching children that defending their country is a Bad Thing and that allowing two-bit, tin-horn dictators with delusions of godhead to push us around is right and proper? Or would you prefer just to let them believe that scientific truth is decided by consensus and that historical facts are less important than political doctrine? Our country has not only survived over two centuries of being governed by people with attitudes similar to mine, it's prospered. I doubt, quite frankly, that it could survive even one century governed by people who believe as you do, but I'm afraid that that's the way we're headed. We had our chance, and you're doing the best you can to piss it away.
And I'm not saying they were wrong in this case. However, I'd like to point out that historically, subduing insurrections of this nature generally take seven to ten years, often longer, so if we're still there in 2013, it wouldn't be surprising. What would be surprising would be if we were still fighting there in 2023.
And the failure of the military to achieve its goals after more than 10 years had nothing to do with it?
The anti-war crowd was already crying about how evil we were back in 1967, back when LBJ was in charge, so I doubt your claim of "more than 10 years" is accurate.
Neither. I learned that part years later from a friend with access to the facts. I'll not name him, but I have good reason to think he knows what he's talking about or I wouldn't have quoted him. I don't know from my own knowledge how big the force sent was, but I do know that it was big, and that we pushed them back mostly by using air and sea power (My ship was doing shore bombardment with its 5" gun.) instead of throwing infantry into the meat grinder.
As far as our "marching on Hanoi" is concerned, there was no possibility of that by '72 even if, as you point out so accurately, we were willing to risk war with the Soviets or (more likely) the Chinese.
"If you hate the US, then leave!" It's so easy for people to say that -- usually uptight conservatives, I've noticed -- but much harder to actually do.
Actually, I'm a moderate, but I understand where you're coming from. You also make a good point about the costs of moving, instead of just attacking me for my opinions as several other's have. (It's so easy, you know, especially when you do so while hiding behind AC.)
As far as "Love it or leave it," I don't say that. I do say that if you're going to live here and take advantage of all we have to offer and what's left of our Constitutional civil liberties, you should, at the very least, show respect.
You are an anonymous cock-less bitch, hiding behind some Internet moniker.
Written by somebody hiding as an Anonymous Coward. Why do you think anybody is going to give any credence to your venomous blather when you can't even stand up and admit that it's you talking? Coward you post as because coward is what you are.
It's very easy to declare that we lost, isn't it? Do you really like the idea, or is it just easier than admitting that the left was full of cowards who stabbed their own country in the back and abandoned our ally?
The war was lost and still, many years later, veterans are saying they won it.
The war wasn't lost on the battlefield, and that's what we're talking about. The war was lost because cowards at home forced the government to give the North what it could never have won on its own.
Yes, it's not PC to say that now, but it is the truth, and it's not only those of us who were there that say it. I have a friend who fought in Korea who's been saying the same things I do about 'Nam for decades because he understands what happened instead of mouthing the popular lies that the left has spent decades pushing down our throats.
The War in Viet Nam was not lost on the ground. The Viet Cong and NVA never, ever defeated us. The war was "lost" because the American Left declared it lost and forced their wrong-headed opinion on the rest of the country.
I know; I was there in '72 when the NVA sent 150,000 men across the border with more armor and mechanized equipment than the Germans sent to the Battle of the Kursk Salient, and got back less than one third, all of whom had to walk home because their equipment had been smashed, at a cost of less than 50 American deaths, for the entire month.
As far as what gives me the right to tell him to leave, it's called the First Amendment. He has every right to his opinions, and I have just as much right to tell him that in my opinion he doesn't belong here.
Why don't you leave and never come back? You'll be a lot happier and so will the rest of us. As a 'Nam vet myself (Gunline, '72) I'd say, "Good riddance to bad rubbish!" if you did.
It was a joke, you dope. Christ, you lefties are a bunch of heavy handed high falooting thugs.
Unless, of course, it's a leftie making fun of a conservative, in which case anything goes, no matter how nasty it is. To some people, the truth must always take second-place to their political agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, what do you expect for what they charge? So far, the only time I've had an issue, it was because website statistics weren't showing. I sent them an email, they responded that it was a known, system-wide outage and that they were working on it. It took a few days, but I was patient, because my site's mostly a vanity site and not seeing the stats for a few days didn't cost me anything. I can't tell you from personal experience if they're good for a big company, but I can say that they're fine for a personal site, and probably a small business.
When I decided to get a domain, myname.com was already taken, but by a legitimate business. It's a bit odd to see, because my last name isn't exactly common. However, all was not lost: I'm now using myname.us instead.
The one in my .sig isn't quite that cheap, but $6.99/year isn't exactly expensive, either.
Sigh! That's what I get for trying to reason with an idiot.
And, it's in my sig, not in the post itself. You not only don't have to read the sig, you can even gasp! turn off sigs in your preferences if you want. Not only that, it doesn't try to trick you into clicking on it. It's an advertisement for the web hosting company I use. Deal with it. It's not supposed to "enhance the discussion," any more than any other sig is. I'm almost certain that the only reason you keep posting this is to trick fools into wasting mod points on you instead of putting them to better use but it's not going to work, because the number of fools with mod points is too high.
You don't even need that much heat. Just warm it in your hands, and if you get a faint pine smell it's amber.
The point you're missing is that you couldn't get a kids domain unless a) you asked for it and b) passed the review. If you want to register a
I seem to be several other people including a graphics designer, and, for a while, an editor of a major newspaper. There was a time that I was also a respected actor in adult films with an all-male cast, but as far as I can tell, I don't seem to be doing that any more. I can say this safely, because there are enough graphics designers out there that figuring out which one is my clone is next to impossible.
I get the impression (Yes, I did RTFA.) that they were planning to burn a video, then play it back to make sure everything worked. When they searched for something appropriate, the name of one of the files made it look like it was about an underage boy, and they decided to look at enough of it to make sure. (Doing this was a tad questionable, but probably better than calling the cops without making sure.) Once they'd seen enough to know that it was, in fact, kiddy porn, they reported it.
Probably better would have been either to copy a video from a CD they kept for the purpose onto the customer's desktop and use that for a sample, but once they'd found the files I'd find it hard to justify their doing anything but call the cops in.
COPS meets Tiger Team. I see a great need.
Well, what else did you expect? The word "vista" means "view," so it's not like they weren't telling us right up front that their New! Shiny! OS is all about eye candy.
Not so. As I've explained before, at the peace conference, the anti-war fanatics gave the North everything they could never have won on the field of battle.
If you could leave the US (like you told another person to do), I'd be happy. Then I could start working on improving the country which I love.
How? By teaching children that defending their country is a Bad Thing and that allowing two-bit, tin-horn dictators with delusions of godhead to push us around is right and proper? Or would you prefer just to let them believe that scientific truth is decided by consensus and that historical facts are less important than political doctrine? Our country has not only survived over two centuries of being governed by people with attitudes similar to mine, it's prospered. I doubt, quite frankly, that it could survive even one century governed by people who believe as you do, but I'm afraid that that's the way we're headed. We had our chance, and you're doing the best you can to piss it away.
And I'm not saying they were wrong in this case. However, I'd like to point out that historically, subduing insurrections of this nature generally take seven to ten years, often longer, so if we're still there in 2013, it wouldn't be surprising. What would be surprising would be if we were still fighting there in 2023.
The anti-war crowd was already crying about how evil we were back in 1967, back when LBJ was in charge, so I doubt your claim of "more than 10 years" is accurate.
Neither. I learned that part years later from a friend with access to the facts. I'll not name him, but I have good reason to think he knows what he's talking about or I wouldn't have quoted him. I don't know from my own knowledge how big the force sent was, but I do know that it was big, and that we pushed them back mostly by using air and sea power (My ship was doing shore bombardment with its 5" gun.) instead of throwing infantry into the meat grinder.
As far as our "marching on Hanoi" is concerned, there was no possibility of that by '72 even if, as you point out so accurately, we were willing to risk war with the Soviets or (more likely) the Chinese.
Actually, I'm a moderate, but I understand where you're coming from. You also make a good point about the costs of moving, instead of just attacking me for my opinions as several other's have. (It's so easy, you know, especially when you do so while hiding behind AC.)
As far as "Love it or leave it," I don't say that. I do say that if you're going to live here and take advantage of all we have to offer and what's left of our Constitutional civil liberties, you should, at the very least, show respect.
Written by somebody hiding as an Anonymous Coward. Why do you think anybody is going to give any credence to your venomous blather when you can't even stand up and admit that it's you talking? Coward you post as because coward is what you are.
It's very easy to declare that we lost, isn't it? Do you really like the idea, or is it just easier than admitting that the left was full of cowards who stabbed their own country in the back and abandoned our ally?
The war wasn't lost on the battlefield, and that's what we're talking about. The war was lost because cowards at home forced the government to give the North what it could never have won on its own.
Yes, it's not PC to say that now, but it is the truth, and it's not only those of us who were there that say it. I have a friend who fought in Korea who's been saying the same things I do about 'Nam for decades because he understands what happened instead of mouthing the popular lies that the left has spent decades pushing down our throats.
Thus says the Anonymous Coward, and never was a post more aptly attributed.
The War in Viet Nam was not lost on the ground. The Viet Cong and NVA never, ever defeated us. The war was "lost" because the American Left declared it lost and forced their wrong-headed opinion on the rest of the country.
I know; I was there in '72 when the NVA sent 150,000 men across the border with more armor and mechanized equipment than the Germans sent to the Battle of the Kursk Salient, and got back less than one third, all of whom had to walk home because their equipment had been smashed, at a cost of less than 50 American deaths, for the entire month.
As far as what gives me the right to tell him to leave, it's called the First Amendment. He has every right to his opinions, and I have just as much right to tell him that in my opinion he doesn't belong here.
Aren't there still some puritan communities where that's considered an unnatural act and is forbidden by law?
Why don't you leave and never come back? You'll be a lot happier and so will the rest of us. As a 'Nam vet myself (Gunline, '72) I'd say, "Good riddance to bad rubbish!" if you did.
+1 Interesting seems to fit.
Unless, of course, it's a leftie making fun of a conservative, in which case anything goes, no matter how nasty it is. To some people, the truth must always take second-place to their political agenda.