In the land Down Under, Telstra is the dominant telco, and it's currently 51% government owned. The current Liberal Party (think: nice Republicans)-National Party (think: farmers) coalition government really wants to flog off the rest. The problem is that Telstra provides many services to the underpopulated areas (aka "the Bush", who are generally represented by the National Party half of the Coalition) that really don't make much economic sense but make a lot of political sense. Also, it's sort of halfway decent that the outback farmers get at least a phone service. Anyway, every man and his dog knows that if Telstra gets fully privatised, *bang* there goes any semblance of service to the bush, since it is just not econmical.
To that end, the government has brought in a Service Guarantee (including Universal Service Obligations) that says (amongst other things) Telstra must provide certain minimum standards to all subscribers, and if they don't they get smacked. The government hopes that after a few years we'll all see what a good corporate citizen Telstra is and give the Libs the OK to flog off the other 51% of Telstra.
Now, one big complaint from the bush is that they get bugger all access to broadband. Even getting net access at all can be tricky for them. Satellite (if available) is very expensive. This would almost certainly not improve under a toally privatised Telstra. However, if Telstra could provide near-broadband to the bush without having to string up hundreds of miles of cable, things would again be looking promising for the privatisation thing to be on the agenda again.
Speaking from a purely Australian voter/taxpayer POV, the keyphrase is the National Party might be the junior member of the coalition but they can wield a fair amount of power over the Libs when they want to.
Of the doctors in my hospital who know what an OS is, Linux gets a mention more often than not as a preferred platform.
Most people here run basic MS Office apps (and usually run them basically) and connect to legacy databases using terminals. Some people make their own Access databases but the IT people really hate that - you know how it goes: individual makes DB in Access, time passes, undocumented and poorly implemented Access database becomes the lynchpin of a Ward, originator leave, everyone's up shit creek.
We are migrating from '95 to XP and everyone is getting lots of training. This training could just as easily have been applied to Linus apps.
Nope. It says "This means we do not take callers to download.com or doxdesk.com, nor do we recommend spyware removal programs, nor do we advise callers on the use of spyware removal programs.{and} This includes using phrases "We don't support the removal of spyware, but I use..."
I added the emphasis and the {and} for clarity.
Tech support can't say a thing. But yeah, Dell's just avoiding the legal hassle with breaking the EULA that Joe Luser agreed to when he installed the damn spyware in the first place.
So, basically the local government is being lazy (or cost efficient...) by allowing someone else to develop the building codes that they should be developing.
In a weird way, it sort of works out: gov't spends taxpayers money developing building codes then tries to recoup it through ?taxes, OR allows someone else to develop the building codes and lets them worry about paying for development costs (in this case, by selling it to those who use it.) It's the ultimate user pays system.
Either way, someone is going to pay for the creation, printing and distribution of these building codes, whether it be taxpayers or those in the building industry. Don't like it, vote out the politicians. Don't forget to vote them more money so they can hire experts to develop building codes... maybe they can make some money back by selling them... DAMN caught again in that infinite loop.
The webmasters and SEO types are like astronomers trying to figure out how Google works by observing samples of results. Take everything they say as a theory and nothing more.
I'd rather think of them as astrologers, and take everything they say as wild, meaningless speculation.
Set up the website using Dreamweaver (if you want. it makes it easier but it's not compulsory) and get them a copy of Contribute. The only tricky bit is keeping up the navigation.
The battery price now is OK compared to what it was. It's what you have to do to replace the battery that concerns me. If it is that easy to replace, why do you have to send it in to Apple? None of my other equipment has that requirement. Also, what's wrong with an authorised Apple Service Centre? Why do you send in your iPod and get another one back. All seems very strange.
Still hoping Satan will bring me a (video)iPod though
Disclaimer: Mac user since OS7/LC III and I want an iPod once it becomes videoPod
I think it's great. If this doesn't wake Apple up, nothing will. Seriously, how hard would it have been to design the thing with an easily replaceable battery? That's one of the things you look for when buying things like digital cameras: how much does a replacement battery cost?
I love the iPod and I want one but here's to hoping that Gen 4 pods have easily replaceable batteries. Remember, the guys that did the vid are solid Mac users too. They're just righteously pissed off. More power to them.
Re:Shelf it for now..
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The Concorde (and its successor) appeals to a different market (i.e. not you and me). This market isn't a part of the 'post 9/11 airline industry'.
That downturn was because, amongst other things, people were afraid their Jumbo people mover would be hijacked and used as a weapon. I would imagine that Son of Concorde would require specialised training. Not something you'll get in a Florida flight school.
As to whether or not people can afford it, if you have to ask "how much" then it's not for you. Or me.
Umm, yeah. Reading the RIAA's website isn't theft because they are the copyright owners of the material on the website and they have made it publicly available. On their site is a copyright notice saying things like "don't infringe our copyright" but reading the site isn't copyright infringement to anyone except you.
Arguing that copyright infringement on this scale isn't theft is simply engaging in the kind of wordplay that would make a lawyer proud. It may be true in a legalese sense, but the whole "thou shalt not steal" concept wasn't really framed with lossless digital duplication in mind, was it?
It's really simple. "Sharing" music is Against the law. Stop it now and the problem goes away. I bet those teenyboppers will keep buying it though and there is nothing you can do about it
You don't buy music anymore because you are old. You have a collection of memories already.
The RIAA is going after the current generation of music buyers, the 12 - 19 year olds. This group of dippy teens wants the sort of music the RIAA controls, they want it no matter what it takes to get it. All this talk of "support the independent artists" doesn't mean jack shit to them. They don't want a bearded hippy strumming his gittar crooning about saving the environment or some wannabe punk band screaming shit about shit. They really want the latest Britney-Kylie-Avril-Whoever pop stuff, and if they can't steal it (of course, I mean "infringe copyright") then they'll start buying it again (heaven forbid!).
Why is the RIAA going after kids who couldn't afford these fines? Because their parent can afford the fines and will grudgingly pay them. And all the other parents will say "Bloody hell! 4 grand! You better not be stealing music, Betty Jo, because it's WRONG! (read: because it could cost me money and the chances of being caught have gone up dramatically. And I never trusted this internet stuff anyway)".
The RIAA will, in effect, turn every parent into a copyright-cop. The RIAA will have their market back, and parents will have a justification for moralising to their kids.
FYI: What we call Fosters in Oz isn't the same as what is sold overseas as Fosters. The lucky buggers overseas get Crown Lager dressed up as Fosters, for a Fosters Price.
Anyway forget all that CUB crap. Drink Coopers. The only real beer left.
Apple and IBM jointly developed the PowerPC G5, world's first 64-bit desktop processor. With
two double-precision floating-point units, advanced branch prediction logic and support for symmetric multiprocessing, the PowerPC G5 processor builds on previous PowerPC designs, combining an optimized Velocity Engine with a superscalar, super-pipelined execution core that can execute more than 200 simultaneous in-flight instructions. This high-bandwidth core has over 12 discrete functional units that process massive amounts of instructions in parallel.
And it has got to be the most totally buzzword compliant CPU ever built.
what the hell are you saving? DV streams are 13 GB/hour, but Jeebers H Kripes you don't have to save EVERYTHING at full res HD effin' widescreen. Be sleective. You are not the planet's librarian./rant
I never got to see William Hartnell as Dr Who - Jon Pertwee was when I came into the series. I didn't miss much methinks. Things got a lot better in a few short years...
Slashdot Mirror
'Fraid that the ATO comes under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, not the territory government. Keep sending text files...
That's not entirely true.
In the land Down Under, Telstra is the dominant telco, and it's currently 51% government owned. The current Liberal Party (think: nice Republicans)-National Party (think: farmers) coalition government really wants to flog off the rest. The problem is that Telstra provides many services to the underpopulated areas (aka "the Bush", who are generally represented by the National Party half of the Coalition) that really don't make much economic sense but make a lot of political sense. Also, it's sort of halfway decent that the outback farmers get at least a phone service. Anyway, every man and his dog knows that if Telstra gets fully privatised, *bang* there goes any semblance of service to the bush, since it is just not econmical.
To that end, the government has brought in a Service Guarantee (including Universal Service Obligations) that says (amongst other things) Telstra must provide certain minimum standards to all subscribers, and if they don't they get smacked. The government hopes that after a few years we'll all see what a good corporate citizen Telstra is and give the Libs the OK to flog off the other 51% of Telstra.
Now, one big complaint from the bush is that they get bugger all access to broadband. Even getting net access at all can be tricky for them. Satellite (if available) is very expensive. This would almost certainly not improve under a toally privatised Telstra. However, if Telstra could provide near-broadband to the bush without having to string up hundreds of miles of cable, things would again be looking promising for the privatisation thing to be on the agenda again.
Speaking from a purely Australian voter/taxpayer POV, the keyphrase is the National Party might be the junior member of the coalition but they can wield a fair amount of power over the Libs when they want to.
.Of the doctors in my hospital who know what an OS is, Linux gets a mention more often than not as a preferred platform.
Most people here run basic MS Office apps (and usually run them basically) and connect to legacy databases using terminals. Some people make their own Access databases but the IT people really hate that - you know how it goes: individual makes DB in Access, time passes, undocumented and poorly implemented Access database becomes the lynchpin of a Ward, originator leave, everyone's up shit creek.
We are migrating from '95 to XP and everyone is getting lots of training. This training could just as easily have been applied to Linus apps.
I know what you mean. I mean, my Mac is just as slow.
What's this "Post Anonymously" box do?
Nope. It says "This means we do not take callers to download.com or doxdesk.com, nor do we recommend spyware removal programs, nor do we advise callers on the use of spyware removal programs.{and} This includes using phrases "We don't support the removal of spyware, but I use..."
I added the emphasis and the {and} for clarity.
Tech support can't say a thing. But yeah, Dell's just avoiding the legal hassle with breaking the EULA that Joe Luser agreed to when he installed the damn spyware in the first place.
OH NO! It's the Slippery Slope Of DOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
If you don't like it, get out there and vote vote vote!
So, basically the local government is being lazy (or cost efficient...) by allowing someone else to develop the building codes that they should be developing.
In a weird way, it sort of works out: gov't spends taxpayers money developing building codes then tries to recoup it through ?taxes, OR allows someone else to develop the building codes and lets them worry about paying for development costs (in this case, by selling it to those who use it.) It's the ultimate user pays system.
Either way, someone is going to pay for the creation, printing and distribution of these building codes, whether it be taxpayers or those in the building industry. Don't like it, vote out the politicians. Don't forget to vote them more money so they can hire experts to develop building codes ... maybe they can make some money back by selling them ... DAMN caught again in that infinite loop.
The webmasters and SEO types are like astronomers trying to figure out how Google works by observing samples of results. Take everything they say as a theory and nothing more.
I'd rather think of them as astrologers, and take everything they say as wild, meaningless speculation.
Pity he didn't have a vision of a calendar so he could have set a date for all these prophecies.
Set up the website using Dreamweaver (if you want. it makes it easier but it's not compulsory) and get them a copy of Contribute. The only tricky bit is keeping up the navigation.
Or buy them a Mac AND get .Mac + Contribute for a low low price :-)
But how will Apple ever track them down ... oh, wait a minute!
I did read. Anything that says "If you don't feel comfortable with cracking the case yourself," hasn't been designed with easy usability.
The battery price now is OK compared to what it was. It's what you have to do to replace the battery that concerns me. If it is that easy to replace, why do you have to send it in to Apple? None of my other equipment has that requirement. Also, what's wrong with an authorised Apple Service Centre? Why do you send in your iPod and get another one back. All seems very strange.
Still hoping Satan will bring me a (video)iPod though
Apple is good, even when they're not
Micro$of is bad. Even when they're not
You must be new here :-)
Hey hey hey, AC. Just back up a little bit. Not all of us zealots are apologists.
Disclaimer: Mac user since OS7/LC III and I want an iPod once it becomes videoPod
I think it's great. If this doesn't wake Apple up, nothing will. Seriously, how hard would it have been to design the thing with an easily replaceable battery? That's one of the things you look for when buying things like digital cameras: how much does a replacement battery cost?
I love the iPod and I want one but here's to hoping that Gen 4 pods have easily replaceable batteries. Remember, the guys that did the vid are solid Mac users too. They're just righteously pissed off. More power to them.
The Concorde (and its successor) appeals to a different market (i.e. not you and me). This market isn't a part of the 'post 9/11 airline industry'.
That downturn was because, amongst other things, people were afraid their Jumbo people mover would be hijacked and used as a weapon. I would imagine that Son of Concorde would require specialised training. Not something you'll get in a Florida flight school.
As to whether or not people can afford it, if you have to ask "how much" then it's not for you. Or me.
Robbing the bank is theft. If you photocopied the money and shared it with your friends, that would be copyright infringement.
Umm, yeah. Reading the RIAA's website isn't theft because they are the copyright owners of the material on the website and they have made it publicly available. On their site is a copyright notice saying things like "don't infringe our copyright" but reading the site isn't copyright infringement to anyone except you.
Arguing that copyright infringement on this scale isn't theft is simply engaging in the kind of wordplay that would make a lawyer proud. It may be true in a legalese sense, but the whole "thou shalt not steal" concept wasn't really framed with lossless digital duplication in mind, was it?
It's really simple. "Sharing" music is Against the law. Stop it now and the problem goes away. I bet those teenyboppers will keep buying it though and there is nothing you can do about it
You don't buy music anymore because you are old. You have a collection of memories already.
The RIAA is going after the current generation of music buyers, the 12 - 19 year olds. This group of dippy teens wants the sort of music the RIAA controls, they want it no matter what it takes to get it. All this talk of "support the independent artists" doesn't mean jack shit to them. They don't want a bearded hippy strumming his gittar crooning about saving the environment or some wannabe punk band screaming shit about shit. They really want the latest Britney-Kylie-Avril-Whoever pop stuff, and if they can't steal it (of course, I mean "infringe copyright") then they'll start buying it again (heaven forbid!).
Why is the RIAA going after kids who couldn't afford these fines? Because their parent can afford the fines and will grudgingly pay them. And all the other parents will say "Bloody hell! 4 grand! You better not be stealing music, Betty Jo, because it's WRONG! (read: because it could cost me money and the chances of being caught have gone up dramatically. And I never trusted this internet stuff anyway)".
The RIAA will, in effect, turn every parent into a copyright-cop. The RIAA will have their market back, and parents will have a justification for moralising to their kids.
FYI: What we call Fosters in Oz isn't the same as what is sold overseas as Fosters. The lucky buggers overseas get Crown Lager dressed up as Fosters, for a Fosters Price.
Anyway forget all that CUB crap. Drink Coopers. The only real beer left.Don't know about that:
And it has got to be the most totally buzzword compliant CPU ever built.
All from here and here.
what the hell are you saving? DV streams are 13 GB/hour, but Jeebers H Kripes you don't have to save EVERYTHING at full res HD effin' widescreen. Be sleective. You are not the planet's librarian. /rant
I never got to see William Hartnell as Dr Who - Jon Pertwee was when I came into the series. I didn't miss much methinks. Things got a lot better in a few short years...
I'm afraid that the head-clubbing that your goons dealt to me has made me forget the password. sorry.
I remember seeing fish leather products in Darwin at a Kawasaki/Harley dealership about 7 years ago, though I don't recall if there were any bikinis.
However, I did find this reference to fish leather bikinis, dated 2001. Sorry, can't find pics :-(