"Wether" is a word, so a spell-checker won't catch it unless you've removed it from its dictionary. Which I would recommend for anyone who doesn't deal with sheep (and perhaps those that do as well).
A grammar checker though should point out the error.
There's some cool shit on those bands, it'd be fun just to see what kind of stuff is out there.
Sometimes you can find some of that stuff on cable too. Occasionally my local cable company had a channel not listed in their lineup that would have rough versions of future ads on it. Another time they had the full pilot episode of Viper without any ads weeks before it first aired on television.
Unless the software is made by the hardware vendor; then the requirements are determined by what hardware they want to sell.
For example, Final Cut Pro 4.x and DVD Studio Pro 2 both say they require a Macintosh with AGP graphics, but a simple edit to one file in each, plus one to the same file in Compressor, and they'll run on a PCI-only Mac as well. I've been running them both on my G3 upgraded to a 550 MHz G4 processor, which is also below the processor speed spec of DSP2 (733 MHz).
UT2K3 had nVidia promotional tie-ins, so maybe UT2K4 does as well and lists a higher requirement in nVidia graphics cards than necessary.
AFAICT there's nothing regulating what they can say a program requires.
I've heard this. I haven't gotten DirecTV yet, but have had aborted attempts that netted me two dual LNB dishes for 1 cent each (no line of sight). I've been wondering if they could be combined to form a mini-VLA of dishes when pointed at the same satellite.
I have heard of people putting DirecTV LNBs on BUDs (Big Ugly Dishes) and getting enough signal that not even Ming the Merciless' Hot Hail affects them.
Only standalones would warn about running out of guide data without a phone line. DirecTiVo units get their guide data over the satellite.
That he's getting a network card rather than a USB-Ethernet bridge also points to it being Series1 hardware.
The timeframe prevents him from running v2.0 of the software, so if it is a Philips, manual recording without guide data is still an option until the network card arrives. More iffy if it is a Sony as some of them did ship with 2.0 or newer software and thus contractually cannot do manual recordings without guide data.
I thus suspect he has a DirecTV box controlled by a Series1 standalone TiVo serially or by IR.
In the meantime, if it is a Series1 US standalone TiVo that originally shipped from the factory with a version of the software before 2.0 (i.e. 1.3.0, 1.2.1, etc.), and aren't running 2.0 itself now, then you'll still be able to set up manual timed recordings until your network card arrives. If it is a Series2 or a Sony that shipped with 2.0 or later, all recording except LiveTV will be disabled.
DirecTiVo boxes all require service to record, but they get their guide data over the dish, not over the phone.
But then I never watch the game before they report the viewing results. I only ever care about the commercials anyway.
Still, three of my five TiVos recorded the game: two recording off of different CBS stations, a third recording a black screen and audio so as to lock out channel changes on the HD cable box. The TiVos recording were only to get the commercials and two copies for mixing together in case of severe weather alert bugs on the screen.
The only activity TiVo could have captured (anonymously aggregated) from me related to the game would be the times I padded the recordings by 15 minutes, then 30 minutes. Otherwise they were all in Standby mode.
And I had my back turned to the halftime show, playing GTA:VC.
I ordered a pizza from Pizza Hut this past summer and it came with Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey on DVD (was either cheap or free with a large pizza). It had about three minutes of unskippable commercials at the beginning, one of which was a PSA sponsored by Pizza Hut.
Promotional disks are notorious for not only having unskippable ads but also having no menus on them whatsoever. The last box set I got of Stargate SG-1 came with a promotional DVD for the first episode of Jeremiah (fullscreen). There were several ads at the beginning that weren't skippable. At the end, it parked itself on a black screen from which I could only eject. So each time I may want to rewatch that episode, I'd have to sit through the ads again? No thanks.
This is the second promotional DVD I've received which had no menus. I think the first came from Best Buy.
Oh, and they claim that the Jeremiah DVD isn't really mine and that they can force me to return or destroy the disk at their whim.
I have yet to encounter even one "flexplay" disk. Are there any vendors in Nebraska using these?
Well, given that Google *does* offer services like Froogle with similar names but different function, someone who doesn't have a lot of business savvy or knowledge about the company could certainly come to the conclusion that the site was affiliated with Google.
And whose fault is that but Google's for altering their own trademark by creating Froogle. Especially as they list it on their own site as simply "Froogle" instead of "Frugal Google".
That "Google" has become a verb also weakens their case. Not that I agree that all trademarks must be adjectives. Remember the jingle when you were "stuck on Band-Aids"? Now you're "stuck on Band-Aid Brand" to better defend that trademark against infringement.
It is harder to defend a trademark when you dilute it yourself.
don't click on their "I am feeling confused" button below the text field (I suppose it's analagous to Google's "I'm feeling lucky" button).
It changes to other phrases on refresh, including "I am feeling lucky!", "nostalgic", "animated!", "cheap!", and "playful", besides "confused!". That may or may not be a complete list.
Note they expand the contraction and use "Sentence caps" instead of [G|Fr]oogle's "Title Caps".
Booble is properly a parody of Froogle, Google's spinoff, and by extension of Google. Apeing the trade dress of the service is only an extension of the parody logically. Booble.com without imitating the appearance of Froogle and Google is not an effective parody. Parody is not a defense reserved only for half-assed and poorly executed parodies. That would be a(n unconstitutional IMO) limitation on the quality of speech. Free speech is not a right only to be exercised at the level of a whisper.
People are forgetting that the point of parody is to associate it with the object of the parody. If it isn't associated, it isn't effective.
I don't know of any rulings that say a parody cannot be functional. IANAL, so I don't have access to the case law made proprietary. (IANAL == I Am Not Adrian Lamo.)
People might consider Booble to be part of Google since Google has sites with names such as Froogle.
But Froogle is precisely why the site is a parody. Google did it first, and Booble is parodying Google's action in creating Froogle. And that Google will dilute their own trademark with Froogle shows that Booble is not the source of the dilution of Google's trademark.
I have a more lengthy response later in this thread where I attack multiple parts of Google's C&D.
Where they might get in trouble is over selling Booble Swag, linked from a page they serve. Maybe for the Sponsored Links as well. I don't know if they're real or not; my stylesheet suppresses them just as it does on Google.
Google has developed a distinctive layout and design for its Google website. Over the years since its inception, Google has invested considerable time and money establishing exclusive rights in this layout and design.
Hey, Google, I use a userContent.css client-side stylesheet in Mozilla to override aspects of your distinctive layout, including suppression of all your Sponsored Links, creating an unauthorized derivative work visible only to me. Wanna sue me?
Anyway, to the story: Booble is only confusingly similar to Google because Google itself is confusing their own trademark with Froogle and other alterations of their trademark. If you mangle your own trademark, you have less grounds to object when someone else does. (This is the reason one of TiVo's representatives gave when TiVo eliminated the "Sad TiVo" logo in their Blue Screen of No Signal (BSoNS).)
They've weakened their own trademark by their own actions. They should be serving cease & desist orders on themselves first before going after other sites.
As to their objection that the pornographic searches of Booble damages Google's reputation, perhaps then Google should discontinue Google Image searches that allows searches for boobies which turns up bare female human breasts at all three levels of their Safe Search settings.
And the site does parody Google as it comments upon Google's own dilution of their trademark, such as Froogle. Google opened the door to parody with Froogle. Google has no case. (At least, so long as Booble doesn't sell real Sponsored Links or otherwise accept advertising money.)
They do however have the money to pay lawyers through lengthy litigation. Booble will need to solicit aid from EFF and/or other sources willing to foot their legal bill.
In some states they're making it illegal to have any active displays present in a vehicle where they are visible from any front seat, whether or not the vehicle is in motion. This should be kept in mind when considering any permanent installations in a vehicle.
Are we certain that they are bounces and not just viruses pretending to be bounces? The pattern of the messages I've received suggest to me that the viruses are trying to conceal themselves (poorly) as bounce messages.
Slashdot Mirror
Now the world has gone to bed,
Darkness won't engulf my head,
I can see by infra-red,
How I hate the night.
"Wether" is a word, so a spell-checker won't catch it unless you've removed it from its dictionary. Which I would recommend for anyone who doesn't deal with sheep (and perhaps those that do as well).
A grammar checker though should point out the error.
There's some cool shit on those bands, it'd be fun just to see what kind of stuff is out there.
Sometimes you can find some of that stuff on cable too. Occasionally my local cable company had a channel not listed in their lineup that would have rough versions of future ads on it. Another time they had the full pilot episode of Viper without any ads weeks before it first aired on television.
Unless the software is made by the hardware vendor; then the requirements are determined by what hardware they want to sell.
For example, Final Cut Pro 4.x and DVD Studio Pro 2 both say they require a Macintosh with AGP graphics, but a simple edit to one file in each, plus one to the same file in Compressor, and they'll run on a PCI-only Mac as well. I've been running them both on my G3 upgraded to a 550 MHz G4 processor, which is also below the processor speed spec of DSP2 (733 MHz).
UT2K3 had nVidia promotional tie-ins, so maybe UT2K4 does as well and lists a higher requirement in nVidia graphics cards than necessary.
AFAICT there's nothing regulating what they can say a program requires.
Directv doesn't work when it rains.
I've heard this. I haven't gotten DirecTV yet, but have had aborted attempts that netted me two dual LNB dishes for 1 cent each (no line of sight). I've been wondering if they could be combined to form a mini-VLA of dishes when pointed at the same satellite.
I have heard of people putting DirecTV LNBs on BUDs (Big Ugly Dishes) and getting enough signal that not even Ming the Merciless' Hot Hail affects them.
Only standalones would warn about running out of guide data without a phone line. DirecTiVo units get their guide data over the satellite.
That he's getting a network card rather than a USB-Ethernet bridge also points to it being Series1 hardware.
The timeframe prevents him from running v2.0 of the software, so if it is a Philips, manual recording without guide data is still an option until the network card arrives. More iffy if it is a Sony as some of them did ship with 2.0 or newer software and thus contractually cannot do manual recordings without guide data.
I thus suspect he has a DirecTV box controlled by a Series1 standalone TiVo serially or by IR.
In the meantime, if it is a Series1 US standalone TiVo that originally shipped from the factory with a version of the software before 2.0 (i.e. 1.3.0, 1.2.1, etc.), and aren't running 2.0 itself now, then you'll still be able to set up manual timed recordings until your network card arrives. If it is a Series2 or a Sony that shipped with 2.0 or later, all recording except LiveTV will be disabled.
DirecTiVo boxes all require service to record, but they get their guide data over the dish, not over the phone.
Damn...wondering if I can take up a neighborhood collection to get one of these!!
Forget hail; imagine opeating this horizontally! Take out the neighborhood, open up some scenic views.
Why are stories about the SCO-IBM lawsuit filed under "Your Rights Online"?
Because there aren't enough of them to warrant their own area.
Wait, that can't be right....
Retribution:
I'm going to DDoS you because you sued my brother.
Anticipation:
I'm going to DDoS you because I DDoS'd your brother.
Diplomacy:
I'm going to DDoS my brother and then sue you on the pretext that your brother did it.
As the comments in MyDoom.B suggested a hired hit, which do you think is most likely?
They didn't spy on me.
But then I never watch the game before they report the viewing results. I only ever care about the commercials anyway.
Still, three of my five TiVos recorded the game: two recording off of different CBS stations, a third recording a black screen and audio so as to lock out channel changes on the HD cable box. The TiVos recording were only to get the commercials and two copies for mixing together in case of severe weather alert bugs on the screen.
The only activity TiVo could have captured (anonymously aggregated) from me related to the game would be the times I padded the recordings by 15 minutes, then 30 minutes. Otherwise they were all in Standby mode.
And I had my back turned to the halftime show, playing GTA:VC.
Here's your link.
However, I make no guarantees that the halftime show will be complete as broadcast. More than likely it will not be.
They're specifically patenting providing card games over a network.
Solitaire over a network? Sounds like a very unbalanced players/observers ratio there.
Jobs of the future: you too can become a e-mailman!
I ordered a pizza from Pizza Hut this past summer and it came with Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey on DVD (was either cheap or free with a large pizza). It had about three minutes of unskippable commercials at the beginning, one of which was a PSA sponsored by Pizza Hut.
Promotional disks are notorious for not only having unskippable ads but also having no menus on them whatsoever. The last box set I got of Stargate SG-1 came with a promotional DVD for the first episode of Jeremiah (fullscreen). There were several ads at the beginning that weren't skippable. At the end, it parked itself on a black screen from which I could only eject. So each time I may want to rewatch that episode, I'd have to sit through the ads again? No thanks.
This is the second promotional DVD I've received which had no menus. I think the first came from Best Buy.
Oh, and they claim that the Jeremiah DVD isn't really mine and that they can force me to return or destroy the disk at their whim.
I have yet to encounter even one "flexplay" disk. Are there any vendors in Nebraska using these?
Well, given that Google *does* offer services like Froogle with similar names but different function, someone who doesn't have a lot of business savvy or knowledge about the company could certainly come to the conclusion that the site was affiliated with Google.
And whose fault is that but Google's for altering their own trademark by creating Froogle. Especially as they list it on their own site as simply "Froogle" instead of "Frugal Google".
That "Google" has become a verb also weakens their case. Not that I agree that all trademarks must be adjectives. Remember the jingle when you were "stuck on Band-Aids"? Now you're "stuck on Band-Aid Brand" to better defend that trademark against infringement.
It is harder to defend a trademark when you dilute it yourself.
don't click on their "I am feeling confused" button below the text field (I suppose it's analagous to Google's "I'm feeling lucky" button).
It changes to other phrases on refresh, including "I am feeling lucky!", "nostalgic", "animated!", "cheap!", and "playful", besides "confused!". That may or may not be a complete list.
Note they expand the contraction and use "Sentence caps" instead of [G|Fr]oogle's "Title Caps".
Even if Booble has sales content, there is no satire or parody of Google involved.
It is satire/parody of Google in that Google created Froogle. Booble takes Google to task for altering their Google trademark to create Froogle.
And Booble isn't alone in its mimickry of Google's appearance either.
So it's (a) WINE-Bochs?
Booble is properly a parody of Froogle, Google's spinoff, and by extension of Google. Apeing the trade dress of the service is only an extension of the parody logically. Booble.com without imitating the appearance of Froogle and Google is not an effective parody. Parody is not a defense reserved only for half-assed and poorly executed parodies. That would be a(n unconstitutional IMO) limitation on the quality of speech. Free speech is not a right only to be exercised at the level of a whisper.
People are forgetting that the point of parody is to associate it with the object of the parody. If it isn't associated, it isn't effective.
I don't know of any rulings that say a parody cannot be functional. IANAL, so I don't have access to the case law made proprietary. (IANAL == I Am Not Adrian Lamo.)
People might consider Booble to be part of Google since Google has sites with names such as Froogle.
But Froogle is precisely why the site is a parody. Google did it first, and Booble is parodying Google's action in creating Froogle. And that Google will dilute their own trademark with Froogle shows that Booble is not the source of the dilution of Google's trademark.
I have a more lengthy response later in this thread where I attack multiple parts of Google's C&D.
Where they might get in trouble is over selling Booble Swag, linked from a page they serve. Maybe for the Sponsored Links as well. I don't know if they're real or not; my stylesheet suppresses them just as it does on Google.
Google has developed a distinctive layout and design for its Google website. Over the years since its inception, Google has invested considerable time and money establishing exclusive rights in this layout and design.
Hey, Google, I use a userContent.css client-side stylesheet in Mozilla to override aspects of your distinctive layout, including suppression of all your Sponsored Links, creating an unauthorized derivative work visible only to me. Wanna sue me?
Anyway, to the story: Booble is only confusingly similar to Google because Google itself is confusing their own trademark with Froogle and other alterations of their trademark. If you mangle your own trademark, you have less grounds to object when someone else does. (This is the reason one of TiVo's representatives gave when TiVo eliminated the "Sad TiVo" logo in their Blue Screen of No Signal (BSoNS).)
They've weakened their own trademark by their own actions. They should be serving cease & desist orders on themselves first before going after other sites.
As to their objection that the pornographic searches of Booble damages Google's reputation, perhaps then Google should discontinue Google Image searches that allows searches for boobies which turns up bare female human breasts at all three levels of their Safe Search settings.
And the site does parody Google as it comments upon Google's own dilution of their trademark, such as Froogle. Google opened the door to parody with Froogle. Google has no case. (At least, so long as Booble doesn't sell real Sponsored Links or otherwise accept advertising money.)
They do however have the money to pay lawyers through lengthy litigation. Booble will need to solicit aid from EFF and/or other sources willing to foot their legal bill.
In some states they're making it illegal to have any active displays present in a vehicle where they are visible from any front seat, whether or not the vehicle is in motion. This should be kept in mind when considering any permanent installations in a vehicle.
Are we certain that they are bounces and not just viruses pretending to be bounces? The pattern of the messages I've received suggest to me that the viruses are trying to conceal themselves (poorly) as bounce messages.
Because it now also requires cookies to work. You didn't have their cookie the first time. You do now.