I do use Cafe Wifi fairly regularly.
I travel for work a lot.
Sometimes if I fly into a city and can't check into my hotel before my meeting, but have spare time then its off to the nearest cafe for a latte and hopefully some wifi access. And yes - I do make my determination of which cafe to use based on its wifi availability (free, paid, none in decreasing order of preference).
btw - 'latte' defines the drink, the concept of a large or extra large latte is ludicrous
Cheers
Jo
Ramanujan's name is in the first paragraph of the article. All the author had to do was click on the link (that was included in the post) and copy/paste his name into the body of the post.
It was utter laziness, and sloppy editorial policy. There was nothing tongue-in-cheek about it
If you RTA you'll see that the author isn't really talking about wireless insecurity. What he is talking about is how insecure the websites were is that he conveniently was able to access via wifi (i.e. the wifi is just the networking technology that he used rather than the problem itself)
This should really serve as a wake up call to designers of ALL websites on the dangers of poor design.
Hate Crime Legisalation seeks to distinguish between crimes of passion, crimes of self defense and crimes of hatred thats all.
I'm not saying its a good or bad thing, I am saying that it hardly defines a free country
Ahh - so the definition of a free country is now that you allow everyone to have guns (sometimes you get them free when you open a bank account), and that you do nothing to enforce tough penalties for 'hate crimes'.
Well... the second point strikes me as odd. Many US states have hate crime legislation and I haven't noticed any lessening of the influence by the Christians in the US.
By your definition also, New Zealand is not a free country which strikes me as truly offensive, highly ignorant, and wildly inaccurate. Which country did you say you were from again?
"Link [sic] acknowledged that there could be problems enforcing the code if one spammer tried to get a rival shut down by sending junk mail on their behalf."
Dunno, does George W. Bush own a rubber suit? Actually, on second thoughts - I'm not sure I want to know the answer to that question! In fact, I think I would have been happier if I'd never thought of the question.
I have to agree with your points 1 - 5 (and I was in fact considering posting the same facetious remark), but your statements afterwards baffled me somewhat.
Any sort of file format that requires me to install the company's software to use I will eternally hate, regardless of who it is. I hate Real, and I hate Quicktime.
Does that mean you also hate PDF? MP3? or any other format of data that requires software to view it? or is it only proprietry software you are railing against? If its the proprietry argument you are making then I can understand your point, but at the end of the day, pretty much all data requires some kind of software to view it.
Oh, and as my own followup to that... I would happily pay $0.50 per track, especially if there was a cool wall paper that went with the track/album.
Regards
Jo
I have a question (and sorry, its slightly off topic).
What WOULD you be willing to pay to download music with no DRM?
I ask this as a serious question (and not particularly from a business perspective or anything). If you could download MP3s or OGGs from non RIAA affiliated musicians, what is that worth to you? Does the $ amount vary if there were artwork available (and lets get digital here, no 'CD Liners', but wallpapers or something along those lines).
Come on people - what is Music worth to you?
Regards
Jo
It seems to me that the comment someone made about MS having every right to ban third party clients was actually quite correct.
However, it also seems to me that surely this argues for a successor to IRC. Ideally it would be an open source successor and one that ran on decentralised servers etc etc... Potentially even a P2P chat environment with NO real servers!!!
Does a product like this exist (but not in common usage)
Regards
Jo
I have read a number of posts on this topic, and it seems to me that a lot (certainly not all) people are missing the point.
The CCAGW is saying that by mandating a certain solution (in this case Open Source) the Mass government is reducing the opportunity for competition and therefore increasing the potential for solutions that are sub optimal (both in price and performance) to be choosen.
Surely, for true competition (and for Linux to genuinely come to the forefront) it should be treated on the same basis as (for example) Windows. If it is truly the better option (on some form of price/performance comparison) then it will get choosen.
IMHO Mass. should have stated that they had a preference to open source platforms, but would not bar other platforms from competition. This becomes a strategic statement, not a proscriptive statement.
Regards
JoAnywhere
Whilst you are correct, the original poster discussing crosshairs is also correct.
For a while, there was at least one manufacturer producing an add-on for mice that was a crosshair and magnifier. You stuck it to your mouse, and were supposed to be able to use it to accurately trace drawings and digitise paper blueprints.
How well did it work? On that topic I have NO idea!!
Slashdot Mirror
I do use Cafe Wifi fairly regularly. I travel for work a lot. Sometimes if I fly into a city and can't check into my hotel before my meeting, but have spare time then its off to the nearest cafe for a latte and hopefully some wifi access. And yes - I do make my determination of which cafe to use based on its wifi availability (free, paid, none in decreasing order of preference). btw - 'latte' defines the drink, the concept of a large or extra large latte is ludicrous Cheers Jo
Who on earth moderated this as Insightful?
Ramanujan's name is in the first paragraph of the article. All the author had to do was click on the link (that was included in the post) and copy/paste his name into the body of the post.
It was utter laziness, and sloppy editorial policy. There was nothing tongue-in-cheek about it
Yep - Meat Pies, Taro, and clean air :)
Under the guise of CER Australia has blocked a number of NZ products from Australia.
Ice Cream - NZ Ice Cream contains to much Cream and to little air.
Meat Pies - NZ Meat Pies contain to much Meat and to little gravy
Damn us crazy Kiwis for making things that taste to good
Cheers
JoAnywhere
If you RTA you'll see that the author isn't really talking about wireless insecurity. What he is talking about is how insecure the websites were is that he conveniently was able to access via wifi (i.e. the wifi is just the networking technology that he used rather than the problem itself)
This should really serve as a wake up call to designers of ALL websites on the dangers of poor design.
Hate Crime Legisalation seeks to distinguish between crimes of passion, crimes of self defense and crimes of hatred thats all. I'm not saying its a good or bad thing, I am saying that it hardly defines a free country
Ahh - so the definition of a free country is now that you allow everyone to have guns (sometimes you get them free when you open a bank account), and that you do nothing to enforce tough penalties for 'hate crimes'. Well... the second point strikes me as odd. Many US states have hate crime legislation and I haven't noticed any lessening of the influence by the Christians in the US. By your definition also, New Zealand is not a free country which strikes me as truly offensive, highly ignorant, and wildly inaccurate. Which country did you say you were from again?
How is this post insightful.
From the BBC Story
"Link [sic] acknowledged that there could be problems enforcing the code if one spammer tried to get a rival shut down by sending junk mail on their behalf."
the post is redundant. RTFA!!
Regards
Jo
Dunno, does George W. Bush own a rubber suit? Actually, on second thoughts - I'm not sure I want to know the answer to that question! In fact, I think I would have been happier if I'd never thought of the question.
I have to agree with your points 1 - 5 (and I was in fact considering posting the same facetious remark), but your statements afterwards baffled me somewhat.
Any sort of file format that requires me to install the company's software to use I will eternally hate, regardless of who it is. I hate Real, and I hate Quicktime.
Does that mean you also hate PDF? MP3? or any other format of data that requires software to view it? or is it only proprietry software you are railing against? If its the proprietry argument you are making then I can understand your point, but at the end of the day, pretty much all data requires some kind of software to view it.
OMG... $699/Minute for VoIP Long Distance Anyone?
Your lowtech solution?
I guess this is a case of either RTFA, or you did RTFA and thought you'd try and grab one of the listed reasons as your own?
Oh, and as my own followup to that... I would happily pay $0.50 per track, especially if there was a cool wall paper that went with the track/album. Regards Jo
I have a question (and sorry, its slightly off topic). What WOULD you be willing to pay to download music with no DRM? I ask this as a serious question (and not particularly from a business perspective or anything). If you could download MP3s or OGGs from non RIAA affiliated musicians, what is that worth to you? Does the $ amount vary if there were artwork available (and lets get digital here, no 'CD Liners', but wallpapers or something along those lines). Come on people - what is Music worth to you? Regards Jo
It seems to me that the comment someone made about MS having every right to ban third party clients was actually quite correct. However, it also seems to me that surely this argues for a successor to IRC. Ideally it would be an open source successor and one that ran on decentralised servers etc etc... Potentially even a P2P chat environment with NO real servers!!! Does a product like this exist (but not in common usage) Regards Jo
I have read a number of posts on this topic, and it seems to me that a lot (certainly not all) people are missing the point. The CCAGW is saying that by mandating a certain solution (in this case Open Source) the Mass government is reducing the opportunity for competition and therefore increasing the potential for solutions that are sub optimal (both in price and performance) to be choosen. Surely, for true competition (and for Linux to genuinely come to the forefront) it should be treated on the same basis as (for example) Windows. If it is truly the better option (on some form of price/performance comparison) then it will get choosen. IMHO Mass. should have stated that they had a preference to open source platforms, but would not bar other platforms from competition. This becomes a strategic statement, not a proscriptive statement. Regards JoAnywhere
Whilst you are correct, the original poster discussing crosshairs is also correct.
For a while, there was at least one manufacturer producing an add-on for mice that was a crosshair and magnifier. You stuck it to your mouse, and were supposed to be able to use it to accurately trace drawings and digitise paper blueprints.
How well did it work? On that topic I have NO idea!!
Wow - how did you do that? Did you use a set of static bottles with long flexible hoses to the print head? Do you have photos?