I agree that having some Spanish classes has helped me. As stated, it's the second most common language in the US. Plus, it's similar to other Romance languages, which makes it that much easier to understand those languages at least a little. I remember going to see Brotherhood of the Wolf, and simply knowing Spanish allowed me to get a basic idea of what they were saying in French. I was still glad to have the subtitles, but I didn't have to focus quite so much on reading them.
As a person in the Midwest, I think it would be helpful for you to know Spanish. As a software developer specifically, not so much.
This is exactly the same as anyone else's arrogance. You're very good at something, so people who aren't as good at that thing seem inferior. But as other commenters have said, I'm sure that as you get older you'll run into more and more people who are much better than you in this field. You'll also run into people who are just as good in some other field as you are in this field, while you completely suck in their field just like they suck in your field. Everyone is a genius in some field(s) and an idiot in other(s).
The key is to remember that both of you have strengths and weaknesses. If you don't want them to be an arrogant prick to you when their field is involved, don't be an arrogant prick to them when your field is involved.
P.S. The Big Bang Theory is pretty good for a major network sitcom. It does a good job of capturing the different mentalities of "geeks" vs. "normal people". Sheldon Cooper is an extreme exaggeration of the geek with a superiority complex. He's always condescending to his friends, even though they have doctorates in astrophysics and similar. He acts especially superior to the one who only has a Master's from MIT. However, even his geeky friends realize that his behavior in normal social situations is severely lacking. Sheldon is also taught the lesson that there's always someone better when Stephen Hawking points out a simple arithmetic error he made early on, completely invalidating all of his conclusions. In one episode, another character has to study up on the game of football, so that he can go to his girlfriend's party and attempt to fit in. He sounded just as moronic to those people as these "inferior" people sound to you when talking about computers. To keep things in perspective, just keep in mind how much Sheldon seems like a jerk with his superiority complex, and realize that's exactly what you're doing on a smaller scale.
I'm sticking with my Firefox (actually Waterfox) because it has my old Qute-style them and looks just like it did years ago. SeaMonkey has the new icon style (combined with a few antique Netscape-style icons), so I'd just have to redo all my customizations again, with the only benefit being a bunch of other apps that I don't need in my browser (bloat).
The only reason to use SeaMonkey over Firefox is if you want the extra apps that it includes, as they're both based on the same core and the interface is completely customizable. Rather than switching away from Firefox because you don't like the interface, why not simply change it to your liking? Works for me anyway...
I'm in mid/west lower Michigan. I'm in a fairly rural area by comparison, but only about 20 miles outside Grand Rapids.
I got a cheap cell phone in the late '90s through my friend who worked at Best Buy. Omnipoint (later VoiceStream, later T-Mobile) was cheap, but the coverage wasn't that great around home (though nobody really was at that time). In '99, I got a job at a company that sold Nextel, so I got one of those cheap. Again, coverage wasn't great (it was often referred to as "Nextime", because it might actually work the next time you tried it). However, Nextel's Direct Connect really took off here (this region used up all its numbers in the first fleet, so they had to add a second fleet and eventually cross-fleeting ability so new users could talk to their friends and family on the old fleet). The more people you knew with Nextels, the more useful it was.
I stuck with Nextel until '05, when the Direct Connect wasn't really useful to me anymore due to changes in who I was talking to and their chosen cell service. I went to Verizon, who have pretty widespread coverage around here. VZW seems to be the default if some random person wants a cell phone. As others have said, they have pretty good coverage for calls and texts. My current employer uses VZW for their cell phones, so I switched from my personal VZW plan to the company VZW plan when I started working here.
When the iPhone 3G came out, the company started getting them for some employees, and obviously those people switched to AT&T. I eventually got a 3G and switched also. When the VZW iPhone 4 came out, we started going back for new users. When the 4S was released, the company made the decision to switch everyone back to VZW.
My early experiences probably don't count for much. There wasn't much coverage here at all, and quite a few things have changed in the past 10+ years. My recent experiences involve only 3G, due to using the iPhone 3G/4/4S. However, there was a noticeable speed drop going from the ATT iPhone 4 to the VZW iPhone 4S. Whereas I'd normally get about 3Mb down with ATT, I'm lucky to break 1Mb with VZW (with full bars on each). With ATT, I had noticeable areas of no coverage. A few coworkers got femtocells because ATT simply lacks coverage in a number of places around here. Since switching to VZW, I don't know if I've ever seen it without at least a little coverage (short of my annual camping trip to Middle-of-Nowhere, Canada). However, I frequently find myself with ~3 bars on VZW, where ATT usually seemed to have 4-5 bars (when I had signal). With the 4S having HSPA+, I really wished I was back on ATT, especially since they seem to have added a tower close to my house out in the sticks - one day I suddenly had 5 bars and great speeds. I'm hoping to upgrade to the iPhone 5, largely for LTE (though VZW's map doesn't show any coverage at home or work, but it'll still be handy when I'm out and about).
I never had any issues with any of the companies regarding my personal accounts, so I can't speak for customer service on any of them (though the lack of problems itself is something to mention). I don't deal with the details of the business account. The only thing I've done is having ATT unlock my old iPhone, which was a bit of work. Their automated system replied that it got my request, but never sent me an update to let me know it was finished. When I called in, Support said it had already been processed, but something wasn't quite right with it, so they did it again. Other than that, I have nothing to report.
Other than the original G1 and MyTouch, virtually all of the millions of phones represented by this chart are still under contract today. If you thought that entitled you to some support, think again:
7 of the 18 Android phones never ran a current version of the OS.
12 of 18 only ran a current version of the OS for a matter of weeks or less.
10 of 18 were at least two major versions behind well within their two year contract period.
11 of 18 stopped getting any support updates less than a year after release.
13 of 18 stopped getting any support updates before they even stopped selling the device or very shortly thereafter.
15 of 18 don’t run Gingerbread, which shipped in December 2010.
In a few weeks, when Ice Cream Sandwich comes out, every device on here will be another major version behind.
At least 16 of 18 will almost certainly never get Ice Cream Sandwich.
I believe it's gotten a little better since then, but those numbers are horrible. 39% never ran a current version. 67% only ran a current version for a matter of weeks (keep in mind that most of these would be on a 2 year contract). 83% weren't on the version that was released almost a year prior. 72% stopped getting updates while they were still being sold.
Compared to that, the 3+ year old 3GS missing a few newer features doesn't sound so bad. I do wish my old 3G was still supported, but it's honestly so much slower that I don't like using it much anyway.
His point is that GoDaddy supported SOPA, which allowed companies to shut down websites on a whim.
If you continued to support GoDaddy after learning about this, then it is assumed you're fine with people's websites being shutdown for no good reason.
Therefore, why are you upset now?
You're the roofer on the Death Star. You knew the risks.
Actually, his point is probably that GoDaddy's policies, regardless of SOPA/PIPA support, allow them to shut down websites on a whim. They've repeatedly demonstrated this by completely shutting down entire accounts when served a DMCA complaint for one site. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/25/1744246/photographer-threatened-with-legal-action-after-asserting-his-copyright is one example. (Part of the reason she went crazy was that all of her sites, including one regarding special needs children, were suspended after GoDaddy received the DMCA complaint over one photo on one specific site.)
GoDaddy has made it clear that it takes very little to convince them to suspend a customer's entire account. If you choose to use GoDaddy's services, that's a risk you're taking.
According to Microsoft's 10 Immutable Laws of Security, "it's not your computer anymore" and you need to revert to a known-good state. This generally translates into a complete restore from backups or a reinstall. If you have a spare drive, it's probably easiest to just save an entire image of the bad drive (just to make sure you don't lose anything) and do a complete wipe. You can recover any needed data from the backup image (just be careful not to actually run any apps from that backup). A current AV installed on the fresh rebuild may be able to help remove some of the junk from the backup image as well, just make sure it doesn't accidentally "clean up" anything important. That should fix the PC itself, but there are other things you may want to consider as well (as suggested by others here).
Your dad may need some training/assistance regarding finances and private info. You'll want to reset any accounts that were accessed via the tainted PC (and any others you think could have been compromised by the infected PC). If he doesn't specifically need Windows, changing to Ubuntu or similar can inherently stop Windows-specific malware (including crap from well-meaning but incompetent remote techs, e.g. unnecessary software from the ISP). I set a previous girlfriend up with a laptop running Ubuntu, and was able to find Linux versions of pretty much any app she needed for what she wanted to do (web browser, office suite, iPod software, etc.). Linux may not do everything he needs, and it won't stop phone-based social engineering, but it can go a long way to help against malware.
As I said in my other comment, he specifically mentions "countries" where their games were "played but not bought" before stating the 93-95% piracy rate. Assuming he's talking about those developing countries with rampant bootlegs and counterfeits, that would fall under the 0.10m "Rest of the World" sales. Using that number, you're talking about 1.4-2.0m pirated copies. That's still a huge number compared to only 1.03m actual sales, but it's much more reasonable than 15-20m. That would result in a total of about 3m copies, which is more in line with your Bioshock number (which was released nearly 5 years ago, so there should be more consoles worldwide now).
"We want to develop the PC market quite a lot and F2P is really the way to do it," said the French CEO. "The advantage of F2P is that we can get revenue from countries where we couldn't previously - places where our products were played but not bought. Now with F2P we gain revenue, which helps brands last longer.
It sounds like he's referring to the typical countries where counterfeit and pirated products of all types are sold on every corner (as opposed to the dirty thieves in the US who are just too cheap to pay for it). I'm sure there are many US pirates that they are now getting more revenue from as well, but it sounds like this is specifically targeting the locations where bootlegs are the norm over legitimate products.
I said this in June, but it still stands (unless the draft standard has been updated, but I couldn't find anything). The latest draft of the standard states "[a]n ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal without a user's explicit consent." Having it set by default, without any input from the user, violates that. That seems about as simple as you can get.
I agree with a lot of others. This voluntary DNT stuff doesn't really have any teeth. The only real reason for anyone to honor it is to avoid real regulation (which may or may not actually be enough to keep sites honest). However, enabling it by default will definitely ensure that advertisers do not honor it (at least for that browser). Advertisers will not voluntarily stop for all users of a certain browser based on a default browser setting (where the browser maker is the one deciding, rather than the user). I will admit that this leads to the question of whether or not they'd actually stop even if DNT is explicitly set by the user.
I still feel that a question during the IE first-run wizard is the best solution. MS can present the benefits and privacy implications of choosing whether or not to allow advertiser tracking, without any default value. The setting would be user-set regardless of whether they choose yes or no.
This could actually come back to hurt IE10 users overall. As other commenters have suggested, there's some gray area over what exactly constitutes explicit user consent regarding the setting. If IE10 sets this without any user intervention, advertisers have a not-totally-unreasonable excuse to ignore DNT from IE10, since it's a browser default rather than a user preference. An advertiser could continue to honor DNT for browsers where it is an explicit user preference, while ignoring it for only IE10 (in an effort to reduce ire toward them from DNT users without crippling themselves on all IE10 users). The IE10 users who actually want DNT may find that they can't actually use DNT, since advertisers assume it's just a browser default and ignore it. You end up with DNT working in Firefox, Chrome, etc. (when the user sets the preference) but not ever working in IE10.
DNT is a compromise between users and advertisers. Setting DNT as a browser default shoots that compromise in the face, making it almost expected for advertisers to stop honoring it.
This is similar to Microsoft's attempt to have IE8 render in standards-mode only if a special meta tag was included. This would allow IE8 to render old, broken sites with the old, broken rendering engine while new compliant sites would be rendered with the great new rendering engine (as long as the new page included the special tag to tell IE8 that it really, really, really meant that the code should be rendered as written). They're trying to achieve what end users really want, but going about it in the worst possible way. Is it really that hard to have one more screen asking the user if they want DNT or not? That would completely avoid the issue of whether or not it was an explicit preference set by the user, and pretty much dismiss all of the tech community's complaints. There's still the issue of whether or not advertisers would actually honor it, but that's an issue for all browsers in general.
Irony can be either "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning" or "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result". While/. might not be surprised by a musicians' rights group violating their client's music rights, it could generally be said that this is an ironic situation since the claimed protector is one committing the violation.
The latest draft of the standard states "[a]n ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal without a user's explicit consent." Having it set by default, without any input from the user, violates that. That seems about as simple as you can get. The real question should be whether or not that wording belongs in the standard.
As other commenters have said, I feel that enabling it by default would have a dramatic impact on advertisers. I feel that they'd be more willing to accept a few individuals explicitly turning it off, rather than every clueless user automatically having it turned off by default. It's simply compromising with the advertisers - if we ask nicely, they're more likely to respect our wishes. If we just say everyone everywhere doesn't want this, they're more likely to have a problem with that and simply ignore DNT settings altogether.
And just like a few people have mentioned, if the IE10 first-run wizard asked whether or not you wanted to enable it, it would no longer violate the standard and W3C should have nothing to say about it. Again, demonizing tracking in this dialog could result in a huge hit to advertisers, which again would make them less likely to honor the DNT setting altogether. As a compromise with advertisers, it would probably be best to explain that tracking may give you more relevant ads and such, while enabling DNT would give you more privacy. Simply asking, "Do you want to be tracked?" with no other details probably isn't the best way to handle it.
Until there are laws requiring companies to honor DNT, pissing off the advertisers over it will simply result in them not honoring it at all.
And do you have a copy of your receipt that shows that the store and you made the agreement to which you refer? No? Then too bad. Otherwise, they don't need your info, and they aren't saying they need it. For instance, Target only uses your DL when you don't have receipts.
A large part of the problem with EVs is that current technology limits their range. To really get the most out of an EV, you have to not drive all that much to begin with. However, if you're not driving that much, you're also not buying that much gas. Even if you completely eliminate your entire gasoline bill, the total amount of money you're saving isn't that much.
One local news station recently ran a story about a dealership rolling out the first all-electric vehicle in the area, the Mitsu i-MiEV. The car costs $29,000 and has a range of 68 miles. If you were to drive the full 68 miles every day for a year (24,820 miles) in a 30mpg car, you'd use 827 1/3 gallons of gasoline, which is $3,309.33 at $4/gal. You'd be saving $16,546.67 over 5 years. A 40mpg car would drop the savings to $12,410. If you're not willing to push the limits of your battery capacity and play it safe at 50 miles daily (18,250 miles), you're only saving $12,166.67 or $9,125 over the gas cars. There are a lot of variables that come into play, but you may not end up saving all that much compared to the extra cost of the car (the 38mpg Smart coupe starts at $12,500).
However, the dealership itself says that the car isn't meant to be your sole vehicle. It's meant for known-distance commutes and quick trips to the store. Figure in the cost of a second car, even if it's just a beater or a rental, if you ever want to go more than 68 miles without stopping to recharge it. Plus, it's an ugly little 4-door Smart-looking thing. To quote my girlfriend when I opened the page, "What is that? It's horrible!"
There's no way I could get by with just an i-MiEV. However, a Volt would work out very well for me. I commute about 20 miles a day, and the nearest city with a mall and public transit is about 20 miles away. I wouldn't feel safe with a range of only 68 miles, but most of my driving in the Volt would be electric. Even compared to my 25/37mpg Cobalt, I figure the Volt (including electricity costs and some gas for longer trips) would cost me about $500 a year, rather than the $2,000 I spent last year. The 35/40mpg Volt is obviously much more economical if you never have to get into the gasoline, but the option is there if a longer trip suddenly comes up (e.g. having to drive to a remote site for work).
Despite being pretty much the ideal candidate for the Volt, I'm not sure if I'd ever actually make up the difference in price (after the tax credit). Though there are Priuses that have been running on the same batteries for over 10 years now, I'm still a little wary of the new technology (on top of being a new model). The styling isn't my first choice, but it's not terrible either. It's definitely not in the same class as my cheap base model Cobalt and I like the geek factor of the Volt. If gas prices go up significantly, the Volt would save me even more compared to the Cobalt. Regardless of savings or greenness, I don't mind the idea of lowering oil dependency. I'd feel a little more comfortable with a second gen Volt, but I'm hoping that they continue to flop and they go on clearance so I can snag one cheap (a few people managed to get brand new GMC Syclones for about 1/3 off when dealerships were trying to dump them). I also wouldn't mind seeing a (bio-)diesel option instead of gasoline for the ICE.
I really like the idea of using battery power for average commuting and such, but having nearly infinite range thanks to the gasoline engine if needed. Until battery rechargers are as plentiful and quick as gas stations, I think the Volt's hybrid setup is much more practical.
Please note that while the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7 can be used to run Firefox 10, only 32-bit builds of Firefox 10 are supported at this time.
Recommended Hardware
Pentium 4 or newer processor that supports SSE2
512MB of RAM
200MB of hard drive space
It says "recommended" on the "requirements" page, so I'm not sure if the SSE2 support is actually required or just provides additional performance. If it is required, you may be able to compile it yourself with different options to support older CPUs. A few years ago, there were a number of people doing custom builds with options tailored to specific CPUs, which disabled legacy support, required higher revs of SSE, etc. Assuming that something in the code doesn't actually require SSE2 for some feature, you should be able to use it even on older systems.
You'll find that "pages.mail.advantagebusinessmedia.com" is the source of most of your problems.
Addons now compatible by default
on
Firefox 10 Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Personally, it hasn't been an issue for me (with my old, highly-customized profile), but one of the new features listed in the not-so-technical release notes is "Most add-ons are now compatible with new versions of Firefox by default". This seems to be the major issue most people have with their quicker release cycle, so hopefully it'll alleviate some pain there.
Older versions of Firefox (Firebird? Phoenix?) had a separate version number just for extensions, which would've avoided these issues. However, it would create a confusing second version number completely unrelated to the browser version, and they always seemed to set it to the same number as the browser version anyway.
As for my personal upgrade anecdote, I set "extensions.checkCompatibility.10.0" to False just to be safe. When I restarted Firefox, I got the box asking which addons I wanted to enable and disable (with my current settings pre-selected). I clicked OK and Firefox 10 opened up, looking exactly the same as 9.0.1 (which I have customized to look and act almost exactly the same as 3.6).
Huh? They're decreasing the value of the game by including something for free with new purchases? How is this any different from preorder DLC? They may be devaluing used games, but they're not the ones selling the used product. If you want to sell the DLC with the game, you're free to do so by selling the EA account with the DLC as well.
Just like nosferatu1001 said, decreasing the value of the used copy of a game decreases the value of the new copy of the game. Let's say you walk into your local BestCircuitGameShopLand and see two versions of the latest and greatest game. The first version includes all the content on the disc and is playable by anyone who puts that disc in their system. The second version includes all that same content, but the last level has an activation code that can only be linked to one specific user account. Anyone can put the disc in and play the first nine levels, but only your account can play the tenth level. Both versions of the game sell for $60. Which one do you buy?
Regardless of how you word it, these "first owner bonuses" mean the second owner is getting less than if he had purchased the product new. If the second owner has any semblance of a clue, he should be willing to pay less for this version of the game, since he's getting less. Since you know that you can't charge as much to sell the game when you're done with it, you shouldn't be willing to pay as much for the original copy.
Now, if they want to charge $50 for the second version, that's a completely different story. There are many people who have no interest in selling the game later, and would simply prefer a lower initial price. This system acknowledges that the locked-down version has a decreased value to some people and adjusts pricing accordingly. On the other hand, if you continue to decrease the value of your product without changing the price, don't be surprised when it hurts your sales.
Ok, when you buy the car, it's trunkless, without A/C, and 21mpg. Being the first owner, you get an upgrade to a trunk, A/C, and 27mpg. But when you sell it, you can only sell the original base version of it.
What a lot of people are getting at is the idea that if it's trunkless, A/C-less, and 21mpg when you sell it, it's worth less than some other car with a trunk, A/C, and 27mpg all the time. Regardless of your experience as the owner of the car, the next guy is getting less than he would've gotten with a "standard" car instead of this "limited premium experience" one. Since it has a lower resale value, the free market dictates that the original product should have a lower price.
I'm all for game companies trying out new business models. If they can sell a slideshow for $60 and then get people to pay $100 for "DLC" to actually turn the slideshow into a game, more power to 'em! However, I also think that they shouldn't be surprised when their nearly-worthless $60 game doesn't sell so well. They can charge whatever they want for their products, they just need to realize that their actions intended to increase profits (by limiting used game sales, etc.) may end up hurting their profits in the end (by reducing the value of the original product); the most basic example of this would be thinking that they can increase their profits to ridiculous levels simply by raising their prices to ridiculous levels. Even if it's possible to create a separate account for each game and transfer the full game experience upon sale, that's still an inconvenience that may (for some or all consumers) slightly lower the value of the product. You're more than welcome to attempt to make money any legal way possible, but you're not guaranteed to actually be profitable.
They shouldn't. IEEE 802 defines LAN/MAN standards. Ethernet is 802.3, Bluetooth PAN is 802.15, and WiMAX is 802.16. "Wi-Fi" is a trademarked brand name for products using the IEEE 802.11 family of standards. This new technology has as much in common with Wi-Fi as Bluetooth and WiMAX do; there's no reason for it to mooch off the Wi-Fi name rather than using its own (perhaps the "Wi-Far" suggested above, along the same line as WiMAX).
No, this new technology uses a completely different range of frequencies. At first it will only operate in fixed-location devices even.
You can't put a white-space radio into a phone or laptop because each white-space device must check its location against a database to determine which TV channels and wireless microphones are being used in the device's area, so they can avoid those channels.
In Wilmington, the white-space network will initially provide backhaul to public Wi-Fi routers in two parks and connect four Webcams in a local garden, according to Forbes.
This new technology is used to link individual Wi-Fi LANs. The technology itself has as much to do with Wi-Fi as does your home cable/DSL internet connection because it's hooked up to a router with Wi-Fi.
A lot of articles talk about the "payback" of hybrid cars and often conclude that "It's not worth it". I don't buy that. I never see articles on the payback of getting leather seats or a bigger engine that improves acceleration. The fact that my Prius emits many tons less of CO2 into the atmosphere than most other cars gives me more satisfaction than do leather seats (which I also have).
Many people choose to buy a hybrid mainly or solely based on the higher mileage ratings and therefore the savings in fuel costs. Assuming that maintenance costs are otherwise the same (which they may or may not actually be, according to other comments here), the hybrid has a higher initial price plus battery replacement costs. If your fuel savings over the life of the car are less than the additional costs due of the hybrid drivetrain, then it doesn't make financial sense to buy it. Depending on your exact situation, a hybrid could be penny-wise (saving a few bucks in gas each week) but pound-foolish (spending thousands extra to get the hybrid).
But as you point out, there may be other factors that one considers in choosing a hybrid over purely the financial numbers.
If you don't have an implied shipping time ("Most orders ship within 48 hours!"), you get a default period of 30 days. That sounds like forever these days, but remember that it has its roots in mail order.
If you can't meet that deadline, you must notify the customer "reasonably quickly", no later than by the promised ship date. You must tell them a revised shipping date or tell them you don't know when it will ship (including the reason for the unknown delay and a statement that the order can be cancelled at any time before it ships). If the delay is less than 30 days, non-response can be considered consent to the delay (which also must be stated).
If you still can't hit that revised shipment date, you need to notify the customer again. With this notice, you must provide a reason for the delay and a new ship date, or a statement that you don't know when it'll ship. With this notice, you must cancel the order if the customer doesn't respond. If the customer agrees to an indefinite wait on any proper notification, you do not need to notify them further.
At any point before the item actually ships, the customer has the right to cancel the order and receive a full and prompt refund, and the company has the right to cancel the order and issue a full refund. If the company believes it won't be able to ship the item, they are required to cancel and refund the order. Any violation is subject to a fine of up to $16,000 from the FTC, as well as mail fraud charges if the Postal Service is involved, and state consumer protection laws.
I'm not sure how the "early December" ship date that Dave got is handled by this. Regardless, I'd say that the 16th is past the "early" part of the month, so he legally should've been notified. Based on the November 3 order date, "early December" might fall under the default 30 days, meaning he should've been notified by December 3. I'd say the seller is definitely in legal hot water regarding the failure to ship, and it could've been avoided with a simple email about the delay.
I saw in comments elsewhere that the Visa and Mastercard agreements don't allow you to charge for an order before it ships, but I don't have any experience to verify that. I would think that it wouldn't be completely outlawed for the purpose of preorders and minor unexpected delays.
Like a lot of others, I think this product seems kind of cool (even if I wouldn't buy one myself). I actually saw it on Microcenter's site while browsing the 12/26 sales. I couldn't really tell what it was based on the thumbnail pic, so I took a little time to check it out. I'm a fan of David Kotkin's original idea behind this, and it could be nice for ubergamers (I had the NES controller snap-on joystick things back in the day). It seems like a good idea and something that a number of people actually seem to really like, so I'd hate to see it die off just because of one jerk.
Paul Christoforo, on the other hand, sounds like a total tool. As others have pointed out, he seems to be sorry only that he got caught and it's now an inconvenience for him. I wonder how many non-Dave customers had similar email exchanges with him. He's constantly acting like a tough guy and dropping names, until he realizes there's someone bigger and he turns into a pathetic little whiner. I don't wish any physical harm upon him or anything, but I hope this totally destroys any hope of a future in PR. Maybe he could get a job in a call center or something...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that having some Spanish classes has helped me. As stated, it's the second most common language in the US. Plus, it's similar to other Romance languages, which makes it that much easier to understand those languages at least a little. I remember going to see Brotherhood of the Wolf, and simply knowing Spanish allowed me to get a basic idea of what they were saying in French. I was still glad to have the subtitles, but I didn't have to focus quite so much on reading them.
As a person in the Midwest, I think it would be helpful for you to know Spanish. As a software developer specifically, not so much.
This is exactly the same as anyone else's arrogance. You're very good at something, so people who aren't as good at that thing seem inferior. But as other commenters have said, I'm sure that as you get older you'll run into more and more people who are much better than you in this field. You'll also run into people who are just as good in some other field as you are in this field, while you completely suck in their field just like they suck in your field. Everyone is a genius in some field(s) and an idiot in other(s).
The key is to remember that both of you have strengths and weaknesses. If you don't want them to be an arrogant prick to you when their field is involved, don't be an arrogant prick to them when your field is involved.
P.S. The Big Bang Theory is pretty good for a major network sitcom. It does a good job of capturing the different mentalities of "geeks" vs. "normal people". Sheldon Cooper is an extreme exaggeration of the geek with a superiority complex. He's always condescending to his friends, even though they have doctorates in astrophysics and similar. He acts especially superior to the one who only has a Master's from MIT. However, even his geeky friends realize that his behavior in normal social situations is severely lacking. Sheldon is also taught the lesson that there's always someone better when Stephen Hawking points out a simple arithmetic error he made early on, completely invalidating all of his conclusions. In one episode, another character has to study up on the game of football, so that he can go to his girlfriend's party and attempt to fit in. He sounded just as moronic to those people as these "inferior" people sound to you when talking about computers. To keep things in perspective, just keep in mind how much Sheldon seems like a jerk with his superiority complex, and realize that's exactly what you're doing on a smaller scale.
I'm sticking with my Firefox (actually Waterfox) because it has my old Qute-style them and looks just like it did years ago. SeaMonkey has the new icon style (combined with a few antique Netscape-style icons), so I'd just have to redo all my customizations again, with the only benefit being a bunch of other apps that I don't need in my browser (bloat).
The only reason to use SeaMonkey over Firefox is if you want the extra apps that it includes, as they're both based on the same core and the interface is completely customizable. Rather than switching away from Firefox because you don't like the interface, why not simply change it to your liking? Works for me anyway...
I'm in mid/west lower Michigan. I'm in a fairly rural area by comparison, but only about 20 miles outside Grand Rapids.
I got a cheap cell phone in the late '90s through my friend who worked at Best Buy. Omnipoint (later VoiceStream, later T-Mobile) was cheap, but the coverage wasn't that great around home (though nobody really was at that time). In '99, I got a job at a company that sold Nextel, so I got one of those cheap. Again, coverage wasn't great (it was often referred to as "Nextime", because it might actually work the next time you tried it). However, Nextel's Direct Connect really took off here (this region used up all its numbers in the first fleet, so they had to add a second fleet and eventually cross-fleeting ability so new users could talk to their friends and family on the old fleet). The more people you knew with Nextels, the more useful it was.
I stuck with Nextel until '05, when the Direct Connect wasn't really useful to me anymore due to changes in who I was talking to and their chosen cell service. I went to Verizon, who have pretty widespread coverage around here. VZW seems to be the default if some random person wants a cell phone. As others have said, they have pretty good coverage for calls and texts. My current employer uses VZW for their cell phones, so I switched from my personal VZW plan to the company VZW plan when I started working here.
When the iPhone 3G came out, the company started getting them for some employees, and obviously those people switched to AT&T. I eventually got a 3G and switched also. When the VZW iPhone 4 came out, we started going back for new users. When the 4S was released, the company made the decision to switch everyone back to VZW.
My early experiences probably don't count for much. There wasn't much coverage here at all, and quite a few things have changed in the past 10+ years. My recent experiences involve only 3G, due to using the iPhone 3G/4/4S. However, there was a noticeable speed drop going from the ATT iPhone 4 to the VZW iPhone 4S. Whereas I'd normally get about 3Mb down with ATT, I'm lucky to break 1Mb with VZW (with full bars on each). With ATT, I had noticeable areas of no coverage. A few coworkers got femtocells because ATT simply lacks coverage in a number of places around here. Since switching to VZW, I don't know if I've ever seen it without at least a little coverage (short of my annual camping trip to Middle-of-Nowhere, Canada). However, I frequently find myself with ~3 bars on VZW, where ATT usually seemed to have 4-5 bars (when I had signal). With the 4S having HSPA+, I really wished I was back on ATT, especially since they seem to have added a tower close to my house out in the sticks - one day I suddenly had 5 bars and great speeds. I'm hoping to upgrade to the iPhone 5, largely for LTE (though VZW's map doesn't show any coverage at home or work, but it'll still be handy when I'm out and about).
I never had any issues with any of the companies regarding my personal accounts, so I can't speak for customer service on any of them (though the lack of problems itself is something to mention). I don't deal with the details of the business account. The only thing I've done is having ATT unlock my old iPhone, which was a bit of work. Their automated system replied that it got my request, but never sent me an update to let me know it was finished. When I called in, Support said it had already been processed, but something wasn't quite right with it, so they did it again. Other than that, I have nothing to report.
Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support is almost a year old now, but it does a great job of illustrating the difference between iPhone versions and common Android devices.
Other than the original G1 and MyTouch, virtually all of the millions of phones represented by this chart are still under contract today. If you thought that entitled you to some support, think again:
I believe it's gotten a little better since then, but those numbers are horrible. 39% never ran a current version. 67% only ran a current version for a matter of weeks (keep in mind that most of these would be on a 2 year contract). 83% weren't on the version that was released almost a year prior. 72% stopped getting updates while they were still being sold.
Compared to that, the 3+ year old 3GS missing a few newer features doesn't sound so bad. I do wish my old 3G was still supported, but it's honestly so much slower that I don't like using it much anyway.
His point is that GoDaddy supported SOPA, which allowed companies to shut down websites on a whim.
If you continued to support GoDaddy after learning about this, then it is assumed you're fine with people's websites being shutdown for no good reason.
Therefore, why are you upset now?
You're the roofer on the Death Star. You knew the risks.
Actually, his point is probably that GoDaddy's policies, regardless of SOPA/PIPA support, allow them to shut down websites on a whim. They've repeatedly demonstrated this by completely shutting down entire accounts when served a DMCA complaint for one site. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/25/1744246/photographer-threatened-with-legal-action-after-asserting-his-copyright is one example. (Part of the reason she went crazy was that all of her sites, including one regarding special needs children, were suspended after GoDaddy received the DMCA complaint over one photo on one specific site.)
GoDaddy has made it clear that it takes very little to convince them to suspend a customer's entire account. If you choose to use GoDaddy's services, that's a risk you're taking.
According to Microsoft's 10 Immutable Laws of Security, "it's not your computer anymore" and you need to revert to a known-good state. This generally translates into a complete restore from backups or a reinstall. If you have a spare drive, it's probably easiest to just save an entire image of the bad drive (just to make sure you don't lose anything) and do a complete wipe. You can recover any needed data from the backup image (just be careful not to actually run any apps from that backup). A current AV installed on the fresh rebuild may be able to help remove some of the junk from the backup image as well, just make sure it doesn't accidentally "clean up" anything important. That should fix the PC itself, but there are other things you may want to consider as well (as suggested by others here).
Your dad may need some training/assistance regarding finances and private info. You'll want to reset any accounts that were accessed via the tainted PC (and any others you think could have been compromised by the infected PC). If he doesn't specifically need Windows, changing to Ubuntu or similar can inherently stop Windows-specific malware (including crap from well-meaning but incompetent remote techs, e.g. unnecessary software from the ISP). I set a previous girlfriend up with a laptop running Ubuntu, and was able to find Linux versions of pretty much any app she needed for what she wanted to do (web browser, office suite, iPod software, etc.). Linux may not do everything he needs, and it won't stop phone-based social engineering, but it can go a long way to help against malware.
As I said in my other comment, he specifically mentions "countries" where their games were "played but not bought" before stating the 93-95% piracy rate. Assuming he's talking about those developing countries with rampant bootlegs and counterfeits, that would fall under the 0.10m "Rest of the World" sales. Using that number, you're talking about 1.4-2.0m pirated copies. That's still a huge number compared to only 1.03m actual sales, but it's much more reasonable than 15-20m. That would result in a total of about 3m copies, which is more in line with your Bioshock number (which was released nearly 5 years ago, so there should be more consoles worldwide now).
It sounds like he's referring to the typical countries where counterfeit and pirated products of all types are sold on every corner (as opposed to the dirty thieves in the US who are just too cheap to pay for it). I'm sure there are many US pirates that they are now getting more revenue from as well, but it sounds like this is specifically targeting the locations where bootlegs are the norm over legitimate products.
I said this in June, but it still stands (unless the draft standard has been updated, but I couldn't find anything). The latest draft of the standard states "[a]n ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal without a user's explicit consent." Having it set by default, without any input from the user, violates that. That seems about as simple as you can get.
I agree with a lot of others. This voluntary DNT stuff doesn't really have any teeth. The only real reason for anyone to honor it is to avoid real regulation (which may or may not actually be enough to keep sites honest). However, enabling it by default will definitely ensure that advertisers do not honor it (at least for that browser). Advertisers will not voluntarily stop for all users of a certain browser based on a default browser setting (where the browser maker is the one deciding, rather than the user). I will admit that this leads to the question of whether or not they'd actually stop even if DNT is explicitly set by the user.
I still feel that a question during the IE first-run wizard is the best solution. MS can present the benefits and privacy implications of choosing whether or not to allow advertiser tracking, without any default value. The setting would be user-set regardless of whether they choose yes or no.
This could actually come back to hurt IE10 users overall. As other commenters have suggested, there's some gray area over what exactly constitutes explicit user consent regarding the setting. If IE10 sets this without any user intervention, advertisers have a not-totally-unreasonable excuse to ignore DNT from IE10, since it's a browser default rather than a user preference. An advertiser could continue to honor DNT for browsers where it is an explicit user preference, while ignoring it for only IE10 (in an effort to reduce ire toward them from DNT users without crippling themselves on all IE10 users). The IE10 users who actually want DNT may find that they can't actually use DNT, since advertisers assume it's just a browser default and ignore it. You end up with DNT working in Firefox, Chrome, etc. (when the user sets the preference) but not ever working in IE10.
DNT is a compromise between users and advertisers. Setting DNT as a browser default shoots that compromise in the face, making it almost expected for advertisers to stop honoring it.
This is similar to Microsoft's attempt to have IE8 render in standards-mode only if a special meta tag was included. This would allow IE8 to render old, broken sites with the old, broken rendering engine while new compliant sites would be rendered with the great new rendering engine (as long as the new page included the special tag to tell IE8 that it really, really, really meant that the code should be rendered as written). They're trying to achieve what end users really want, but going about it in the worst possible way. Is it really that hard to have one more screen asking the user if they want DNT or not? That would completely avoid the issue of whether or not it was an explicit preference set by the user, and pretty much dismiss all of the tech community's complaints. There's still the issue of whether or not advertisers would actually honor it, but that's an issue for all browsers in general.
Irony can be either "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning" or "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result". While /. might not be surprised by a musicians' rights group violating their client's music rights, it could generally be said that this is an ironic situation since the claimed protector is one committing the violation.
The latest draft of the standard states "[a]n ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal without a user's explicit consent." Having it set by default, without any input from the user, violates that. That seems about as simple as you can get. The real question should be whether or not that wording belongs in the standard.
As other commenters have said, I feel that enabling it by default would have a dramatic impact on advertisers. I feel that they'd be more willing to accept a few individuals explicitly turning it off, rather than every clueless user automatically having it turned off by default. It's simply compromising with the advertisers - if we ask nicely, they're more likely to respect our wishes. If we just say everyone everywhere doesn't want this, they're more likely to have a problem with that and simply ignore DNT settings altogether.
And just like a few people have mentioned, if the IE10 first-run wizard asked whether or not you wanted to enable it, it would no longer violate the standard and W3C should have nothing to say about it. Again, demonizing tracking in this dialog could result in a huge hit to advertisers, which again would make them less likely to honor the DNT setting altogether. As a compromise with advertisers, it would probably be best to explain that tracking may give you more relevant ads and such, while enabling DNT would give you more privacy. Simply asking, "Do you want to be tracked?" with no other details probably isn't the best way to handle it.
Until there are laws requiring companies to honor DNT, pissing off the advertisers over it will simply result in them not honoring it at all.
And do you have a copy of your receipt that shows that the store and you made the agreement to which you refer? No? Then too bad. Otherwise, they don't need your info, and they aren't saying they need it. For instance, Target only uses your DL when you don't have receipts.
Except that they are indeed saying that. Return & Exchange Policy
When you return or exchange an item in store, we require a valid photo ID.
A large part of the problem with EVs is that current technology limits their range. To really get the most out of an EV, you have to not drive all that much to begin with. However, if you're not driving that much, you're also not buying that much gas. Even if you completely eliminate your entire gasoline bill, the total amount of money you're saving isn't that much.
One local news station recently ran a story about a dealership rolling out the first all-electric vehicle in the area, the Mitsu i-MiEV. The car costs $29,000 and has a range of 68 miles. If you were to drive the full 68 miles every day for a year (24,820 miles) in a 30mpg car, you'd use 827 1/3 gallons of gasoline, which is $3,309.33 at $4/gal. You'd be saving $16,546.67 over 5 years. A 40mpg car would drop the savings to $12,410. If you're not willing to push the limits of your battery capacity and play it safe at 50 miles daily (18,250 miles), you're only saving $12,166.67 or $9,125 over the gas cars. There are a lot of variables that come into play, but you may not end up saving all that much compared to the extra cost of the car (the 38mpg Smart coupe starts at $12,500).
However, the dealership itself says that the car isn't meant to be your sole vehicle. It's meant for known-distance commutes and quick trips to the store. Figure in the cost of a second car, even if it's just a beater or a rental, if you ever want to go more than 68 miles without stopping to recharge it. Plus, it's an ugly little 4-door Smart-looking thing. To quote my girlfriend when I opened the page, "What is that? It's horrible!"
There's no way I could get by with just an i-MiEV. However, a Volt would work out very well for me. I commute about 20 miles a day, and the nearest city with a mall and public transit is about 20 miles away. I wouldn't feel safe with a range of only 68 miles, but most of my driving in the Volt would be electric. Even compared to my 25/37mpg Cobalt, I figure the Volt (including electricity costs and some gas for longer trips) would cost me about $500 a year, rather than the $2,000 I spent last year. The 35/40mpg Volt is obviously much more economical if you never have to get into the gasoline, but the option is there if a longer trip suddenly comes up (e.g. having to drive to a remote site for work).
Despite being pretty much the ideal candidate for the Volt, I'm not sure if I'd ever actually make up the difference in price (after the tax credit). Though there are Priuses that have been running on the same batteries for over 10 years now, I'm still a little wary of the new technology (on top of being a new model). The styling isn't my first choice, but it's not terrible either. It's definitely not in the same class as my cheap base model Cobalt and I like the geek factor of the Volt. If gas prices go up significantly, the Volt would save me even more compared to the Cobalt. Regardless of savings or greenness, I don't mind the idea of lowering oil dependency. I'd feel a little more comfortable with a second gen Volt, but I'm hoping that they continue to flop and they go on clearance so I can snag one cheap (a few people managed to get brand new GMC Syclones for about 1/3 off when dealerships were trying to dump them). I also wouldn't mind seeing a (bio-)diesel option instead of gasoline for the ICE.
I really like the idea of using battery power for average commuting and such, but having nearly infinite range thanks to the gasoline engine if needed. Until battery rechargers are as plentiful and quick as gas stations, I think the Volt's hybrid setup is much more practical.
It says "recommended" on the "requirements" page, so I'm not sure if the SSE2 support is actually required or just provides additional performance. If it is required, you may be able to compile it yourself with different options to support older CPUs. A few years ago, there were a number of people doing custom builds with options tailored to specific CPUs, which disabled legacy support, required higher revs of SSE, etc. Assuming that something in the code doesn't actually require SSE2 for some feature, you should be able to use it even on older systems.
You'll find that "pages.mail.advantagebusinessmedia.com" is the source of most of your problems.
Personally, it hasn't been an issue for me (with my old, highly-customized profile), but one of the new features listed in the not-so-technical release notes is "Most add-ons are now compatible with new versions of Firefox by default". This seems to be the major issue most people have with their quicker release cycle, so hopefully it'll alleviate some pain there.
Older versions of Firefox (Firebird? Phoenix?) had a separate version number just for extensions, which would've avoided these issues. However, it would create a confusing second version number completely unrelated to the browser version, and they always seemed to set it to the same number as the browser version anyway.
As for my personal upgrade anecdote, I set "extensions.checkCompatibility.10.0" to False just to be safe. When I restarted Firefox, I got the box asking which addons I wanted to enable and disable (with my current settings pre-selected). I clicked OK and Firefox 10 opened up, looking exactly the same as 9.0.1 (which I have customized to look and act almost exactly the same as 3.6).
Huh? They're decreasing the value of the game by including something for free with new purchases? How is this any different from preorder DLC? They may be devaluing used games, but they're not the ones selling the used product. If you want to sell the DLC with the game, you're free to do so by selling the EA account with the DLC as well.
Just like nosferatu1001 said, decreasing the value of the used copy of a game decreases the value of the new copy of the game. Let's say you walk into your local BestCircuitGameShopLand and see two versions of the latest and greatest game. The first version includes all the content on the disc and is playable by anyone who puts that disc in their system. The second version includes all that same content, but the last level has an activation code that can only be linked to one specific user account. Anyone can put the disc in and play the first nine levels, but only your account can play the tenth level. Both versions of the game sell for $60. Which one do you buy?
Regardless of how you word it, these "first owner bonuses" mean the second owner is getting less than if he had purchased the product new. If the second owner has any semblance of a clue, he should be willing to pay less for this version of the game, since he's getting less. Since you know that you can't charge as much to sell the game when you're done with it, you shouldn't be willing to pay as much for the original copy.
Now, if they want to charge $50 for the second version, that's a completely different story. There are many people who have no interest in selling the game later, and would simply prefer a lower initial price. This system acknowledges that the locked-down version has a decreased value to some people and adjusts pricing accordingly. On the other hand, if you continue to decrease the value of your product without changing the price, don't be surprised when it hurts your sales.
Ok, when you buy the car, it's trunkless, without A/C, and 21mpg. Being the first owner, you get an upgrade to a trunk, A/C, and 27mpg. But when you sell it, you can only sell the original base version of it.
What a lot of people are getting at is the idea that if it's trunkless, A/C-less, and 21mpg when you sell it, it's worth less than some other car with a trunk, A/C, and 27mpg all the time. Regardless of your experience as the owner of the car, the next guy is getting less than he would've gotten with a "standard" car instead of this "limited premium experience" one. Since it has a lower resale value, the free market dictates that the original product should have a lower price.
I'm all for game companies trying out new business models. If they can sell a slideshow for $60 and then get people to pay $100 for "DLC" to actually turn the slideshow into a game, more power to 'em! However, I also think that they shouldn't be surprised when their nearly-worthless $60 game doesn't sell so well. They can charge whatever they want for their products, they just need to realize that their actions intended to increase profits (by limiting used game sales, etc.) may end up hurting their profits in the end (by reducing the value of the original product); the most basic example of this would be thinking that they can increase their profits to ridiculous levels simply by raising their prices to ridiculous levels. Even if it's possible to create a separate account for each game and transfer the full game experience upon sale, that's still an inconvenience that may (for some or all consumers) slightly lower the value of the product. You're more than welcome to attempt to make money any legal way possible, but you're not guaranteed to actually be profitable.
People see 802 and think Wi-Fi.
They shouldn't. IEEE 802 defines LAN/MAN standards. Ethernet is 802.3, Bluetooth PAN is 802.15, and WiMAX is 802.16. "Wi-Fi" is a trademarked brand name for products using the IEEE 802.11 family of standards. This new technology has as much in common with Wi-Fi as Bluetooth and WiMAX do; there's no reason for it to mooch off the Wi-Fi name rather than using its own (perhaps the "Wi-Far" suggested above, along the same line as WiMAX).
You can't put a white-space radio into a phone or laptop because each white-space device must check its location against a database to determine which TV channels and wireless microphones are being used in the device's area, so they can avoid those channels.
This new technology is used to link individual Wi-Fi LANs. The technology itself has as much to do with Wi-Fi as does your home cable/DSL internet connection because it's hooked up to a router with Wi-Fi.
A lot of articles talk about the "payback" of hybrid cars and often conclude that "It's not worth it". I don't buy that. I never see articles on the payback of getting leather seats or a bigger engine that improves acceleration. The fact that my Prius emits many tons less of CO2 into the atmosphere than most other cars gives me more satisfaction than do leather seats (which I also have).
Many people choose to buy a hybrid mainly or solely based on the higher mileage ratings and therefore the savings in fuel costs. Assuming that maintenance costs are otherwise the same (which they may or may not actually be, according to other comments here), the hybrid has a higher initial price plus battery replacement costs. If your fuel savings over the life of the car are less than the additional costs due of the hybrid drivetrain, then it doesn't make financial sense to buy it. Depending on your exact situation, a hybrid could be penny-wise (saving a few bucks in gas each week) but pound-foolish (spending thousands extra to get the hybrid).
But as you point out, there may be other factors that one considers in choosing a hybrid over purely the financial numbers.
The FTC "Mail Order Rule" (http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus02-business-guide-mail-and-telephone-order-merchandise-rule) does apply to phone and internet sales as well.
If you don't have an implied shipping time ("Most orders ship within 48 hours!"), you get a default period of 30 days. That sounds like forever these days, but remember that it has its roots in mail order.
If you can't meet that deadline, you must notify the customer "reasonably quickly", no later than by the promised ship date. You must tell them a revised shipping date or tell them you don't know when it will ship (including the reason for the unknown delay and a statement that the order can be cancelled at any time before it ships). If the delay is less than 30 days, non-response can be considered consent to the delay (which also must be stated).
If you still can't hit that revised shipment date, you need to notify the customer again. With this notice, you must provide a reason for the delay and a new ship date, or a statement that you don't know when it'll ship. With this notice, you must cancel the order if the customer doesn't respond. If the customer agrees to an indefinite wait on any proper notification, you do not need to notify them further.
At any point before the item actually ships, the customer has the right to cancel the order and receive a full and prompt refund, and the company has the right to cancel the order and issue a full refund. If the company believes it won't be able to ship the item, they are required to cancel and refund the order. Any violation is subject to a fine of up to $16,000 from the FTC, as well as mail fraud charges if the Postal Service is involved, and state consumer protection laws.
I'm not sure how the "early December" ship date that Dave got is handled by this. Regardless, I'd say that the 16th is past the "early" part of the month, so he legally should've been notified. Based on the November 3 order date, "early December" might fall under the default 30 days, meaning he should've been notified by December 3. I'd say the seller is definitely in legal hot water regarding the failure to ship, and it could've been avoided with a simple email about the delay.
I saw in comments elsewhere that the Visa and Mastercard agreements don't allow you to charge for an order before it ships, but I don't have any experience to verify that. I would think that it wouldn't be completely outlawed for the purpose of preorders and minor unexpected delays.
Like a lot of others, I think this product seems kind of cool (even if I wouldn't buy one myself). I actually saw it on Microcenter's site while browsing the 12/26 sales. I couldn't really tell what it was based on the thumbnail pic, so I took a little time to check it out. I'm a fan of David Kotkin's original idea behind this, and it could be nice for ubergamers (I had the NES controller snap-on joystick things back in the day). It seems like a good idea and something that a number of people actually seem to really like, so I'd hate to see it die off just because of one jerk.
Paul Christoforo, on the other hand, sounds like a total tool. As others have pointed out, he seems to be sorry only that he got caught and it's now an inconvenience for him. I wonder how many non-Dave customers had similar email exchanges with him. He's constantly acting like a tough guy and dropping names, until he realizes there's someone bigger and he turns into a pathetic little whiner. I don't wish any physical harm upon him or anything, but I hope this totally destroys any hope of a future in PR. Maybe he could get a job in a call center or something...