You rarely linger on the Web; your computer takes about 30 seconds to load each page, and, hey, you're paying for the Internet by the hour.
I read that and thought "People actually paid for AOL?" Between phishing and the fact that AOL never bothered to check if a credit card number was valid until the bill was due, how many script-kiddie wannabes really paid for their AOL service?;)
Re:Paying for Internet by the hour?
on
Jurassic Web
·
· Score: 1
It was even better in 94 even if you had to use Trumpet WinSock on Windows 3.1
I remember using Trumpet Winsock on Windows 95 in lieu of the native one because it wasn't vulnerable to any of the out of band exploits that would bluescreen 95. It also had a neat (for the time) packet sniffing interface.
Re:No Huffie Post!?! Oh My GOSH!!!
on
Jurassic Web
·
· Score: 4, Funny
What is this "outside" of which you speak?
It's where you had to go when you were traveling to the dungeon masters house;)
Note: The battle off Samar where the Yamato was sunk is known as one of the absolute largest naval battles in history. we also almost lost that one even though we had 16 carriers and 400 aircraft fighting.
Umm, Yamato wasn't sunk off Samar. Perhaps you are thinking of her sister ship Musashi? Musashi wasn't sunk off Samar either but she was sunk (again by aerial attack) in the same overall battle -- the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Yamato was lost during a kamikaze sortie (Operation Ten-Go) to try and attack our fleet off Okinawa.
Honestly we have went backwards in firepower because the ships at sea right now are very easy to sink compared to what we had during WW-II in the world.
Honestly I think you are overlooking the key lesson of WW2. It doesn't matter how hard or easy your ships are to sink -- they will be sunk regardless if you don't have control of the skies over your fleet. A battleship without air cover is just a floating bullseye. The battleship hasn't ruled the waves since Pearl Harbor. Hell, arguably since before Pearl Harbor. Almost every famous battleship that was lost during WW2 was lost to aerial attack. Prince of Wales, the Arizona, Yamato, Bismarck, etc, etc, etc.
Battleships can take Exocet missiles into the hull all day long and not sink or even have any problems.
That's a bit of an oversimplification. The missile strikes probably wouldn't be able to sink a battleship but they would play havoc with a lot of her systems -- her sensors, rangefinders and modern weapons (the missiles installed on the Iowas) wouldn't stand up real well. Plus the Exocet isn't really that impressive of an anti-ship missile. It gets all the fame because of the Falklands but the Russians built anti-ship missiles with warheads four times as powerful as the Exocet. You can also put nuclear warheads on most anti-ship missiles, which makes all the armor in the world a big fat moot point.
You should also consider that the Yamato was sunk solely by air strikes, using aerial torpedoes and bombs with similiar sized warheads to modern weapons. I would think that you could make a case that it was stupid to retire the Iowas because of the fire support mission they provided but as far as dominating the waves that kind of ended at Pearl Harbor.....
Play the game while it secretly crafts a worm to take the extra money when transactions are rounded (only a few hundredths of a cent) and deposits them in an offshore account.
Be careful. Such games have been known to take a few hundredths of a billion and upgrade the crime from white collar resort prison to pound-me-in-the-ass prison;)
As much as I hate AT&T, this just isn't their fault this time.
Actually it is their fault. AT&T disables the ability of their phones to display a proper roaming banner. Regardless of which network you are on your phone will always say "AT&T". On the other hand, T-Mobile will show the name of the actual network you are connected to, i.e: "T-Mobile", "AT&T", "Cellular One", etc, etc. Given that AT&T removes your ability to know when your phone is roaming I would say that it's very much their fault when people rack up roaming charges by accident.
This is completely ridiculous. Customers should be able to set a bill cap to prevent this kind of thing. If you hit the cap, your access gets cut unless you explicitly give permission to charge more. That's why I use a prepaid phone (I live in Germany, so it's dirt cheap here).
Such a cap wouldn't really help you with situations like these. When you roam on another provider that provider doesn't send your call details back to your home provider in real time. They typically collect a few days worth of calls and then upload them to your home provider. There's no way for your home provider to have a real time accounting of the calls that you make while roaming.
I was wondering that myself. My girlfriend made me sit through part of the Oscars last night and at one point some clueless celebrity started gushing about how the Oscar is the "most prestigious award in the world". Really? More prestigious than the Nobel prize? More prestigious than the Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross?
Give me a fucking break. I'll never understand the fascination that a lot of my countrymen have with Hollywood and the culture surrounding movie stars/other celebrities.
And I don't block Google Analytics. I consider it rude. I use it on my sites to figure out the demographics of my sites' visitors so I can best provide content they'll want--blocking it on other people would be rude.
I don't have a site and don't really want to assist people in tracking my demographic information, hence the block.
I've never found it to be that hard. Most of the websites that I frequent are whitelisted. A handful of things (doubleclick, google-analytics, etc) are blacklisted. When I venture onto a new site if it doesn't render properly I just temporally allow it.
I've never bothered with adblock either -- noscript seems to do a good job of blocking 99% of them.
Does Flashblock offer any compelling advantage over NoScript to make me want to install it? I've found that NoScript does a decent job of blocking flash by default -- if I allow the scripts it also allows Flash but I don't allow scripts on untrusted websites so I've never bothered with Flashblock. Should I?
It seems like we live in a world now where media go ridiculously out of their way to soften the blow and protect the parties who screwed up and shipped software that had mistakes in it, by playing PR on their behalf and hiding their name.
Well that may be the case but in this case the criticism doesn't really seem deserved. For better or worse/. generally posts exactly what was written by the person who submitted the article. Blame that person for trying to "soften" the blow.
I always thought they did. Back in my ISP days we had multihomed connections and all three of our uplink providers filtered what we sent to them. It just seems like common sense. What's the reason for not doing it? Laziness?
From long experience most people agree... if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Reminds me of an old "offensive" fortune quote: Working computer hardware is a lot like an erect penis. It stays up as long as you don't fuck with it.
If you have no clue what offensive fortunes are try 'fortune -o'. They are great when you are stoned, drunk or just bored at work. If you don't have fortune installed then you are clearly on the wrong website;)
Do you honestly think they'd be economically viable if they had built their own supplier base up from the ground?
You still haven't answered the question of why my tax dollars should be rewarding failure.
But who's going to cover the excess demand? Honda's factories are flexible and have excess capacity now, but it's not as easy as flipping a switch and being ready to go.
It would seem to me that all that plant and equipment owned by GM isn't going to disappear if they fail. It could probably be had at firesale prices. Somebody is going to pick it up and do productive things with it.
Yes, there's a steak in some parts of the conservative world. But the GP claims that the Libertarians are marginalized because they are very socially conservative. That begs two questions:
1) When has being socially conservative marginalized you in this country? The Republicans have been riding it ever since the 60s.
2) What part of the Libertarian platform is socially conservative? I can only think of the pro-life stance of Paul and Barr but I'm a bit unclear as to whether or not the actual party takes that stance or just the candidates.
We're scrwed if GM goes out of business because they will take a HUGE chunk of the automotive supplier base with them. It would take 2-3 years to recover from something like that. It's bad enough as is right now with supplier closings due simply to reduced production.
So I should have to pony up my tax dollars because Honda didn't diversify it's supplier base and/or because those suppliers are running on such tight margins that the loss of one customer puts them out of business? Sounds like we are still rewarding failure.
I've never understood this argument anyway -- if GM goes down the demand for cars doesn't magically cease to exist. It would seem likely that the other outfits like Honda would pick up this demand and the suppliers would be just fine in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
For the usual reasons (media, PDA functions) but primarily because it has the best keyboard for texting.
That sounds like a list of wants, not a list of needs.....
At 14, she's a power user of her Blackberry Curve
Why does a 14 year old need a blackberry?
None of that mattered if the connection number you had to dial was long-distance...
Naw, you dialed the 1-800 number and let it get billed to the non-existent credit card or poor slob who gave "AOL" his password ;)
In theory of course ;)
The MUD 'Foothills' was a good place to meet lonely male geeks roleplaying female characters in 93/94.
Fixed that for you.
You rarely linger on the Web; your computer takes about 30 seconds to load each page, and, hey, you're paying for the Internet by the hour.
I read that and thought "People actually paid for AOL?" Between phishing and the fact that AOL never bothered to check if a credit card number was valid until the bill was due, how many script-kiddie wannabes really paid for their AOL service? ;)
It was even better in 94 even if you had to use Trumpet WinSock on Windows 3.1
I remember using Trumpet Winsock on Windows 95 in lieu of the native one because it wasn't vulnerable to any of the out of band exploits that would bluescreen 95. It also had a neat (for the time) packet sniffing interface.
What is this "outside" of which you speak?
It's where you had to go when you were traveling to the dungeon masters house ;)
Note: The battle off Samar where the Yamato was sunk is known as one of the absolute largest naval battles in history. we also almost lost that one even though we had 16 carriers and 400 aircraft fighting.
Umm, Yamato wasn't sunk off Samar. Perhaps you are thinking of her sister ship Musashi? Musashi wasn't sunk off Samar either but she was sunk (again by aerial attack) in the same overall battle -- the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Yamato was lost during a kamikaze sortie (Operation Ten-Go) to try and attack our fleet off Okinawa.
Honestly we have went backwards in firepower because the ships at sea right now are very easy to sink compared to what we had during WW-II in the world.
Honestly I think you are overlooking the key lesson of WW2. It doesn't matter how hard or easy your ships are to sink -- they will be sunk regardless if you don't have control of the skies over your fleet. A battleship without air cover is just a floating bullseye. The battleship hasn't ruled the waves since Pearl Harbor. Hell, arguably since before Pearl Harbor. Almost every famous battleship that was lost during WW2 was lost to aerial attack. Prince of Wales, the Arizona, Yamato, Bismarck, etc, etc, etc.
Battleships can take Exocet missiles into the hull all day long and not sink or even have any problems.
That's a bit of an oversimplification. The missile strikes probably wouldn't be able to sink a battleship but they would play havoc with a lot of her systems -- her sensors, rangefinders and modern weapons (the missiles installed on the Iowas) wouldn't stand up real well. Plus the Exocet isn't really that impressive of an anti-ship missile. It gets all the fame because of the Falklands but the Russians built anti-ship missiles with warheads four times as powerful as the Exocet. You can also put nuclear warheads on most anti-ship missiles, which makes all the armor in the world a big fat moot point.
You should also consider that the Yamato was sunk solely by air strikes, using aerial torpedoes and bombs with similiar sized warheads to modern weapons. I would think that you could make a case that it was stupid to retire the Iowas because of the fire support mission they provided but as far as dominating the waves that kind of ended at Pearl Harbor.....
The hard part is finding someone with their family jewels attached to their kneecaps.
You've obviously never been to New York City ;)
Play the game while it secretly crafts a worm to take the extra money when transactions are rounded (only a few hundredths of a cent) and deposits them in an offshore account.
Be careful. Such games have been known to take a few hundredths of a billion and upgrade the crime from white collar resort prison to pound-me-in-the-ass prison ;)
.... it was really protection to save you from trojans. Everybody knows that all trojans and exploits begin with the following code:
if (65535==65535) { install trojan; } else { don't install trojan; }
mod_Obama
Naw, a Democratic President would never condone internet censorship. Only a Republican President would ever sign something like that into law.
As much as I hate AT&T, this just isn't their fault this time.
Actually it is their fault. AT&T disables the ability of their phones to display a proper roaming banner. Regardless of which network you are on your phone will always say "AT&T". On the other hand, T-Mobile will show the name of the actual network you are connected to, i.e: "T-Mobile", "AT&T", "Cellular One", etc, etc. Given that AT&T removes your ability to know when your phone is roaming I would say that it's very much their fault when people rack up roaming charges by accident.
This is completely ridiculous. Customers should be able to set a bill cap to prevent this kind of thing. If you hit the cap, your access gets cut unless you explicitly give permission to charge more. That's why I use a prepaid phone (I live in Germany, so it's dirt cheap here).
Such a cap wouldn't really help you with situations like these. When you roam on another provider that provider doesn't send your call details back to your home provider in real time. They typically collect a few days worth of calls and then upload them to your home provider. There's no way for your home provider to have a real time accounting of the calls that you make while roaming.
I was wondering that myself. My girlfriend made me sit through part of the Oscars last night and at one point some clueless celebrity started gushing about how the Oscar is the "most prestigious award in the world". Really? More prestigious than the Nobel prize? More prestigious than the Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross?
Give me a fucking break. I'll never understand the fascination that a lot of my countrymen have with Hollywood and the culture surrounding movie stars/other celebrities.
And I don't block Google Analytics. I consider it rude. I use it on my sites to figure out the demographics of my sites' visitors so I can best provide content they'll want--blocking it on other people would be rude.
I don't have a site and don't really want to assist people in tracking my demographic information, hence the block.
I've never found it to be that hard. Most of the websites that I frequent are whitelisted. A handful of things (doubleclick, google-analytics, etc) are blacklisted. When I venture onto a new site if it doesn't render properly I just temporally allow it.
I've never bothered with adblock either -- noscript seems to do a good job of blocking 99% of them.
Does Flashblock offer any compelling advantage over NoScript to make me want to install it? I've found that NoScript does a decent job of blocking flash by default -- if I allow the scripts it also allows Flash but I don't allow scripts on untrusted websites so I've never bothered with Flashblock. Should I?
It seems like we live in a world now where media go ridiculously out of their way to soften the blow and protect the parties who screwed up and shipped software that had mistakes in it, by playing PR on their behalf and hiding their name.
Well that may be the case but in this case the criticism doesn't really seem deserved. For better or worse /. generally posts exactly what was written by the person who submitted the article. Blame that person for trying to "soften" the blow.
...so ISP's should filter AS paths!
I always thought they did. Back in my ISP days we had multihomed connections and all three of our uplink providers filtered what we sent to them. It just seems like common sense. What's the reason for not doing it? Laziness?
From long experience most people agree... if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Reminds me of an old "offensive" fortune quote: Working computer hardware is a lot like an erect penis. It stays up as long as you don't fuck with it.
If you have no clue what offensive fortunes are try 'fortune -o'. They are great when you are stoned, drunk or just bored at work. If you don't have fortune installed then you are clearly on the wrong website ;)
Do you honestly think they'd be economically viable if they had built their own supplier base up from the ground?
You still haven't answered the question of why my tax dollars should be rewarding failure.
But who's going to cover the excess demand? Honda's factories are flexible and have excess capacity now, but it's not as easy as flipping a switch and being ready to go.
It would seem to me that all that plant and equipment owned by GM isn't going to disappear if they fail. It could probably be had at firesale prices. Somebody is going to pick it up and do productive things with it.
Yes, there's a steak in some parts of the conservative world. But the GP claims that the Libertarians are marginalized because they are very socially conservative. That begs two questions:
1) When has being socially conservative marginalized you in this country? The Republicans have been riding it ever since the 60s.
2) What part of the Libertarian platform is socially conservative? I can only think of the pro-life stance of Paul and Barr but I'm a bit unclear as to whether or not the actual party takes that stance or just the candidates.
We're scrwed if GM goes out of business because they will take a HUGE chunk of the automotive supplier base with them. It would take 2-3 years to recover from something like that. It's bad enough as is right now with supplier closings due simply to reduced production.
So I should have to pony up my tax dollars because Honda didn't diversify it's supplier base and/or because those suppliers are running on such tight margins that the loss of one customer puts them out of business? Sounds like we are still rewarding failure.
I've never understood this argument anyway -- if GM goes down the demand for cars doesn't magically cease to exist. It would seem likely that the other outfits like Honda would pick up this demand and the suppliers would be just fine in the end.