So explain to me again why your specious "right" to turn the TV off supercedes my "right" to listen to it?
Oh wait, it doesn't. Therefor, by your rules, it's a zero sum result, and thus the Airport is the decided factor on whether it's on or off. In either case, it's not YOU who has the "right" to decide whether it's on or off.
Like it or not, the airport is private property, and thus you have NO rights to do what you please at the airport. Don't like it? Tough, you should have gotten out and voted against building the airport then.
You say you did? But others didn't? Looks like the majority rules, and their collective rights to have the airport supercede your increasingly vanishing "rights" to do what you please. Thus, again, your individual "right" to turn the TV off is superceded by the collective right of everyone else to have it on. You lose again.
Just give it up, there's no possible arguement you can bring forward that will making turning off a TV that doesn't belong to you morally and legally justifiable. You can spin it anyway you want, but you still look like an idiot for even trying to postulate such a ridiculous position.
But isn't that just what the guy is trying to avoid by turning off televisions? He wants to sit in a public place and not have the TV blairing at him the whole time.
Try as I might, I can't think of a single public place that has a TV blaring in it. So what public places have a TV that would be affected by this device? The only public places I can think of a TV being are places with HUGE TV's that are controlled from a control room.
Every other place I can think of that has a TV that would be affected by this is on private property. I believe you are confusing what constitutes a public place with being "out in public."
If you don't like the TV's, then DON'T patronize those private properties. Simple as that. Switching off TV's that don't belong to you would probabaly be a misdemeanor in most places, if someone were to really push the issue.
Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. Don't believe me? Come on over some day and I'll punch you in the nose. You and the airport do not have a right to bomb me with adverts from some crappy TV. I'm sick of it and I'll be getting one of these devices so that I can contemplate whatever I like while you go into some kind of broadcast stupidity withdrawal.
WTH? Are you that stupid, or are you trolling? The airport certainly DOES have the right to bombard you with ads, if they so choose. Don't like it? DON'T GO TO THE AIRPORT. You have NO right to turn off TV's that don't belong to you. Don't believe me? Come over to my house and try to turn off the TV and I'll beat your ass with a baseball bat, all the while laughing like a pirate at your incredible lack of hubris and blatant stupdity.
I'm sick of people like you, who think their way is the right way. I leave people like you alone to do whatever they wish to do, so long as it doesn't affect me. Why the hell can't you provide the same courtsey?
Why on earth would I say I could buy a 17" monitor for $250 - $300 if I was referring to a CRT? It's called context. Does it make ANY sense at all that I'd be talking about a CRT for that price? Any at all? No, it doesn't.
The whole article is about LCD TV's, I'm clearly talking about LCD TV's, and you feel the need for me to put LCD in front of every reference to "monitor" or "TV" in my reply when I haven't mentioned CRT's even once. Why would I be referring to CRTS when I didn't mention them at all? That just doesn't make sense.
It's like Chewbacca living on Endor... it just doesn't make sense.
We're talking about a commodity item that is intended for every household in the US. Not a server that's intended for a niche market.
I don't consider plugging 1 extra wire into an LCD monitor a "Do-it-yourself" project. Regardless, ALL of the parts in an LCD TV are in the monitor + viewsonic box combo... and it's almost HALF as cheap as an equivilent TV. Not $100 cheaper, not even $200 cheaper, but $450 cheaper.
THAT is corporate greed, my friend. They are marking up the TV by ridiculous numbers, and then wondering why no one is buying them. It's kind of like "Duh." You're selling a product for 2x what it's worth and you wonder why no one buys it?
Yeah... too bad Sony doesn't make a 21" flat panel in the Trinitron line. Nice link to a CRT to fix up your numbers.
Now, go back to the article and read where we are all talking about LCD's, not CRTs. Then re-read my reply where I'm talking about LCD's, not CRT's. THEN you show me a 21" LCD for $228 (with our without shipping), and I will buy your G3-450 for $1200 AND I will buy you brand new G5 to replace it.
Looks like the only sucker here would be you, for buying a 21" Sony Trinitron for $228 thinking you're getting a good deal on a flat panel:(
You should me where you can buy a 27" LCD monitor OR TV for $316, and I will buy you a brand new computer of your choice.
We're talking about LCD's here, not Flat screen TV's/CRTs. Re-read what this whole article is about. Then reread my reply to it. THEN come back and tell me I'm smoking weed for paying $250 - $300 for a 17" monitor.
What the heck are they expecting when they sell LCD TV's for two to three times the cost of the SAME SIZE LCD monitor?
I can walk into Best Buy, buy a cheap 17" monitor for $250 - $300 after rebate, and put a TV tuner box from Viewsonic on it for $150, that's $400 for a 17" TV. If I walk over to the TV sections, the CHEAPEST 15" TV is almost $500. The 17" LCD TV's are between $650 - $900... one is priced over $1000. So what's the deal? Why the hell would I EVER buy an LCD TV? There's absolutely no reason to pay as much as they want for an LCD TV. They are overcharging something fierce, when LCD monitors are cheaper, it's obviously not the LCD that's costing more for the TV... it's just plain corporate greed.
So no... I sure as hell won't be buying an LCD TV anytime soon.
I am a Sci-Fi / action adventure / bombs / boobs / guns / explosions fan. That's pretty much the only movies I watch.
This movie looks like the crappiest movie to come out in ages. While nothing can rival the craptacular nature of AI, this movie looks like it's going to take it's shot of dethroning AI in raw stupidity. However, whereas AI was and tried to be something intellectual, this movie doesn't even aspire to that. It appears to aspire to the campy, god awful dialog, visual effects and "science" present in the 1930's era comics and sci-fi rags.
All that stuff is great, and should be left to history. Not dredged up again, given a spit polish of SFX and called new. There's nothing nostalgic about a NEW movie done in the "old" style. It just looks like crap. Then we have the story... giant "evil" robots invade or something equally as vapid.
Yay... err *yawn*. Hi! I and my fellow white male American humans grew up several decades ago, and we no longer want to read/listen to/watch shallow, vapid, unrealisitic stories that require MASSIVE suspension of disbelief. We want something that's possible, if not plausible. We want Sci-Fi that we can potentially see happening in 10, 20, 50, 100 years. Not something that's just so ludicrous and unrealistic that it makes us gag.
In short, there's nothing about this movie that I find even remotely entertaining. The fact that they used the music from Stargate SG-1 for the first 4 months of the previews didn't help matters much, either. It was a blantant attention grab by the studio to try to garner interest by loosely associating it with a respected, well established bit of Sci-Fi... and that pisses me off. If the movie can't stand on it's own even in the previews, and needs to ride the coattails of real SF, why should I bother to go see it?
Bleh... is about all I can say. The story sounds stupid. The monsters/robots look stupid. Jude Law is weak. Angelina Jolee is hot, but not with an eyepatch for Christs sake. Basically, the actors suck.
So, in short, this movie has absolutely NOTHING going for it. Thanks, but no thanks. Please drive through.
Last time I checked, GPS doesn't transmit... much less to a satellite.
Neither do cellular phones. In fact, if this guy actually tracked his girlfriend with GPS - WHERE HELL DID HE PUT THE GPS ANTENNA?
You'd think the girlfriend would notice a black plastic pancake on her car... because this guy sure as hell didn't put the antenna under/in the car... even TREES block GPS data, much less metal cars.
So, I seriously doubt this guy used GPS at all. More likely he used the cellular locator service some companies offer. GPS is something totally different.
At 130 wpm you could write a short novel (40k words) in 5 or 6 hours... that's not how it works. I suppose it might be different if you were writing very systematic technical documentation, but generally the bottleneck is almost always thinking time. It doesn't make much difference if you're typing at 30 or 130 wpm.
Just because you think slowly doesn't mean that everyone does.
I think much faster than 30 wpm. I type about 120 wpm on average on a real keyboard (not a laptop keyboard!) - and I sometimes find my fingers falling behind my thoughts.
So don't try to tell people that there's no difference between 30 wpm and 130 wpm because of some "bottleneck" few people experience in their thought process. I'd wager that most people think much, much faster than 30 wpm.
Is this a real question from someone? I mean, seriously... what kind of idiot would think that typing is not an important skill in the workplace for the forseeable future?
Voice and handwriting recognition is nice and all, but lets face it, voice recognition is still many years off to where it will be to the point of normal interpersonal communication. In fact, AI will need to catch up to near-human level before voice regonition actually works, and can replace a keyboard.
Then we have handwriting regonition. I don't know about anyone else, but I sure as hell can type a lot faster than I can write, and typing doesn't give me hand cramps. So why would I use hand writing recognition over typing?
This can't really be a serious question, anyone with even half a brain can see that typing is one of the most important skills you can know, not only now, but in the foreseeable future.
I've been contemplating which thread to post this to, so I'll post it here.
Why does everyone thing we're "winning" against Microsoft/IE with Mozilla Firefox? It's not that we are winning, it's that Microsoft isn't playing anymore.
There's no reason for them to have the dominant browser on the market anymore, and one HUGE reason for them to explicitly NOT have the dominant browser. Their DOJ investigations focused, in part, on the fact that IE was bundled with Windows and thus constituted a monopoly. However, if Microsoft now lets IE flounder and lets Mozilla (or another browser) become dominant, they have a huge lever to use against any future DOJ or legal inqueries. They can then say they aren't a monopoly, as another browser is dominant.
And why not? There's no money to be made on IE - it's strictly a resource drain. They don't make a single dime from it... why pay someone to keep IE up to standards, when they can get the whole Open Source community to do it for free - in the form of Mozilla.
Stop and think about it for a moment, there's absolutely NO reason for MS to have the dominant browser any longer... there's no financial or legal advantage to it. A browser is effectively a commodity, and anyone developing one is going to have to expend resources to do so - with no return on that investment. Thus, Microsoft's only real logical conclusion would be to let IE slowly fade away, it solves not only the money/resource drain, but also protects them from further DOJ inquiries.
So Firefox isn't winning, exactly... Microsoft just took their ball and went home, because the game had no point for them anymore.
Valve CEO Gabe Newell credited gamers with providing the information that led to the arrests. "It was extraordinary to watch how quickly and how cleverly gamers were able to unravel what are traditionally unsolvable problems for law enforcement related to this kind of cyber-crime," he said in a statement. "Everyone here at Valve is once again reminded of how much we owe to the gaming community."
Thanks Gabe, glad to be of service! How about a free copy of HL2 to make up for the debt you "owe" me. No? WTF?
Ok... lets say we "go after the advertisers and throw them in jail or fine them millions of dollars" for sending spam.
Great, and lets say that stops spam 100%.
Now... I'm pissed off at you. I forge a fake advertisement for a product, or better yet, I know you sell a certain product, so I craft a legitimate advertisement for that product without your knowledge.
Now I spam it out to billions of addresses and wait for the feds to come in and ruin your life. Oh sure, you'll claim that you didn't send the spam, but we're already on the warpath, and you're about to be steamrolled. Who's going to believe you didn't send that spam? Who's going to believe someone illegitimately created an advertisement and sent it out for free! Yeah right... off to jail for you!
That's why the government doesn't go after the advertisers... because it can be forged and used as a weapon against your competition or against people you aren't happy with. How do you prevent this?
Currently, you don't... the only solution in the long term is going to be to revamp email to make the senders accountable. Period. End of story. No other solution is going to work.
Thank you for the link about the extensions. I still had to reinstall the extensions, but at least I can see them.
However, I can't seem to find the Qute theme anywhere. Is Arvid going to make the theme available so I can go back to it? All the icons and art were nice, simple and functional, without looking like something hastily put together.
Bad Karma for Ben Goodger for getting rid of such a nice theme and replacing it with something his kid drew in Kindergarten.
I'm trying really hard not to complain about this new update to FireFox, but seriously... WTF.
Not only does the new default theme look like total ass (Gee, lets take a few steps back and make the default theme look like a Fisher-Price toy. Hello? Does anyone consider, I don't know... maybe a professional look a requirement if we want FireFox to be a browser that's taken seriously. This default theme looks like a child put it together.), but the "upgrade" also trashed all my extensions. What was the point of that? If it had to be done for the new extension manager, fine... but at least inform the user what's going on.
Oh, and make sure to update, I dunno... like version numbers or something. Everything still says.8.
Does anyone else feel this entire release was just pushed out the door without any consideration at all just so people could see the new theme, which totally blows?
Already covered, basically a dupe. I believe this story has risen from the grave.
This leads to the conclusion that eventually, all your data will be reborn in another life and continue on. There's no need to worry what will happen to it.
Why, back in my day, I remember a time (Hmm... was it mid-80's or perhaps very early 90's?) when diesel was more expensive than gasoline.
Just prior to that time, diesel was indeed less expensive, and there was a big push for diesel cars from consumers... then suddenly it was more expensive and all the people who bought diesel cars were griping about it.
The library searches don't include travel time. They also appear to only count the time it takes you to read the text in the book... not to:
a) Find WHAT book you want (Card catalog?) b) Locate the book on the shelf c) Find the correct page
All those things take the MOST amount of time, not reading the actual text. This is assuming that you KNOW what book you're looking for to begin with. I had no idea Who's Who would be a good place to look for the answer to the author's books. Google would have given me the answer pretty quickly without the need to know that information. How much more time would it have taken to find out Who's Who is the book you wanted?
Add on top of the fact that I'd have had to drive ot the library, and the time increases dramatically.
Calling a friend? Maybe faster, but I don't have many friends that would know answers like that... nor do I have the number to railway stations on speed dial... especially those in other countries.
Google is simply the fastest AND most convenient method to find the information. Or at least, if not Google, SOME search engine. If you're already at the library and KNOW what book you want, it might be a better choice, but seriously, how often does that happen? How often do you sit at the library and think of things you want to know?
I don't... I'm usually sitting at home reading, or surfing the web and come across something I want to know more about. Driving to the library to find that information would be ludicrous... and calling my friends regularly with mundane questions would cause me to lose what little outside life I already have.
Bleh... this isn't even an aritcle worth reading... jeez.
I don't see anything wrong with this at all... if there's a free hotspot somewhere, and the owner puts ads on it, it's not like you're forced to use it.
It's *FREE*...
If you don't like it, PAY for a hotspot that doesn't have ads. What's wrong with that?
Slashdot Mirror
So explain to me again why your specious "right" to turn the TV off supercedes my "right" to listen to it?
Oh wait, it doesn't. Therefor, by your rules, it's a zero sum result, and thus the Airport is the decided factor on whether it's on or off. In either case, it's not YOU who has the "right" to decide whether it's on or off.
Like it or not, the airport is private property, and thus you have NO rights to do what you please at the airport. Don't like it? Tough, you should have gotten out and voted against building the airport then.
You say you did? But others didn't? Looks like the majority rules, and their collective rights to have the airport supercede your increasingly vanishing "rights" to do what you please. Thus, again, your individual "right" to turn the TV off is superceded by the collective right of everyone else to have it on. You lose again.
Just give it up, there's no possible arguement you can bring forward that will making turning off a TV that doesn't belong to you morally and legally justifiable. You can spin it anyway you want, but you still look like an idiot for even trying to postulate such a ridiculous position.
But isn't that just what the guy is trying to avoid by turning off televisions? He wants to sit in a public place and not have the TV blairing at him the whole time.
Try as I might, I can't think of a single public place that has a TV blaring in it. So what public places have a TV that would be affected by this device? The only public places I can think of a TV being are places with HUGE TV's that are controlled from a control room.
Every other place I can think of that has a TV that would be affected by this is on private property. I believe you are confusing what constitutes a public place with being "out in public."
If you don't like the TV's, then DON'T patronize those private properties. Simple as that. Switching off TV's that don't belong to you would probabaly be a misdemeanor in most places, if someone were to really push the issue.
Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. Don't believe me? Come on over some day and I'll punch you in the nose. You and the airport do not have a right to bomb me with adverts from some crappy TV. I'm sick of it and I'll be getting one of these devices so that I can contemplate whatever I like while you go into some kind of broadcast stupidity withdrawal.
WTH? Are you that stupid, or are you trolling? The airport certainly DOES have the right to bombard you with ads, if they so choose. Don't like it? DON'T GO TO THE AIRPORT. You have NO right to turn off TV's that don't belong to you. Don't believe me? Come over to my house and try to turn off the TV and I'll beat your ass with a baseball bat, all the while laughing like a pirate at your incredible lack of hubris and blatant stupdity.
I'm sick of people like you, who think their way is the right way. I leave people like you alone to do whatever they wish to do, so long as it doesn't affect me. Why the hell can't you provide the same courtsey?
Damn...
I hate when they sanitize movies just to get the PG rating. I want to see the R-Rated version of Wizard of Oz.
Although, I admit, my mind boggles as to how the Tit man would integrate into the story. Judy was pretty sexy in her day though...
Why on earth would I say I could buy a 17" monitor for $250 - $300 if I was referring to a CRT? It's called context. Does it make ANY sense at all that I'd be talking about a CRT for that price? Any at all? No, it doesn't.
The whole article is about LCD TV's, I'm clearly talking about LCD TV's, and you feel the need for me to put LCD in front of every reference to "monitor" or "TV" in my reply when I haven't mentioned CRT's even once. Why would I be referring to CRTS when I didn't mention them at all? That just doesn't make sense.
It's like Chewbacca living on Endor... it just doesn't make sense.
We're talking about a commodity item that is intended for every household in the US. Not a server that's intended for a niche market.
I don't consider plugging 1 extra wire into an LCD monitor a "Do-it-yourself" project. Regardless, ALL of the parts in an LCD TV are in the monitor + viewsonic box combo... and it's almost HALF as cheap as an equivilent TV. Not $100 cheaper, not even $200 cheaper, but $450 cheaper.
THAT is corporate greed, my friend. They are marking up the TV by ridiculous numbers, and then wondering why no one is buying them. It's kind of like "Duh." You're selling a product for 2x what it's worth and you wonder why no one buys it?
Yeah... too bad Sony doesn't make a 21" flat panel in the Trinitron line. Nice link to a CRT to fix up your numbers.
:(
Now, go back to the article and read where we are all talking about LCD's, not CRTs. Then re-read my reply where I'm talking about LCD's, not CRT's. THEN you show me a 21" LCD for $228 (with our without shipping), and I will buy your G3-450 for $1200 AND I will buy you brand new G5 to replace it.
Looks like the only sucker here would be you, for buying a 21" Sony Trinitron for $228 thinking you're getting a good deal on a flat panel
You should me where you can buy a 27" LCD monitor OR TV for $316, and I will buy you a brand new computer of your choice.
We're talking about LCD's here, not Flat screen TV's/CRTs. Re-read what this whole article is about. Then reread my reply to it. THEN come back and tell me I'm smoking weed for paying $250 - $300 for a 17" monitor.
What the heck are they expecting when they sell LCD TV's for two to three times the cost of the SAME SIZE LCD monitor?
I can walk into Best Buy, buy a cheap 17" monitor for $250 - $300 after rebate, and put a TV tuner box from Viewsonic on it for $150, that's $400 for a 17" TV. If I walk over to the TV sections, the CHEAPEST 15" TV is almost $500. The 17" LCD TV's are between $650 - $900... one is priced over $1000. So what's the deal? Why the hell would I EVER buy an LCD TV? There's absolutely no reason to pay as much as they want for an LCD TV. They are overcharging something fierce, when LCD monitors are cheaper, it's obviously not the LCD that's costing more for the TV... it's just plain corporate greed.
So no... I sure as hell won't be buying an LCD TV anytime soon.
No, I haven't seen this movie.
I am a Sci-Fi / action adventure / bombs / boobs / guns / explosions fan. That's pretty much the only movies I watch.
This movie looks like the crappiest movie to come out in ages. While nothing can rival the craptacular nature of AI, this movie looks like it's going to take it's shot of dethroning AI in raw stupidity. However, whereas AI was and tried to be something intellectual, this movie doesn't even aspire to that. It appears to aspire to the campy, god awful dialog, visual effects and "science" present in the 1930's era comics and sci-fi rags.
All that stuff is great, and should be left to history. Not dredged up again, given a spit polish of SFX and called new. There's nothing nostalgic about a NEW movie done in the "old" style. It just looks like crap. Then we have the story... giant "evil" robots invade or something equally as vapid.
Yay... err *yawn*. Hi! I and my fellow white male American humans grew up several decades ago, and we no longer want to read/listen to/watch shallow, vapid, unrealisitic stories that require MASSIVE suspension of disbelief. We want something that's possible, if not plausible. We want Sci-Fi that we can potentially see happening in 10, 20, 50, 100 years. Not something that's just so ludicrous and unrealistic that it makes us gag.
In short, there's nothing about this movie that I find even remotely entertaining. The fact that they used the music from Stargate SG-1 for the first 4 months of the previews didn't help matters much, either. It was a blantant attention grab by the studio to try to garner interest by loosely associating it with a respected, well established bit of Sci-Fi... and that pisses me off. If the movie can't stand on it's own even in the previews, and needs to ride the coattails of real SF, why should I bother to go see it?
Bleh... is about all I can say. The story sounds stupid. The monsters/robots look stupid. Jude Law is weak. Angelina Jolee is hot, but not with an eyepatch for Christs sake. Basically, the actors suck.
So, in short, this movie has absolutely NOTHING going for it. Thanks, but no thanks. Please drive through.
'The first cut of Star Wars,' Burns' narrator says, 'was an unmitigated disaster.'
:(
When I first read that, I thought he was talking about TPM... sadly, we get no admission that TPM was dreck
Last time I checked, GPS doesn't transmit... much less to a satellite.
Neither do cellular phones. In fact, if this guy actually tracked his girlfriend with GPS - WHERE HELL DID HE PUT THE GPS ANTENNA?
You'd think the girlfriend would notice a black plastic pancake on her car... because this guy sure as hell didn't put the antenna under/in the car... even TREES block GPS data, much less metal cars.
So, I seriously doubt this guy used GPS at all. More likely he used the cellular locator service some companies offer. GPS is something totally different.
A.I. is the worst movie of all time, hands down.
It's like a mental kick in the nuts. Not only did I leave the movie disappointed, but I wanted the two hours of my life back... with interest.
There is no movie worse than AI.
At 130 wpm you could write a short novel (40k words) in 5 or 6 hours... that's not how it works. I suppose it might be different if you were writing very systematic technical documentation, but generally the bottleneck is almost always thinking time. It doesn't make much difference if you're typing at 30 or 130 wpm.
Just because you think slowly doesn't mean that everyone does.
I think much faster than 30 wpm. I type about 120 wpm on average on a real keyboard (not a laptop keyboard!) - and I sometimes find my fingers falling behind my thoughts.
So don't try to tell people that there's no difference between 30 wpm and 130 wpm because of some "bottleneck" few people experience in their thought process. I'd wager that most people think much, much faster than 30 wpm.
Is this a real question from someone? I mean, seriously... what kind of idiot would think that typing is not an important skill in the workplace for the forseeable future?
Voice and handwriting recognition is nice and all, but lets face it, voice recognition is still many years off to where it will be to the point of normal interpersonal communication. In fact, AI will need to catch up to near-human level before voice regonition actually works, and can replace a keyboard.
Then we have handwriting regonition. I don't know about anyone else, but I sure as hell can type a lot faster than I can write, and typing doesn't give me hand cramps. So why would I use hand writing recognition over typing?
This can't really be a serious question, anyone with even half a brain can see that typing is one of the most important skills you can know, not only now, but in the foreseeable future.
I've been contemplating which thread to post this to, so I'll post it here.
Why does everyone thing we're "winning" against Microsoft/IE with Mozilla Firefox? It's not that we are winning, it's that Microsoft isn't playing anymore.
There's no reason for them to have the dominant browser on the market anymore, and one HUGE reason for them to explicitly NOT have the dominant browser. Their DOJ investigations focused, in part, on the fact that IE was bundled with Windows and thus constituted a monopoly. However, if Microsoft now lets IE flounder and lets Mozilla (or another browser) become dominant, they have a huge lever to use against any future DOJ or legal inqueries. They can then say they aren't a monopoly, as another browser is dominant.
And why not? There's no money to be made on IE - it's strictly a resource drain. They don't make a single dime from it... why pay someone to keep IE up to standards, when they can get the whole Open Source community to do it for free - in the form of Mozilla.
Stop and think about it for a moment, there's absolutely NO reason for MS to have the dominant browser any longer... there's no financial or legal advantage to it. A browser is effectively a commodity, and anyone developing one is going to have to expend resources to do so - with no return on that investment. Thus, Microsoft's only real logical conclusion would be to let IE slowly fade away, it solves not only the money/resource drain, but also protects them from further DOJ inquiries.
So Firefox isn't winning, exactly... Microsoft just took their ball and went home, because the game had no point for them anymore.
Valve CEO Gabe Newell credited gamers with providing the information that led to the arrests. "It was extraordinary to watch how quickly and how cleverly gamers were able to unravel what are traditionally unsolvable problems for law enforcement related to this kind of cyber-crime," he said in a statement. "Everyone here at Valve is once again reminded of how much we owe to the gaming community."
Thanks Gabe, glad to be of service! How about a free copy of HL2 to make up for the debt you "owe" me. No? WTF?
Ok... lets say we "go after the advertisers and throw them in jail or fine them millions of dollars" for sending spam.
Great, and lets say that stops spam 100%.
Now... I'm pissed off at you. I forge a fake advertisement for a product, or better yet, I know you sell a certain product, so I craft a legitimate advertisement for that product without your knowledge.
Now I spam it out to billions of addresses and wait for the feds to come in and ruin your life. Oh sure, you'll claim that you didn't send the spam, but we're already on the warpath, and you're about to be steamrolled. Who's going to believe you didn't send that spam? Who's going to believe someone illegitimately created an advertisement and sent it out for free! Yeah right... off to jail for you!
That's why the government doesn't go after the advertisers... because it can be forged and used as a weapon against your competition or against people you aren't happy with. How do you prevent this?
Currently, you don't... the only solution in the long term is going to be to revamp email to make the senders accountable. Period. End of story. No other solution is going to work.
Certainly not more laws.
Thank you for the link about the extensions. I still had to reinstall the extensions, but at least I can see them.
However, I can't seem to find the Qute theme anywhere. Is Arvid going to make the theme available so I can go back to it? All the icons and art were nice, simple and functional, without looking like something hastily put together.
Bad Karma for Ben Goodger for getting rid of such a nice theme and replacing it with something his kid drew in Kindergarten.
I'm trying really hard not to complain about this new update to FireFox, but seriously... WTF.
.8.
Not only does the new default theme look like total ass (Gee, lets take a few steps back and make the default theme look like a Fisher-Price toy. Hello? Does anyone consider, I don't know... maybe a professional look a requirement if we want FireFox to be a browser that's taken seriously. This default theme looks like a child put it together.), but the "upgrade" also trashed all my extensions. What was the point of that? If it had to be done for the new extension manager, fine... but at least inform the user what's going on.
Oh, and make sure to update, I dunno... like version numbers or something. Everything still says
Does anyone else feel this entire release was just pushed out the door without any consideration at all just so people could see the new theme, which totally blows?
I clicked on the link, what's the big deal? It didn't do anything but pop up a hollow box in the window.
Nothing installed, my system didn't crash. There were no apparent ill effects to clicking on that.
So why is everyone so worked up? I use Windows XP every day for some of my work, and haven't had a problem with malicious web pages in over a year.
I've been using FireFox for over a year, but that's probably just a cooincidence.
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/03/20 37245&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=95
Already covered, basically a dupe. I believe this story has risen from the grave.
This leads to the conclusion that eventually, all your data will be reborn in another life and continue on. There's no need to worry what will happen to it.
You must not be very old...
Why, back in my day, I remember a time (Hmm... was it mid-80's or perhaps very early 90's?) when diesel was more expensive than gasoline.
Just prior to that time, diesel was indeed less expensive, and there was a big push for diesel cars from consumers... then suddenly it was more expensive and all the people who bought diesel cars were griping about it.
It was kind of a kick in the teeth.
This isn't a comparison of anything...
The library searches don't include travel time. They also appear to only count the time it takes you to read the text in the book... not to:
a) Find WHAT book you want (Card catalog?)
b) Locate the book on the shelf
c) Find the correct page
All those things take the MOST amount of time, not reading the actual text. This is assuming that you KNOW what book you're looking for to begin with. I had no idea Who's Who would be a good place to look for the answer to the author's books. Google would have given me the answer pretty quickly without the need to know that information. How much more time would it have taken to find out Who's Who is the book you wanted?
Add on top of the fact that I'd have had to drive ot the library, and the time increases dramatically.
Calling a friend? Maybe faster, but I don't have many friends that would know answers like that... nor do I have the number to railway stations on speed dial... especially those in other countries.
Google is simply the fastest AND most convenient method to find the information. Or at least, if not Google, SOME search engine. If you're already at the library and KNOW what book you want, it might be a better choice, but seriously, how often does that happen? How often do you sit at the library and think of things you want to know?
I don't... I'm usually sitting at home reading, or surfing the web and come across something I want to know more about. Driving to the library to find that information would be ludicrous... and calling my friends regularly with mundane questions would cause me to lose what little outside life I already have.
Bleh... this isn't even an aritcle worth reading... jeez.
I don't see anything wrong with this at all... if there's a free hotspot somewhere, and the owner puts ads on it, it's not like you're forced to use it.
It's *FREE*...
If you don't like it, PAY for a hotspot that doesn't have ads. What's wrong with that?