Hmmm, I'm sure it's possible that you could get that much spam it seems a little unbelievable to me that you've 906 MB worth of spam for 2 reasons:
1) Most people already have an existing e-mail account and most of their spam is already in those accounts, leaving them to selectively give their gmail account out to only those people they trust.
2) 906 MB worth of spam? DUDE WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING? I don't know what you do with your e-mail account, but I've been averaging about 1 spam mail every 3/4 days, if that.
That being said, you're right, the 'select all' feature ain't implemented very correctly yet, thus as so many people before me have said the operative word is 'BETA'. All you have to do, is ask for that. Finally, gmail is also being opened selective for pop mail access. So quit your whining and use a regular mail client. Now even after all of this, I still don't see how anybody can objectively say that gmail sucks, considering what the competitiors offer. At worst, gmail is probably as good as the rest. Now I just have to figure out how I turned into a gmail fanboy, and we're done...
Re:Somone get these ppl some free software!
on
Given Up to Spyware?
·
· Score: 1
Gosh a 100% insightful comment. Microsoft figured this out about 20 years ago. It's shame the OSS community is still averse to it. I say use this to your advantage. If this survey says that users put up with spyware, then, why not make a nice little harmless app that displays a message box saying: "USE FIREFOX and this popup will disappear". Make it download with some other free app, and see what the results are. (Of course, then OSS people will be accused of 'hacking' Windows and the like).. anyway, there are loads of guerrilla maerketing techniques out there which can be used to sell your product. Word-of-mouth just ain't gonna cut it!
Why does gmail suck, IYO? It beats the crap out of MS (which you probably take as given), but it beats out Yahoo as well. How does one offer 500 times more space than their closest competitor, and still manage to suck? Just curious, I guess I've fed the troll...
Ahh Congress-Shmongress. All they gotta do is order a toilet for $50 and then start claiming a few cost overruns here and there. That should do the trick!
Dude you are just such a fucking typical ABCD, get the fuck over it. Just because Indian women don't want to sleep with you, doesn't mean they don't put out. I mean it's difficult to rape 500 Million women, dumb fuck. Further you got diarrhea because you are total fucking moron. Next time, try drinking a little bottled water. I lived in America, and am very to be back in India, thanks. And shit bags like you can stay exactly where you are, inventing a new flavour of toothpaste while the rest of us can go on living happy, productive lives. Just because your family happens to be a bunch of village idiots isn't my problem. If somebody took me to Rectumsville, Idaho for my US Vacation insetad of New York City, I think I'd have a pretty interesting picture of America. So, do yourself a favour, and go fuck yourself.
Yea, but I'd rather believe anything the Economist says, than anything you say. Marx was a load of shit. Capitalism is the Natural Order of Things translated into Economics, unless of course you belive in Creationism (the kind that disputes evolution, not the kind that says God is in the details somewhere.._, in which case there's absolutely no point arguing with you at all. Further, the WHOLE reason The Economist was started by Walter Bagehot, and a load of other, was "To Promote the values of Liberty and Freedom, in Economics and Politics" - so naturally it is displaying a "bias". LinkyBut it's ok, we still need a few marxists around to remind us of what not to do, and to be able to form arguments for capitalism in a well reasoned manner to dispute everything you throw at them. But I, on the other hand am too lazy. So I'm just going to ask you to name the most successful Marxist/Communist/Socialist countries in existence today, the sizes of their population, and the mark they've left on the world, compared to the the champions of Capitalism (i.e. Hong Kong, Singapore, USA, UK, China in that order).
Of course, I'm feeding a troll here, but India has been on a path to "westernization" for about 200 years now, ever since the British East India Company first set foot on the shores of Calcutta. India alreasy has a "western-style" political and economic system, so STFU. Our laws are based on British Common Law - newsflash - so are American laws. We VOTE our leaders in to power. When two companies have a dispute ove a contract they go to court. When we want to make laws, they have to passed by two houses of parliament. Parliament happens to be this big place where elected representatives gather - to pass laws. Oh, and the unofficial offical language of India is ENGLISH. Imposing this system on a culture which has been transforming and transitioning for the past 1900 years going from Hindu - to Buddhist- To Muslim - to British is going to produce results which will be very different from what a pitifully young country like America isn't used to seeing. So just get the fuck over it. Finally this commitment to free trade that you talk about - The developing countries are ready & waiting for it. It is America that can't handle freeing trade in agriculture and industries like steel. It is USA which puts quotas on garments. Look up any textbook: quota != Free Trade. If you think an Indian software engineer is cheap, wait'll you discover the price of an Indian orange, or an Indian T-shirt. But you won't know about those because trade in those items is not "FREE". And it's not free because the EU and America want it that way. Because Billy Bob with-mouth-in-straw living in a redneck county of a red state just voted the current monkey into the white house. Now go back guarding the bridge, trolly-wolly.
Close, but not quite - tis the Nokia 6600 they're advertising with this feature(though maybe it works with the 3220 as well, dunno). And the sad part about this whole thing is that I envisioned beign able to use your mobile as a remote a whole year before. Ah how I wish I had access to a Patent lawyer:-( As another idea which nobody has stolen yet but may feel like (please give credit where it is due)..how about adding an attachment to your mobile which allows you to plug it into a normal phone line, so you can double it up as your landline instrument?
IMO, the real issue is that we're applying Open-Source principles to something where they won't really work. In his point 3, he mentions the unspecified quasi-darwinnian process that will eventually even out the kinks, and give you a decent article. Now the thing is, in software you have a goal to work towards. Person A writes the code, and forgets to plug a security hole. Persons B-E discover it, and then everybody revises it, but you have a TANGIBLE goal to work towards. When do you feel that a wikipedia article has accurately covered the facts? When it's acceptable "to most people with loud voices and active wikipedia accounts" would be my guess. Yes you get this same problem with regular encyclopedias, but then that's my point. Wikipedia is no better than them, and as has been stated, could possibly be worse. At least with the regular bunch of encyclopedias you have one authority to go to with all your gripes - you don't just scribble on the page, and let another bunch of eyeballs re-write it. I like wikipedia, but is it ever going to be a good reference source? Doubtful. Even 200 years from now. Not all arguements have resolutions. Human beings don't always reach a compromise (except in Star Trek, and Soviet Russia, I suppose). A parent poster said that eventually, the kinks will be ironed out. But I doubt it. I foresee a lot MORE protected pages, as more and more people get net access and feel that a wikipedia article does not coincide with their point of view....Even in a democracy, we elect leaders to represent us. But if every fool had a say in legislation, it'd be a wonder if ANY law was ever passed.
Although a lot of your thoughts seem like complete flamebait, you kept it dignified, so I will too.
But why is the rest of the world against it? Saddam really wasn't that nice of a guy.
There are lots and lots of reasons why, but I'll try and document as many of them as I can. The primary reason the world was against going after Saddam is because of the REASONS given. When America and beat the shit out of the Taliban barbarians, 99% of the world, including the Arab world was on your side. I'm still willing to lick your boots for what you did there because afghanistan was a world-wide problem. The suicide bombers that kill Indians in India come from the same place and training camps that were used for 9/11. That's India. These same bastards train insurgents to fight China and Russia too. On top of that, Afghanistan was a true barbarian state. Where they destroyed women, banned music, and blew 2000-year old tributes to World History and human achievement. Trying to Democratise Afghanistan is truly a brilliant achievement. And I know for a fact that India and the rest of the world is safer because of it. Thank You America for that!
HOWEVER, the numerous justifications used to go after iraq just don't cut any ice with anybody, except for the kept-in-the-dark-and-fed-shit-by-CBS-and-fox-news American public. It was clear that Iraq was a small-time no good piece of shit, which didn't matter to ANYBODY. They didn't threaten Indians, Europeans, Chinese, Australians. And I think everybody new that after 1991, if USA wanted to kick Iraq's butt it could do it 10 days. So since everybody already KNEW this, what was the need to go after Iraq? Of course the American public is made to believe that Saddam could have been a genuine threat. That he had been defying UN resolutions, and thus must be cooking something up. Of course you will accuse me of Hindsight now, but the fact is, this just shows how stupid Bush is. If I were a clingy little despot, I would ALWAYS try and pretend like I'm sitting on a bomb. The moment I come clean and tell everyone I have nothing, I LOSE POWER IN MY OWN COUNTRY. Everybody's mother and his goat will try and launch a coup to unseat me. So naturally, I'm not gonna let you look up my skirt! DUH! When I say I have nukes, even America thinks twice about going and attacking me. But nobody except for Americans believed that shit. I'm not trying to claim that makes me smarter than an American, but maybe I have a slightly better understanding as to how a non-westerner would think. And it surprised me that the all-Knowing President of the United States would not have figured that out! Another reason given for fighting Iraq was that it was a threat to the world and part of the GLOBAL War on Terror. Now the rest of the world took the word GLOBAL to mean the threats to the 100-something countries that exist in the world. But for America, Global = from San Francisco to Martha's Vineyard (with Hawaii and Alaska thrown in). This started out as a global war on terror but ended up being a Lets-waggle-our-big-dick. Iraq had NOTHING to do with Terrorism. Had America said "We perceive Iraq as threat to AMERICA, and thus will attack it" then maybe 20% of the world would have let it go, but 80% would still have objected on the simple grounds that who the fuck does America think it is decide who's a threat and who's not. And if America can decide who's a threat, then so can we. I perceive Pakistan a threat, so LET'S FUCKING GO TO WAR.
All of the justifications given to beat up Iraq equally apply to Pakistan and Saudi Arabi and China. But America spends too much time sucking their cocks. There are very little human rights in these countries, NO DEMOCRACY and two of them HAVE WMDs, for fuck's sake. That is why the world hates Bush. Because he doesn't have a fucking clue, and lies through his teeth. If all of this shit really was about Democracy and freedom and making the "World" a safer place these are the countries you would target. But it isn't. It's about making the W
Slashdot Mirror
Ah Yes, but in Soviet Russia, the point gets YOU! And in Soviet Russia, Using Linux allows Money to save YOU!
Hmmm sounds like the same way I feel about the Nazis and the Nigerians.
er.... In Japan...or Korea the flavour of the day? Actually, I thought India was the flavour of the day...
I, for one, welcome our legislation-passing White House overlords...oh...wait.
In Soviet Russia, the Dictionary looks up YOU!
OUCH! Oy! You have no honour. You could have at least called me out like a true man (*clutches shoulder socket in pain*)...
In Soviet Russia, Luke's Father is YOU!
Darth Vader: All your planets are belong us!
Yoda: What you say?
Jabba: HO HO HO!
Hmmm, I'm sure it's possible that you could get that much spam it seems a little unbelievable to me that you've 906 MB worth of spam for 2 reasons:
1) Most people already have an existing e-mail account and most of their spam is already in those accounts, leaving them to selectively give their gmail account out to only those people they trust.
2) 906 MB worth of spam? DUDE WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING? I don't know what you do with your e-mail account, but I've been averaging about 1 spam mail every 3/4 days, if that.
That being said, you're right, the 'select all' feature ain't implemented very correctly yet, thus as so many people before me have said the operative word is 'BETA'. All you have to do, is ask for that. Finally, gmail is also being opened selective for pop mail access. So quit your whining and use a regular mail client. Now even after all of this, I still don't see how anybody can objectively say that gmail sucks, considering what the competitiors offer. At worst, gmail is probably as good as the rest. Now I just have to figure out how I turned into a gmail fanboy, and we're done...
Did you find out about that on them dang internets, billy ray?
In Soviet Russia, the Left (hand) welcomes YOU!
Gosh a 100% insightful comment. Microsoft figured this out about 20 years ago. It's shame the OSS community is still averse to it. I say use this to your advantage. If this survey says that users put up with spyware, then, why not make a nice little harmless app that displays a message box saying: "USE FIREFOX and this popup will disappear". Make it download with some other free app, and see what the results are. (Of course, then OSS people will be accused of 'hacking' Windows and the like).. anyway, there are loads of guerrilla maerketing techniques out there which can be used to sell your product. Word-of-mouth just ain't gonna cut it!
You forgot ability to search, which is required with 1 GB, IMO. But that dude still didn't answer. MOD Great-Grandparent -1 flamebait.
Why does gmail suck, IYO? It beats the crap out of MS (which you probably take as given), but it beats out Yahoo as well. How does one offer 500 times more space than their closest competitor, and still manage to suck? Just curious, I guess I've fed the troll...
Ahh Congress-Shmongress. All they gotta do is order a toilet for $50 and then start claiming a few cost overruns here and there. That should do the trick!
SHYTE! Missed it by one! If I were in Soviet Russia, I wouldn't have failed it - we'd all have an equal share of first post.
Yea, Sony is a little mysterious that way! One would think it could recoup some music losses thru its hardware sales. W00T!
Dude you are just such a fucking typical ABCD, get the fuck over it. Just because Indian women don't want to sleep with you, doesn't mean they don't put out. I mean it's difficult to rape 500 Million women, dumb fuck. Further you got diarrhea because you are total fucking moron. Next time, try drinking a little bottled water. I lived in America, and am very to be back in India, thanks. And shit bags like you can stay exactly where you are, inventing a new flavour of toothpaste while the rest of us can go on living happy, productive lives. Just because your family happens to be a bunch of village idiots isn't my problem. If somebody took me to Rectumsville, Idaho for my US Vacation insetad of New York City, I think I'd have a pretty interesting picture of America. So, do yourself a favour, and go fuck yourself.
Here's the Economist's definition of Liberal
Yea, but I'd rather believe anything the Economist says, than anything you say. Marx was a load of shit. Capitalism is the Natural Order of Things translated into Economics, unless of course you belive in Creationism (the kind that disputes evolution, not the kind that says God is in the details somewhere.._, in which case there's absolutely no point arguing with you at all. Further, the WHOLE reason The Economist was started by Walter Bagehot, and a load of other, was "To Promote the values of Liberty and Freedom, in Economics and Politics" - so naturally it is displaying a "bias". LinkyBut it's ok, we still need a few marxists around to remind us of what not to do, and to be able to form arguments for capitalism in a well reasoned manner to dispute everything you throw at them. But I, on the other hand am too lazy. So I'm just going to ask you to name the most successful Marxist/Communist/Socialist countries in existence today, the sizes of their population, and the mark they've left on the world, compared to the the champions of Capitalism (i.e. Hong Kong, Singapore, USA, UK, China in that order).
Of course, I'm feeding a troll here, but India has been on a path to "westernization" for about 200 years now, ever since the British East India Company first set foot on the shores of Calcutta. India alreasy has a "western-style" political and economic system, so STFU. Our laws are based on British Common Law - newsflash - so are American laws. We VOTE our leaders in to power. When two companies have a dispute ove a contract they go to court. When we want to make laws, they have to passed by two houses of parliament. Parliament happens to be this big place where elected representatives gather - to pass laws. Oh, and the unofficial offical language of India is ENGLISH. Imposing this system on a culture which has been transforming and transitioning for the past 1900 years going from Hindu - to Buddhist- To Muslim - to British is going to produce results which will be very different from what a pitifully young country like America isn't used to seeing. So just get the fuck over it. Finally this commitment to free trade that you talk about - The developing countries are ready & waiting for it. It is America that can't handle freeing trade in agriculture and industries like steel. It is USA which puts quotas on garments. Look up any textbook: quota != Free Trade. If you think an Indian software engineer is cheap, wait'll you discover the price of an Indian orange, or an Indian T-shirt. But you won't know about those because trade in those items is not "FREE". And it's not free because the EU and America want it that way. Because Billy Bob with-mouth-in-straw living in a redneck county of a red state just voted the current monkey into the white house. Now go back guarding the bridge, trolly-wolly.
Close, but not quite - tis the Nokia 6600 they're advertising with this feature(though maybe it works with the 3220 as well, dunno). And the sad part about this whole thing is that I envisioned beign able to use your mobile as a remote a whole year before. Ah how I wish I had access to a Patent lawyer :-( As another idea which nobody has stolen yet but may feel like (please give credit where it is due)..how about adding an attachment to your mobile which allows you to plug it into a normal phone line, so you can double it up as your landline instrument?
The question is..Do they Run Linux? Haha FP, beat the GNAA, I rule! All your FP are belong to me! Bye now!
In Soviet Russia, the lame jokes get fed up of YOU! HA HA!
IMO, the real issue is that we're applying Open-Source principles to something where they won't really work. In his point 3, he mentions the unspecified quasi-darwinnian process that will eventually even out the kinks, and give you a decent article. Now the thing is, in software you have a goal to work towards. Person A writes the code, and forgets to plug a security hole. Persons B-E discover it, and then everybody revises it, but you have a TANGIBLE goal to work towards. When do you feel that a wikipedia article has accurately covered the facts? When it's acceptable "to most people with loud voices and active wikipedia accounts" would be my guess. Yes you get this same problem with regular encyclopedias, but then that's my point. Wikipedia is no better than them, and as has been stated, could possibly be worse. At least with the regular bunch of encyclopedias you have one authority to go to with all your gripes - you don't just scribble on the page, and let another bunch of eyeballs re-write it. I like wikipedia, but is it ever going to be a good reference source? Doubtful. Even 200 years from now. Not all arguements have resolutions. Human beings don't always reach a compromise (except in Star Trek, and Soviet Russia, I suppose). A parent poster said that eventually, the kinks will be ironed out. But I doubt it. I foresee a lot MORE protected pages, as more and more people get net access and feel that a wikipedia article does not coincide with their point of view....Even in a democracy, we elect leaders to represent us. But if every fool had a say in legislation, it'd be a wonder if ANY law was ever passed.
Although a lot of your thoughts seem like complete flamebait, you kept it dignified, so I will too.
But why is the rest of the world against it? Saddam really wasn't that nice of a guy.
There are lots and lots of reasons why, but I'll try and document as many of them as I can.
The primary reason the world was against going after Saddam is because of the REASONS given. When America and beat the shit out of the Taliban barbarians, 99% of the world, including the Arab world was on your side. I'm still willing to lick your boots for what you did there because afghanistan was a world-wide problem. The suicide bombers that kill Indians in India come from the same place and training camps that were used for 9/11. That's India. These same bastards train insurgents to fight China and Russia too. On top of that, Afghanistan was a true barbarian state. Where they destroyed women, banned music, and blew 2000-year old tributes to World History and human achievement. Trying to Democratise Afghanistan is truly a brilliant achievement. And I know for a fact that India and the rest of the world is safer because of it. Thank You America for that!
HOWEVER, the numerous justifications used to go after iraq just don't cut any ice with anybody, except for the kept-in-the-dark-and-fed-shit-by-CBS-and-fox-news American public. It was clear that Iraq was a small-time no good piece of shit, which didn't matter to ANYBODY. They didn't threaten Indians, Europeans, Chinese, Australians. And I think everybody new that after 1991, if USA wanted to kick Iraq's butt it could do it 10 days. So since everybody already KNEW this, what was the need to go after Iraq? Of course the American public is made to believe that Saddam could have been a genuine threat. That he had been defying UN resolutions, and thus must be cooking something up. Of course you will accuse me of Hindsight now, but the fact is, this just shows how stupid Bush is. If I were a clingy little despot, I would ALWAYS try and pretend like I'm sitting on a bomb. The moment I come clean and tell everyone I have nothing, I LOSE POWER IN MY OWN COUNTRY. Everybody's mother and his goat will try and launch a coup to unseat me. So naturally, I'm not gonna let you look up my skirt! DUH! When I say I have nukes, even America thinks twice about going and attacking me. But nobody except for Americans believed that shit. I'm not trying to claim that makes me smarter than an American, but maybe I have a slightly better understanding as to how a non-westerner would think. And it surprised me that the all-Knowing President of the United States would not have figured that out! Another reason given for fighting Iraq was that it was a threat to the world and part of the GLOBAL War on Terror. Now the rest of the world took the word GLOBAL to mean the threats to the 100-something countries that exist in the world. But for America, Global = from San Francisco to Martha's Vineyard (with Hawaii and Alaska thrown in). This started out as a global war on terror but ended up being a Lets-waggle-our-big-dick. Iraq had NOTHING to do with Terrorism. Had America said "We perceive Iraq as threat to AMERICA, and thus will attack it" then maybe 20% of the world would have let it go, but 80% would still have objected on the simple grounds that who the fuck does America think it is decide who's a threat and who's not. And if America can decide who's a threat, then so can we. I perceive Pakistan a threat, so LET'S FUCKING GO TO WAR. All of the justifications given to beat up Iraq equally apply to Pakistan and Saudi Arabi and China. But America spends too much time sucking their cocks. There are very little human rights in these countries, NO DEMOCRACY and two of them HAVE WMDs, for fuck's sake. That is why the world hates Bush. Because he doesn't have a fucking clue, and lies through his teeth. If all of this shit really was about Democracy and freedom and making the "World" a safer place these are the countries you would target. But it isn't. It's about making the W