Occasionally we (I'm a member of BAFTA/LA, and we get screeners too) get full DVDs, but often they just contain the movie, since many of the screeners are produced before the DVD is finalized -- we frequently get them while the movie is still in theatres.
I find it hard to believe that NetSol "stole" it from you by refusing to let you pay to renew it. Why would they want to 'steal' your domain name?
I know lots of people don't like Network Solutions, but if this really was the case, and you can prove it, you would obviously have a good case in court to have it returned to you. Sorry, but it just doesn't sound very likely.
And... er... if they *weren't* letting you renew it before it expired, why didn't you just transfer it to a different registrar?
I have edited a couple of articles without vandalizing them, and contributed to at least one as well. If I had to register, I wouldn't have bothered.
Because registration is such an onerous task? Maybe -- and I'm certainly not accusing you of this -- requiring registration will stop people just dropping by and 'editing' articles by screwing them up. Sounds like a small price to pay, to me. If you can't be bothered to register in order to improve an article, then that's OK -- the beauty of the system is that someone else probably will.
Well, I e-mailed the daddypants address to tell them about this when I saw the preview, but clearly they don't bother reading the e-mails they get (or, at least, they don't bother taking any notice of them).
If TigerDirect had filed this suit six months ago, or even three months ago, I would have had some sympathy with them. But to do it the day before Apple releases OS X 10.4 smacks far too much of trying to strongarm Apple into settling to avoid the injunction. Blackmail is an ugly word, but in this case...
I used to buy from TigerDirect, and recommended them to clients. I will no longer be doing so. And I'll be writing to them telling them exactly why: a company which would file such an injunction this late in the day is not a company I wish to do business with.
I'd suggest the 12" iBook instead, actually: built-in screen, keyboard and trackpad (obviously), probably about the same cost as the mini-plus-screen, and more versatile (since you can take it anywhere you want with no hassle).
I feel sadness inside everytime it occurs to me people think the reason to buy a two-way radio is to chit-chat about BS over public air-waves. These are powerful tools, baby.
And yet, that's *exactly* why most people buy these radios. Are you really saying that everyone buys Amateur Radio (or "Ham", if you must) or CB radio gear just in case there's a major disaster?
Yes, they're powerful tools. But that's really not the reason most people buy them.
iBooks *do* support 'extended desktop', actually -- mine's doing it right now. You just need to download a neat little patch called Screen Spanning Doctor'.
Google is your friend: the search 'ibook "extended desktop"' returns the relevant page as its #1 link.
The thing is -- and I may be wrong here -- if the Google process stores things from caches, then even if I clear out the cache it will still have a record of the data, won't it?
In other words, I use a public machine, when I'm done I delete Cookies, empty the cache and restart the browser to clear all the session Cookies. But if Google's software had walked over the cache before I deleted it, won't it still contain that data? Which means that it *isn't* just something that was happening before, and that people didn't know about.
I'd be happy to be proved wrong here -- because I thing Google's great, and usually I hate the knee-jerk "it's invading my privacy" comments that arise over things like Gmail...
Yeah and British Airways refusing to sell him Concorde was really really annoying. I would have loved to have had him keep it flying.
Except that, like many things with Branson, that was all PR and not a real desire on his part. It would have cost Virgin Atlantic far, *far* too much to maintain the Concorde(s); his whole reason for claiming to want to buy them was to get his company's name (and his) in the news. And I'm sure that's exactly what he's doing with this latest stunt.
Likewise his upcoming TV program. Right now, it's all about getting the Virgin name as widely known in the US as possible, in advance of his new airline starting up over here. He's a master of PR, even if many of his ventures fail horribly. (You just don't hear much about them -- he's a master of spin control, too.)
I live in California. I'm glad our legislators have decided to spend their time working on a bill which affects something I can *choose* whether to use or not (it's not like Google's got a monopoly on free e-mail services), rather than... oh, say, sorting out the State's budget defecit, dreadful school systems, lack of decent health care, the flight of businesses because of exhorbitant taxes and workers' comp requirements, etc etc etc.
On the other hand, working on those problems wouldn't have resulted in nearly as many soundbites and TV appearances, so I quite understand the reluctance to tackle them...
If the client thinks that the competitor's site is more visually impressive, maybe it is. The client is the boss; they are paying for the work. Sure, you may have a fantastic back-end, but if the site looks dreadful, the client -- and, to a large extent, the target audience for the site -- isn't going to care.
Maybe you should have spent half of your two months working on the front-end design...?
If he doesn't want us to think of him as a big pansy, he needs to not only say it was a mistake, but to break the contract, sue SCO, and actually have some balls. Not pay the extortion and then say "oh, woe is me."
Oh, I just love Anonymous Cowards who provide advice on how to run large companies. How old are you? 14? 15? I'll certainly put money on the fact that you've never managed anything in your life. Run a company. Or a department. Or a lemonade stand for a day. Learn some economic realities. Then come back with your 'insightful' comments.
They paid the license fee. They realised it was a mistake. They owned up to that mistake. Sure, it would be nice if they hadn't made the mistake in the first place, but they did. Now they'll get on with the business of running their business.
A question: I know that I can transfer my landline number to Vonage. But if I'm not happy with the service, or if something happens to the company, can I transfer a number *from* Vonage *to* a POTS company? Anyone know? (Their Web site is silent on the issue...)
Slashdot Mirror
Erm... how about
Yes, it uses references, but if you're scared of them, pretend it's a 'real' multidimensional hash.
Occasionally we (I'm a member of BAFTA/LA, and we get screeners too) get full DVDs, but often they just contain the movie, since many of the screeners are produced before the DVD is finalized -- we frequently get them while the movie is still in theatres.
I find it hard to believe that NetSol "stole" it from you by refusing to let you pay to renew it. Why would they want to 'steal' your domain name?
I know lots of people don't like Network Solutions, but if this really was the case, and you can prove it, you would obviously have a good case in court to have it returned to you. Sorry, but it just doesn't sound very likely.
And... er... if they *weren't* letting you renew it before it expired, why didn't you just transfer it to a different registrar?
Because registration is such an onerous task? Maybe -- and I'm certainly not accusing you of this -- requiring registration will stop people just dropping by and 'editing' articles by screwing them up. Sounds like a small price to pay, to me. If you can't be bothered to register in order to improve an article, then that's OK -- the beauty of the system is that someone else probably will.
Whaddya know -- Tim e-mailed me to say he'd got my note, and he's corrected the headline. Way to go!
Well, I e-mailed the daddypants address to tell them about this when I saw the preview, but clearly they don't bother reading the e-mails they get (or, at least, they don't bother taking any notice of them).
If TigerDirect had filed this suit six months ago, or even three months ago, I would have had some sympathy with them. But to do it the day before Apple releases OS X 10.4 smacks far too much of trying to strongarm Apple into settling to avoid the injunction. Blackmail is an ugly word, but in this case...
I used to buy from TigerDirect, and recommended them to clients. I will no longer be doing so. And I'll be writing to them telling them exactly why: a company which would file such an injunction this late in the day is not a company I wish to do business with.
Did anyone read this and think that this story itself was "viral advertising" for "the source who instructed the network"?
Not very good advertising, since they don't name the source...
As a taxpayer, I'm more than willing to give up moronic things like abstinence-only sex education in order to fund the Voyager program.
does anybody know the etymology of the word "patriot" with respect to this legislation
USA Patriot Act: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" Act.
It's not often you see the word 'standards' five times in one sentence. Now if only that sentence had actually made sense...
I'd suggest the 12" iBook instead, actually: built-in screen, keyboard and trackpad (obviously), probably about the same cost as the mini-plus-screen, and more versatile (since you can take it anywhere you want with no hassle).
The fact that you read Slashdot is probably more indicative of that than the fact that you only use WiFi...
And yet, that's *exactly* why most people buy these radios. Are you really saying that everyone buys Amateur Radio (or "Ham", if you must) or CB radio gear just in case there's a major disaster?
Yes, they're powerful tools. But that's really not the reason most people buy them.
iBooks *do* support 'extended desktop', actually -- mine's doing it right now. You just need to download a neat little patch called Screen Spanning Doctor'.
Google is your friend: the search 'ibook "extended desktop"' returns the relevant page as its #1 link.
The thing is -- and I may be wrong here -- if the Google process stores things from caches, then even if I clear out the cache it will still have a record of the data, won't it?
In other words, I use a public machine, when I'm done I delete Cookies, empty the cache and restart the browser to clear all the session Cookies. But if Google's software had walked over the cache before I deleted it, won't it still contain that data? Which means that it *isn't* just something that was happening before, and that people didn't know about.
I'd be happy to be proved wrong here -- because I thing Google's great, and usually I hate the knee-jerk "it's invading my privacy" comments that arise over things like Gmail...
Er... only if Oracle was available on Linux at that time. Which it wasn't.
Except that, like many things with Branson, that was all PR and not a real desire on his part. It would have cost Virgin Atlantic far, *far* too much to maintain the Concorde(s); his whole reason for claiming to want to buy them was to get his company's name (and his) in the news. And I'm sure that's exactly what he's doing with this latest stunt.
Likewise his upcoming TV program. Right now, it's all about getting the Virgin name as widely known in the US as possible, in advance of his new airline starting up over here. He's a master of PR, even if many of his ventures fail horribly. (You just don't hear much about them -- he's a master of spin control, too.)
Actually, if you read an official source of data like Variety, you'll see that they report 'screens', not 'theatres'...
I live in California. I'm glad our legislators have decided to spend their time working on a bill which affects something I can *choose* whether to use or not (it's not like Google's got a monopoly on free e-mail services), rather than... oh, say, sorting out the State's budget defecit, dreadful school systems, lack of decent health care, the flight of businesses because of exhorbitant taxes and workers' comp requirements, etc etc etc.
On the other hand, working on those problems wouldn't have resulted in nearly as many soundbites and TV appearances, so I quite understand the reluctance to tackle them...
If the client thinks that the competitor's site is more visually impressive, maybe it is. The client is the boss; they are paying for the work. Sure, you may have a fantastic back-end, but if the site looks dreadful, the client -- and, to a large extent, the target audience for the site -- isn't going to care.
Maybe you should have spent half of your two months working on the front-end design...?
But someone, somewhere has to pay for the actual Internet connectivity.
You can be as altrusitic as you like -- as long as someone's going to fund your altrusim...
They're keeping the 'Lindows' name in the US (for now, anyway) -- they're only changing the name for other countries.
Oh, I just love Anonymous Cowards who provide advice on how to run large companies. How old are you? 14? 15? I'll certainly put money on the fact that you've never managed anything in your life. Run a company. Or a department. Or a lemonade stand for a day. Learn some economic realities. Then come back with your 'insightful' comments. They paid the license fee. They realised it was a mistake. They owned up to that mistake. Sure, it would be nice if they hadn't made the mistake in the first place, but they did. Now they'll get on with the business of running their business.
A question: I know that I can transfer my landline number to Vonage. But if I'm not happy with the service, or if something happens to the company, can I transfer a number *from* Vonage *to* a POTS company? Anyone know? (Their Web site is silent on the issue...)