I think someone dropped the ball there. Its a nice idea but it costs too much - they won't sell enough to make a difference to the planet. It needs to be cheap too, so punters will buy them.
I tend to agree. At that price, only the quarterbacks and wide receivers will be able to get them. Maybe a running back, if he's really good.
If I ever see these things, I'm going to have fun. I'll be sticking out my tongue, blowing up my cheeks, bugging out my eyes, and making any other Jim Carey-ish face I can at them. The ultimate goal, of course, is to get someone to come to my seat and tell me, "Sir, please stop making faces at the camera. Our software can't tell what you're thinking." Win!
It would have helped if they had found some way to work with Verizon and other carriers. It will be a cold day in hell (or, at least until Verizon gets considerably worse and AT&T miraculously improves in virtually every area of their service) before I switch to AT&T.
The iPhone looks cool. It's the kind of gadget I'd probably be interested in. A lot of my friends agree. But of all the people I know that wants one, only one actually got one. Everyone else is waiting for that exclusive deal to AT&T to expire and has said they're not switching carriers to get one. (Or, for that matter hacking their phone, either.)
Why companies deliberately lock themselves into agreements with other companies like this is beyond me. Maybe it's working for them. But given how far it looks like they're going to miss their target, it kind of looks like it's not.
The Nurnberg trials showed once and for all that "the government told me to" is not a valid excuse for violating civil rights...
Not if Bush & Co. have their way. This is exactly what the whole telco issue is about. It is a blatant attempt to have it so that as long as "the government told me to" (specifically the Executive Branch, without any checks or balances), you will be completely free and clear of any and all accountability.
I cringe whenever I hear the excuse that without telco immunity, the telcos will be unwilling to cooperate with government requests.
I say, GOOD! If the government wants to listen to my phone calls without a warrant, I want the telcos unwilling to cooperate and scared that I'd sue the pants off of them! That's the way it's supposed to work!
Boy, I'm sure the telcos are hating this. This story shows once and for all that "the government told me to" is not a valid excuse for violating civil rights.
Sorry for not being clear. When I said, "gas tax holiday," I was being figurative. I wasn't so much referring to the literal taxes on gasoline as I was referring to the tax that gasoline is placing on our society--mainly in how our dependence on foreign oil is make making our economy dependent on the whims of foreign governments, how the problem is going to become worse and worse as worldwide demand for petroleum goes up, and in the ecological impact of millions of ICE engines. (No, I'm not an environut crying that the sky is falling, but one doesn't have to be a tree-hugger to not particularly like the haze that is persistently over one's city.)
Even if ultimately electric-powered cars cost exactly the same amount of money, taxes and all, to run as gasoline-powered cars, it is more than worth it to make the change, and there are many compelling reasons to do so from a self-interested point of view.
I suppose there are developers out there who develop primarily on a laptop. Shoot, I'm even one of them, since we only get laptops at my job.
But I have a docking station hooked up to a 19-inch LCD that I do almost all of my work on, and the laptop display is my secondary display I use to keep my documentation, watch windows, etc. on.
I would think that most developers either have this kind of setup or do most of their development on desktops, which are generally more powerful anyway.
We synthetically generated TCP SYN packets at a rate of 100 SYN packets per second using the hping utility...In this section, we present our network traces that show the network behavior while the TCP SYN packets are being sent. All traces were collected during peak usage hours (7-9pm local time).
Okay, I'm not specifically a network engineer, but I like to think that I'm not network stupid. To me, this would sound suspiciously like someone trying to perform a denial of service attack.
Now, I can understand being irritated at forged packets coming back as a result, but at the same time, isn't it reasonable to expect Comcast to do something to shut down connections coming from this host? Frankly, I'm a little surprised that Comcast didn't shut off the connection altogether.
Wrong, try again. The color and the product have to be linked in some way, with the color being distinctive to the product. When you think of magenta, it's highly unlikely that the first thing that pops into your head is "T Mobile". T Mobile can't trademark the color magenta any more than IBM can trademark the color blue or UPS can trademark the color brown. In specific contexts, sure. In relation to specific logos or other marks, you bet. But not the color by itself in such generic cases.
Maybe you should try clicking one more link from the page you linked to here. "Whether a colour can serve as a trade mark depends on the visual perception of the viewer. Normally, the distinctiveness through use must be shown." I'm sorry, but until you can show me how magenta&mdashor any generic color&mdashis distinctively associated with T Mobile, you fail.
If not by Engadget on us (in spite of their claims to be serious), then someone is pulling one over on Engadget by writing up an official-looking letter, and they bought it hook, line, and sinker, and now you folks are too, which makes it even more funny.
The first clue is that the letter starts off "we write to you..." Notice the uncapitalized w that starts the sentence. That's a grammatical error. If a lawyer really wrote that letter, you can bank on such a careless error NOT being in there, let alone the first frickin' letter of the letter.
The second clue is that the letter was "hand-delivered." Why the hell would T Mobile go through the time and expense to hand deliver a letter like this instead of just sending it registered and/or certified mail, especially as the initial salvo? Simple. Because in order to appear real, whoever is playing the joke would have had to have put German stamps on the letter, get someone to mail it from Germany, and conveniently arrive on April Fool's Day.
The third, and most compelling clue, is that you simply cannot trademark the color magenta, or any other color. If this letter were real, the lawyers would have insisted that they rework the logo to not be confusing, not that they completely stop using the color magenta. That's an absolutely ludicrous demand, as any lawyer worth his salt can tell you.
Mark my words, and mark them well. I'd bet a large sum of money on this. It's fake. And when it comes out that it's fake, I'm going to take no small delight in pointing to this post and gloating, "See? I TOLD you so!"
Heh, I can't believe people are actually taking this seriously. "Going magenta." Whoever is playing them must be tickled a delightful shade of— well, you know.;)
Okay, your roads are in bad shape. Mine happen to be in pretty good shape, but that's not even my real response to you.
My real response is this: Have you ever been to a country where the government doesn't build the roads and it's up to the private sector to do so? You're lucky to have a road. And do you know why? Because roads are very, very expensive to build.
I'd much rather have government roads than no roads at all.
But just out of curiosity, have you actually written to your local city councilmen/state legislators about the conditions of the roads in your area? Have you pointed out the specific problems that you're complaining about? If it's a safety hazard, I imagine they'd fix it. I've had some potholes fixed in my area, and all it took was a letter. They can't fix what they don't know about.
And hey, if they give you any resistance, just whip out your checkbook and offer to pay for the repairs. I'd bet they'll be more than happy to oblige, and isn't that pretty much what you're espousing anyway? Everyone wins; you get your roads fixed and have the satisfaction of knowing that it was done with private funds.
As for speed limits, write about that, too. Most speed limits are set and governed by state law, and I agree, it can be rather capricious. But be prepared to pay for engineering studies to determine exactly what the speed limit should be to get it changed. Hey, more opportunities for private funding, yay!
I don't own the first HD-DVD movie, I'll probably never own a Blu-ray movie, but I've been thinking of picking up a drive for the data storage. That price seemed pretty good compared to others I've seen, which is why I asked about it.
What's kind of depressing is how much the general public just doesn't care about this at all.
I'll admit up front: I have things to hide. Dirty little secrets that are none of your business, and that the government doesn't need to know. Things that are embarrassing, things that could be used to damage my reputation, nothing particularly dangerous, but stuff that should be between me, myself, and I, and no one else.
I think most people are like that, even the ones who proclaim so loudly that they have nothing to hide. I mean, if you have something to hide, you're a terrorist, right? The government could never use your dirty little secrets in any shape, form, or fashion, right? Because the government never loses our personal information, never has "leaks" that could reveal compromising information, would never do anything seedy for purely political purposes?
All of those who have "nothing to hide" are really starting to piss off those of us who do.
An interviewer once asked "Weird Al" Yankovic if any artists had specifically told him not to do a parody of their songs. Although as a parody, he has the right to anyway, he is really a nice guy who respects the wishes of the artists in that regard.
He said that the only artist who wouldn't let him parody a song is Prince.
A little while later, the interviewer asked him what his concerts are like. His answer was, "They are a lot like Prince's concerts, except that mine are deliberately funny."
NATO generally is a true acronym, but he is otherwise technically correct in that acronyms are pronouncable. Don't get bogged down in one thing being incorrect to imply that the other is also.
DVD is not an acronym, and neither is VHS. Loran is, as is scuba (self-contained underwater breathing apparatus), OPEC, NATO, an so on.
I have a feeling that this will be misinterpreted, but... You know, Dr. MLK is dead, too? So is president Kennedy. So is Gandhi. So are a lot of people who upset the power base, regardless of violence.
My point wasn't that they were killed, it was that they succeeded.
Slashdot Mirror
I tend to agree. At that price, only the quarterbacks and wide receivers will be able to get them. Maybe a running back, if he's really good.
If I ever see these things, I'm going to have fun. I'll be sticking out my tongue, blowing up my cheeks, bugging out my eyes, and making any other Jim Carey-ish face I can at them. The ultimate goal, of course, is to get someone to come to my seat and tell me, "Sir, please stop making faces at the camera. Our software can't tell what you're thinking." Win!
It would have helped if they had found some way to work with Verizon and other carriers. It will be a cold day in hell (or, at least until Verizon gets considerably worse and AT&T miraculously improves in virtually every area of their service) before I switch to AT&T.
The iPhone looks cool. It's the kind of gadget I'd probably be interested in. A lot of my friends agree. But of all the people I know that wants one, only one actually got one. Everyone else is waiting for that exclusive deal to AT&T to expire and has said they're not switching carriers to get one. (Or, for that matter hacking their phone, either.)
Why companies deliberately lock themselves into agreements with other companies like this is beyond me. Maybe it's working for them. But given how far it looks like they're going to miss their target, it kind of looks like it's not.
It's easy to think, "Wow, that's crazy," but then, an atheist doesn't stand a chance in hell of being President of the United States of America. (Pun only slightly intended.) I think that's pretty stupid.
Not saying one's better or worse than the other, just that no country has a monopoly on stupid citizens.
No, you misunderstood. They were able to use the software with no strings attached.
Not if Bush & Co. have their way. This is exactly what the whole telco issue is about. It is a blatant attempt to have it so that as long as "the government told me to" (specifically the Executive Branch, without any checks or balances), you will be completely free and clear of any and all accountability.
I cringe whenever I hear the excuse that without telco immunity, the telcos will be unwilling to cooperate with government requests.
I say, GOOD! If the government wants to listen to my phone calls without a warrant, I want the telcos unwilling to cooperate and scared that I'd sue the pants off of them! That's the way it's supposed to work!
Boy, I'm sure the telcos are hating this. This story shows once and for all that "the government told me to" is not a valid excuse for violating civil rights.
Sorry for not being clear. When I said, "gas tax holiday," I was being figurative. I wasn't so much referring to the literal taxes on gasoline as I was referring to the tax that gasoline is placing on our society--mainly in how our dependence on foreign oil is make making our economy dependent on the whims of foreign governments, how the problem is going to become worse and worse as worldwide demand for petroleum goes up, and in the ecological impact of millions of ICE engines. (No, I'm not an environut crying that the sky is falling, but one doesn't have to be a tree-hugger to not particularly like the haze that is persistently over one's city.)
Even if ultimately electric-powered cars cost exactly the same amount of money, taxes and all, to run as gasoline-powered cars, it is more than worth it to make the change, and there are many compelling reasons to do so from a self-interested point of view.
I can't wait for these types of cars to hit mass production and come down in price so that us normal people can afford them.
That is what I'd call the ultimate "gas tax holiday."
I suppose there are developers out there who develop primarily on a laptop. Shoot, I'm even one of them, since we only get laptops at my job.
But I have a docking station hooked up to a 19-inch LCD that I do almost all of my work on, and the laptop display is my secondary display I use to keep my documentation, watch windows, etc. on.
I would think that most developers either have this kind of setup or do most of their development on desktops, which are generally more powerful anyway.
That's easy, and we've known it for a long time: Yes, and yes.
Convincing the masses to actually install it, now, that's the trick.
Okay, I'm not specifically a network engineer, but I like to think that I'm not network stupid. To me, this would sound suspiciously like someone trying to perform a denial of service attack.
Now, I can understand being irritated at forged packets coming back as a result, but at the same time, isn't it reasonable to expect Comcast to do something to shut down connections coming from this host? Frankly, I'm a little surprised that Comcast didn't shut off the connection altogether.
Am I missing something?
I had a couple of hundred television channels, and canceled my satellite service because there was never anything worth watching on.
Having a realistic world doesn't impress me. I'm holding off to see what they do with it before getting excited.
Wrong, try again. The color and the product have to be linked in some way, with the color being distinctive to the product. When you think of magenta, it's highly unlikely that the first thing that pops into your head is "T Mobile". T Mobile can't trademark the color magenta any more than IBM can trademark the color blue or UPS can trademark the color brown. In specific contexts, sure. In relation to specific logos or other marks, you bet. But not the color by itself in such generic cases.
Maybe you should try clicking one more link from the page you linked to here. "Whether a colour can serve as a trade mark depends on the visual perception of the viewer. Normally, the distinctiveness through use must be shown." I'm sorry, but until you can show me how magenta&mdashor any generic color&mdashis distinctively associated with T Mobile, you fail.
If not by Engadget on us (in spite of their claims to be serious), then someone is pulling one over on Engadget by writing up an official-looking letter, and they bought it hook, line, and sinker, and now you folks are too, which makes it even more funny.
The first clue is that the letter starts off "we write to you..." Notice the uncapitalized w that starts the sentence. That's a grammatical error. If a lawyer really wrote that letter, you can bank on such a careless error NOT being in there, let alone the first frickin' letter of the letter.
The second clue is that the letter was "hand-delivered." Why the hell would T Mobile go through the time and expense to hand deliver a letter like this instead of just sending it registered and/or certified mail, especially as the initial salvo? Simple. Because in order to appear real, whoever is playing the joke would have had to have put German stamps on the letter, get someone to mail it from Germany, and conveniently arrive on April Fool's Day.
The third, and most compelling clue, is that you simply cannot trademark the color magenta, or any other color. If this letter were real, the lawyers would have insisted that they rework the logo to not be confusing, not that they completely stop using the color magenta. That's an absolutely ludicrous demand, as any lawyer worth his salt can tell you.
Mark my words, and mark them well. I'd bet a large sum of money on this. It's fake. And when it comes out that it's fake, I'm going to take no small delight in pointing to this post and gloating, "See? I TOLD you so!"
Heh, I can't believe people are actually taking this seriously. "Going magenta." Whoever is playing them must be tickled a delightful shade of— well, you know. ;)
Okay, your roads are in bad shape. Mine happen to be in pretty good shape, but that's not even my real response to you.
My real response is this: Have you ever been to a country where the government doesn't build the roads and it's up to the private sector to do so? You're lucky to have a road. And do you know why? Because roads are very, very expensive to build.
I'd much rather have government roads than no roads at all.
But just out of curiosity, have you actually written to your local city councilmen/state legislators about the conditions of the roads in your area? Have you pointed out the specific problems that you're complaining about? If it's a safety hazard, I imagine they'd fix it. I've had some potholes fixed in my area, and all it took was a letter. They can't fix what they don't know about.
And hey, if they give you any resistance, just whip out your checkbook and offer to pay for the repairs. I'd bet they'll be more than happy to oblige, and isn't that pretty much what you're espousing anyway? Everyone wins; you get your roads fixed and have the satisfaction of knowing that it was done with private funds.
As for speed limits, write about that, too. Most speed limits are set and governed by state law, and I agree, it can be rather capricious. But be prepared to pay for engineering studies to determine exactly what the speed limit should be to get it changed. Hey, more opportunities for private funding, yay!
That's not true!
I don't own the first HD-DVD movie, I'll probably never own a Blu-ray movie, but I've been thinking of picking up a drive for the data storage. That price seemed pretty good compared to others I've seen, which is why I asked about it.
Which model is that? The cheapest model I see is $355.
I'd rather spend hundreds of dollars than to give the MPAA 30 bucks by buying the same movie over and over.
Fortunately, it's a moot point. I have partaken of neither the HD-DVD nor the Blu-ray Kool-Aid, and I don't plan to in the foreseeable future.
He explicitly states that he did not blog about his job or CNN.
What's kind of depressing is how much the general public just doesn't care about this at all.
I'll admit up front: I have things to hide. Dirty little secrets that are none of your business, and that the government doesn't need to know. Things that are embarrassing, things that could be used to damage my reputation, nothing particularly dangerous, but stuff that should be between me, myself, and I, and no one else.
I think most people are like that, even the ones who proclaim so loudly that they have nothing to hide. I mean, if you have something to hide, you're a terrorist, right? The government could never use your dirty little secrets in any shape, form, or fashion, right? Because the government never loses our personal information, never has "leaks" that could reveal compromising information, would never do anything seedy for purely political purposes?
All of those who have "nothing to hide" are really starting to piss off those of us who do.
Maybe a little off-topic, but...
An interviewer once asked "Weird Al" Yankovic if any artists had specifically told him not to do a parody of their songs. Although as a parody, he has the right to anyway, he is really a nice guy who respects the wishes of the artists in that regard.
He said that the only artist who wouldn't let him parody a song is Prince.
A little while later, the interviewer asked him what his concerts are like. His answer was, "They are a lot like Prince's concerts, except that mine are deliberately funny."
NATO generally is a true acronym, but he is otherwise technically correct in that acronyms are pronouncable. Don't get bogged down in one thing being incorrect to imply that the other is also.
DVD is not an acronym, and neither is VHS. Loran is, as is scuba (self-contained underwater breathing apparatus), OPEC, NATO, an so on.
My point wasn't that they were killed, it was that they succeeded.