Where does the GP say "stellar performance" and who is "everyone else"?
SP1 installed very easily for me. Everything the GP says agrees with my own experience, except for the spoolsv crashing. The only issue I had at all was having to change the screen resolution back. As an added bonus, Bioshock now runs without crashing every 5-10 minutes.
Is the article the topic or does the article discuss the topic?
I would rather see more spelling errors and less people complaining. It hurts my brain a little to see a spelling error, but once I have seen it no amount of complaining is going to save me from it. If complaining in the forums was effective, the problem would have been solved many times over. So how about complaining to the people who can directly fix the problem? Email the editor, who can fix the problem now and hopefully do better in the future. Email the submitter, who can do better in the future. If neither action is effective, you might just have to learn to accept it. Either way, complaining about it in the forums is neither original nor effective.
You're not the only one who hasn't noticed. I've seen a few posts questioning the 'mod' that brought some AC posts down to -1, when there isn't actually any mod.
It's definitely recent. I don't particularly care for it. I view at -1, but still use a -1 indicator to see that someone, somewhere, modded it down (except in cases where people have atrocious karma, which is basically the same thing). Now all sorts of insightful,funny,whatever posts are -1 automatically. It makes -1 much less meaningful and therefore less useful.
If you've got a black case, use electrical tape. You can let exactly as much light through as you want or none at all, and it's easy to change or remove. With patience, you can even cut a design into the tape using an x-acto. On the cases I've used this on you can't even see it unless you're close and looking for it.
If they are logged in and click "Post Anonymously" it starts at 0. If they are not logged in, it starts at -1.
For some reason, some positively modded -1 AC posts receive the moderation, but not the point. So a score of -1 positively moderated +1 Whatever, ends up with a score of -1, Whatever. The scoring will even show that the moderation gave it zero points. However, this does not always happen, as we can see with the GP. Perhaps the scores are only added when more than one positive moderation is given.
Comcast is doing exactly this with me now, only the problem is $17.99.
I picked up a new box at the store (to get HD content). They didn't activate the box properly at the store. (I don't believe it was an accident, because the same exact thing happened to my dad not a month before it happened to me - and we are in different areas.) I contacted tech support and they couldn't activate it from there either. I don't think they even tried because the box literally did nothing when they said they tried. They told me they would have to send out a tech, but did not mention anything about having to pay. The tech was here for about two minutes, did exactly what I did over the phone with tech support they were miraculously able to activate the box.
I contacted them and told them to pound sand. They said they would refund the money. They didn't refund me the next month. My next bill should appear any day now. Since I received the same exact canned response, I don't expect to see a refund this month either. Won't they be surprised when I issue a charge back with my credit card company, complain to the FTC and others, and become a former subscriber.
The part that really pisses me off is that I was already paying them more than most customers probably pay (I'm a stay-at-home dad until Fall, so I can justify it pretty easily), and by adding this box I was actually increasing my bill.
As a buyer I don't care if I have a little negative feedback. Sellers aren't going to care since they're getting their money before they're sending me the item. (And even if they do, so what? Their loss.) In fact, it is usually pretty obvious when seller feedback is retaliatory, and sellers who do it are usually shooting themselves in the foot. In fact _how_ a seller handles negative feedback is really more important to me as a buyer than whether or not they have negative feedback. In any case, I can always set up a new account as a buyer, since reputation isn't that important except for big ticket items.
As a seller I am very concerned about a little negative feedback, since I know how that influences my decisions as a buyer. I can't exactly just abandon my seller account and expect to keep doing the same level of business.
The whole thing is already very lopsided in favor of buyers and ebay's solution has made it worse. I'm not even convinced that the problem they're supposedly solving there really exists.
You forget that not all inches are equal. Since the OLPC has a squarer aspect ratio (4:3) than the other laptops (5:3) the same seven inches actually means more display area for the OLPC. This difference plus the extra.5" for the OLPC give the OLPC a display area about 6 square inches larger than the display area of the other laptops.
Add to that approximately three times the resolution (1200x900 vs 800x480) and it becomes pretty obvious that the OLPC has a much less cramped screen.
How is it that the summary goes a little far by directly quoting the article? Unless the article is completely wrong, this is about limiting which blogs can be read.
Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series sells very well, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them offer The Eye of the World (the first in the series) for free. Tor offered the first eighteen chapters of the novel for free in order to sell the series (it worked on me). Those were physical books which had to be printed and shipped. Giving away free e-books in large scale must be orders of magnitude cheaper - especially if they lack DRM.
Ender's game may be kind of a special case, since the first novel is the most compelling of the series and very complete in itself. But it wouldn't surprise me if it, or other titles like it, were offered as a way to jump start sales of the series as a whole.
10.5 Server Error 5xx...the server SHOULD include an entity containing an explanation of the
error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent
condition. User agents SHOULD display any included entity to the
user...
10.5.1 500 Internal Server Error
The server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it
from fulfilling the request.
10.5.4 503 Service Unavailable...If known, the length of the delay MAY be indicated in a
Retry-After header. If no Retry-After is given, the client SHOULD
handle the response as it would for a 500 response...
SHOULD (RFC2119) in this context means:
...there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
Clients for which this does not apply are, by definition, those written by authors whom have 'understood and carefully weighed' the implications. An 'abusive' client probably does not fall under this definition. So, any abusive client should be waiting for the 'Retry-After' (assuming the header exists) and displaying the contents of the message to the user. Either method should have a dramatic impact on the number of abusive clients hitting the server in a relatively short period of time.
Serious question, but could you tell me how I can stop sharing, say, my demographic with, say, Scrabulous?
Don't install it. If you want to use an application you have to provide access to your information. On the other hand, the application is not allowed to store the information. (AFAICT, basically the application uses your information to run and/or to serve targeted ads.)
If you haven't installed the application go to the "Other Applications" area of the applications privacy area and you can choose what information applications that you haven't used can access (via your friends). It's not clear to me that those applications can actually access the information directly. It seems as though it uses the API and the information only appears on your friend's page, but don't quote me on that part.
You can also add applications as "Blocked Applications" on the same page, which I believe is for applications which you've removed and/or don't trust. I've never had a need for it so I'm not entirely certain why you'd want/need it.
Anyway, the links below have more information than I can spout off the top of my head.:)
Where does it say what information is being shared?
Right. That's why the CEO publicly apologized for the news feed and beacon...
I believe your intelligence is sufficiently adequate to imagine situations where an apology might be issued even if one is not technically or actually at fault. So, I find this particular argument disingenuous rather than compelling....and there has been widespread discussion about a host of other issues and concerns.
Again, with the caveat of beacon, the linked issues are:
1. Concerns about the privacy policy itself. Since Facebook is an opt-in service this issue is largely irrelevant. Anyone not agreeing with the policy can choose not to opt-in. (As you noted.) 2. Easily dealt with through Facebook's privacy controls. 3. Not related to privacy at all. 4. Meaningless speculation.
If you have a specific point you wish to argue by all means raise it, but I am finding it difficult to respond to a link to a content-poor Wikipedia section.
Companies that are responsible with privacy issues pretty much don't typically get this much bad press. It's not just once or twice.
Bad press is not strictly a function of the facts, but of perception, popularity, and ratings. Most people cannot name 5 companies that have actually lost personal information of arguably greater importance. Facebook, despite having never lost information or acted outside its privacy policies has been raked cross the coals over privacy issues countless times for issues as small as opt-in applications being able to read information on a user's religion when the user has been informed that this is the case.
As someone who uses Facebook and cares about privacy I find your assertion ludicrous.
With the exception of the beacon debacle, the Facebook 'privacy' issues have really had more to do with the perception of privacy and bandwagon hysteria. Take the news feed for instance. People were up in arms about information being made available that they had already made available. A close analogy would be accusing Google of privacy violations for indexing your public web page.
This application issue is a non-starter. Facebook makes it clear what information applications can access and does not allow applications to access that information without explicit permission from users. Certainly finer grain controls are more desirable; but from a privacy standpoint, it really is irrelevant whether flixter needs to know my religion if: 1. I want to use their movie rating service. 2. I know that by using the service they can access my religion. 3. I opt to provide them with the information.
I suggested that the simple solution is for the agent to request that you drink some of the water, and then the agent sniff the bottle. If anyone here knows of a colourless, odourless explosive you can safely drink, I'd like to be apprised of it.
What is the purpose of drinking the water?
Anyone who is willing to blow themselves up on an airplane thinking they will receive 108 virgins is surely willing to suffer an hour worth of discomfort before the flight or a trip to vomit in the bathroom.
Slashdot Mirror
GP was talking about broadband penetration, not average bandwidth. Average bandwidth is only a meaningful metric if penetration is comparable.
In any case, I doubt the veracity of your numbers. Could you cite a source?
Where does the GP say "stellar performance" and who is "everyone else"?
SP1 installed very easily for me. Everything the GP says agrees with my own experience, except for the spoolsv crashing. The only issue I had at all was having to change the screen resolution back. As an added bonus, Bioshock now runs without crashing every 5-10 minutes.
Hey!
Locusts are people, too.
Isn't it difficult to be up in arms when arms are banned?
Is the article the topic or does the article discuss the topic?
I would rather see more spelling errors and less people complaining. It hurts my brain a little to see a spelling error, but once I have seen it no amount of complaining is going to save me from it. If complaining in the forums was effective, the problem would have been solved many times over. So how about complaining to the people who can directly fix the problem? Email the editor, who can fix the problem now and hopefully do better in the future. Email the submitter, who can do better in the future. If neither action is effective, you might just have to learn to accept it. Either way, complaining about it in the forums is neither original nor effective.
You're not the only one who hasn't noticed. I've seen a few posts questioning the 'mod' that brought some AC posts down to -1, when there isn't actually any mod.
It's definitely recent. I don't particularly care for it. I view at -1, but still use a -1 indicator to see that someone, somewhere, modded it down (except in cases where people have atrocious karma, which is basically the same thing). Now all sorts of insightful,funny,whatever posts are -1 automatically. It makes -1 much less meaningful and therefore less useful.
If you've got a black case, use electrical tape. You can let exactly as much light through as you want or none at all, and it's easy to change or remove. With patience, you can even cut a design into the tape using an x-acto. On the cases I've used this on you can't even see it unless you're close and looking for it.
If they are logged in and click "Post Anonymously" it starts at 0. If they are not logged in, it starts at -1.
For some reason, some positively modded -1 AC posts receive the moderation, but not the point. So a score of -1 positively moderated +1 Whatever, ends up with a score of -1, Whatever. The scoring will even show that the moderation gave it zero points. However, this does not always happen, as we can see with the GP. Perhaps the scores are only added when more than one positive moderation is given.
Cute, but registering as a pantheist or pandeist would be much more fun.
Comcast is doing exactly this with me now, only the problem is $17.99.
I picked up a new box at the store (to get HD content). They didn't activate the box properly at the store. (I don't believe it was an accident, because the same exact thing happened to my dad not a month before it happened to me - and we are in different areas.) I contacted tech support and they couldn't activate it from there either. I don't think they even tried because the box literally did nothing when they said they tried. They told me they would have to send out a tech, but did not mention anything about having to pay. The tech was here for about two minutes, did exactly what I did over the phone with tech support they were miraculously able to activate the box.
I contacted them and told them to pound sand. They said they would refund the money. They didn't refund me the next month. My next bill should appear any day now. Since I received the same exact canned response, I don't expect to see a refund this month either. Won't they be surprised when I issue a charge back with my credit card company, complain to the FTC and others, and become a former subscriber.
The part that really pisses me off is that I was already paying them more than most customers probably pay (I'm a stay-at-home dad until Fall, so I can justify it pretty easily), and by adding this box I was actually increasing my bill.
Satire and trolling are not mutually exclusive.
Can I come work for you?
That was not Godwin's point at all. Personal attacks seem a much easier way to turn a discussion into a flame war.
This really makes no sense to me.
As a buyer I don't care if I have a little negative feedback. Sellers aren't going to care since they're getting their money before they're sending me the item. (And even if they do, so what? Their loss.) In fact, it is usually pretty obvious when seller feedback is retaliatory, and sellers who do it are usually shooting themselves in the foot. In fact _how_ a seller handles negative feedback is really more important to me as a buyer than whether or not they have negative feedback. In any case, I can always set up a new account as a buyer, since reputation isn't that important except for big ticket items.
As a seller I am very concerned about a little negative feedback, since I know how that influences my decisions as a buyer. I can't exactly just abandon my seller account and expect to keep doing the same level of business.
The whole thing is already very lopsided in favor of buyers and ebay's solution has made it worse. I'm not even convinced that the problem they're supposedly solving there really exists.
You forget that not all inches are equal. Since the OLPC has a squarer aspect ratio (4:3) than the other laptops (5:3) the same seven inches actually means more display area for the OLPC. This difference plus the extra .5" for the OLPC give the OLPC a display area about 6 square inches larger than the display area of the other laptops.
Add to that approximately three times the resolution (1200x900 vs 800x480) and it becomes pretty obvious that the OLPC has a much less cramped screen.
I believe this guy would disagree.
How is it that the summary goes a little far by directly quoting the article? Unless the article is completely wrong, this is about limiting which blogs can be read.
MadTV's Spishak razor skit predates that Onion article by about 5 years.
Muscle strength, bone density, arthritis, bursitis, etc.
Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series sells very well, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them offer The Eye of the World (the first in the series) for free. Tor offered the first eighteen chapters of the novel for free in order to sell the series (it worked on me). Those were physical books which had to be printed and shipped. Giving away free e-books in large scale must be orders of magnitude cheaper - especially if they lack DRM.
Ender's game may be kind of a special case, since the first novel is the most compelling of the series and very complete in itself. But it wouldn't surprise me if it, or other titles like it, were offered as a way to jump start sales of the series as a whole.
SHOULD (RFC2119) in this context means:
Clients for which this does not apply are, by definition, those written by authors whom have 'understood and carefully weighed' the implications. An 'abusive' client probably does not fall under this definition. So, any abusive client should be waiting for the 'Retry-After' (assuming the header exists) and displaying the contents of the message to the user. Either method should have a dramatic impact on the number of abusive clients hitting the server in a relatively short period of time.
Don't install it. If you want to use an application you have to provide access to your information. On the other hand, the application is not allowed to store the information. (AFAICT, basically the application uses your information to run and/or to serve targeted ads.)
If you haven't installed the application go to the "Other Applications" area of the applications privacy area and you can choose what information applications that you haven't used can access (via your friends). It's not clear to me that those applications can actually access the information directly. It seems as though it uses the API and the information only appears on your friend's page, but don't quote me on that part.
You can also add applications as "Blocked Applications" on the same page, which I believe is for applications which you've removed and/or don't trust. I've never had a need for it so I'm not entirely certain why you'd want/need it.
Anyway, the links below have more information than I can spout off the top of my head.
http://developers.facebook.com/user_terms.php
http://www.facebook.com/help.php?page=9
http://www.facebook.com/help.php?page=57
http://www.facebook.com/help.php?page=25
http://www.facebook.com/policy.php
http://www.facebook.com/terms.php
Right. That's why the CEO publicly apologized for the news feed and beacon...
...and there has been widespread discussion about a host of other issues and concerns.
I believe your intelligence is sufficiently adequate to imagine situations where an apology might be issued even if one is not technically or actually at fault. So, I find this particular argument disingenuous rather than compelling.
Again, with the caveat of beacon, the linked issues are:
1. Concerns about the privacy policy itself. Since Facebook is an opt-in service this issue is largely irrelevant. Anyone not agreeing with the policy can choose not to opt-in. (As you noted.)
2. Easily dealt with through Facebook's privacy controls.
3. Not related to privacy at all.
4. Meaningless speculation.
If you have a specific point you wish to argue by all means raise it, but I am finding it difficult to respond to a link to a content-poor Wikipedia section.
Companies that are responsible with privacy issues pretty much don't typically get this much bad press. It's not just once or twice.
Bad press is not strictly a function of the facts, but of perception, popularity, and ratings. Most people cannot name 5 companies that have actually lost personal information of arguably greater importance. Facebook, despite having never lost information or acted outside its privacy policies has been raked cross the coals over privacy issues countless times for issues as small as opt-in applications being able to read information on a user's religion when the user has been informed that this is the case.
As someone who uses Facebook and cares about privacy I find your assertion ludicrous.
With the exception of the beacon debacle, the Facebook 'privacy' issues have really had more to do with the perception of privacy and bandwagon hysteria. Take the news feed for instance. People were up in arms about information being made available that they had already made available. A close analogy would be accusing Google of privacy violations for indexing your public web page.
This application issue is a non-starter. Facebook makes it clear what information applications can access and does not allow applications to access that information without explicit permission from users. Certainly finer grain controls are more desirable; but from a privacy standpoint, it really is irrelevant whether flixter needs to know my religion if: 1. I want to use their movie rating service. 2. I know that by using the service they can access my religion. 3. I opt to provide them with the information.
I suggested that the simple solution is for the agent to request that you drink some of the water, and then the agent sniff the bottle. If anyone here knows of a colourless, odourless explosive you can safely drink, I'd like to be apprised of it.
What is the purpose of drinking the water?
Anyone who is willing to blow themselves up on an airplane thinking they will receive 108 virgins is surely willing to suffer an hour worth of discomfort before the flight or a trip to vomit in the bathroom.