Perhaps you're confusing 'reception' with 'what-the-other-party-is-receiving'. If the other party has a problem with reception, there's truly nothing you (with a Treo 650 or any other phone) can do about it...they have poor reception. End of story.
If there's a problem with your phone's setting, then it's a real stretch to blame the other person's reception.....
Perhaps there's another problem you're overlooking. I get excellent reception with my Cingular Treo 600. If there are 4 bars I cannot think of a better phone I've owned, and if there are 0 bars (yes, zero)...well I still get to connect to the call quickly with excellent reception. Haven't heard any complaints from the people I'm calling either.
I believe GSM requires line-of-sight to avoid significant packet loss, perhaps you should be complaining about where they put (and didn't put) towers in your area rather than the phone. I know there is one spot on a certain road I get lousy reception, but it's not the phone's fault. Sometimes when I have two bars I get some static, but its just about always temporary (unless I'm driving through valleys and mountains).
Well, this could cause some problems for those evil scripts...
What is the Domain Redemption Period?
The redemption period is a Domain Registry period of up to 30 days that occurs when a domain name is deleted after having expired unrenewed. Instead of just getting deleted and returning to the pool of domain names available for registration, the existing registry keeps a hold on the domain name in a what is technically called as REDEMPTION PERIOD.
*IMPORTANT PART* During this 30-day redemption period, the original domain registrant (owner of the domain) is allowed to retrieve the domain name from deletion by contacting their Registrar. [Google search]
I actually own a name that expired in September--having forgotten to renew it even I am having trouble transfering it back to myself (through a different registrar)...so them must be some incredible magical scripts....
the subject seems to make me think you're in disagreement,
reading your post, you don't really bring up any points disproving (or even disagreeing with) anything in the article. I'm confused...I mean, come on! They used "sophisticated climate models and new statistical techniques" for goodness sake!!!
That's understandable (your side), but if they let just anyone rip the thing apart to replace the speaker they would be opening a gigantic can of worms...what if you solder incorrectly and blow the whole circuit board, what if you short something out with the screwdrive as you pry it open...I'm not saying they shouldn't fix your problem, but since it was purchased used it's also understandable. However, maybe if you could get the new speaker and sign a waiver making any future warranty void (since you're ripping the thing open and soldering stuff together), but then it just comes back to the 'purchased used' dilema...but even still, 179 bucks is rather crazy, but still cheaper than a new, fully guaranteed one.....
Which they typically get from a sponsoring government.
Let's review, typically means not all the time...hmmmm, this touches on the difference between probable and possible. I'm saying it's possible, and you're dismissing it because it's not probable.
O/Usama Bin Laden makes millions, if not billions, from the black market--opium, etc... but then maybe you don't think he's a good example of a terrorist...
Um, you picked the word, not I.
Unless Slashdot is playing tricks on me again, I thought I replied to what you originally said. I know the article used the word "terrorist" (I'm assuming that's 'the word' you're referring too?), and I know you did too in your post; that's the one I replied to...thinking it would be relevant--yes, I used the word too. If that's not the word you're referring too, then I'm just lost.
The rest of your last post is funny. Usually you start the investigation off assuming you have a criminal, right? Then try to prove or disprove who and what the criminal is and what they did or did not do? Just a guess, but you'd have to start with something, evidence or a hunch...granted they didn't find any evidence saying they were terrorists (since they say in the article that they don't think they are terrorists), but with the DoHS and the FBI involved, I don't think it's entirely inefficient to rule out terrorism...especially because they did destroy life-saving infrastructure (911) and communications within the U.S. (not exactly the first target you might expect to be hit by terrorists, but it certainly wouldn't be ignorant to think they might).
And yes, I'd hope the mugging that happened to Joe Schmoe isn't taken to the FBI and I would certainly hope there isn't a newspaper article with headlines, "Mugger has no ties to terrorism" (although the thought of a mugger jumping out from a dark alley would certainly constitute terror...but that's another issue all-together).
Terrorists need money to buy explosives and fake passports...stolen property can be sold for money without having to have paid for it...they were going to be sold on the black market...more than likely sold to a second-world country...
Of course I'm not saying they were terrorsits, I obviously have way too little information to make such an ascertion...but to put those pieces together and think there is no way they can be terrorists, that's just plain ignorance.
When was the last time you bought something used and it still had a full warranty? Just curious, because I can't think of any.
Also taken for what it's worth: I had a 600 that they replaced for free (and even shipped me a new one before sending the busted one back) and they even paid shipping for both ways. Granted, it was covered under warranty because I didn't buy it used from Jimbo's Pawn Shop down on 15th street.
Is it renowned for its English program, since that would seem a lot more relevant to a specific grammar question? Part of writing (especially as an art form) grants a lot of leniency in these kinds of areas, so any citations of particular rules would be a pointless.
By that logic, I can put a microphone (or voice recorder with magnetic tape buffer) between your mouth and the telephone you're speaking into. This wouldn't be wiretapping either, since the interstate phone lines aren't being accessed, just the voice waves in that local room. But I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be legal either. It seems more like a case where the law hasn't caught up to technology to me...
it's impressive how much you think you know of me from a few simple comments posted on a website. I call you ignorant because you ignore what I say to argue points I never made. You change my words to make them words you can argue with. This is ignorant. Perhaps you aren't retarded. Perhaps you're only a moron, but I doubt you're an idiot. Actually a moron would be by definition retarded, so I'll leave it to you to figure that out. Perhaps it was more of what you were doing that was retarded and I used the ol' 'judge a man by his actions' stance. Do you know where I volunteer, which church I work at, or where I donate my money? Do you know where my old clothes go when I do not wear them? Or perhaps you were only being ignorant.
As for the mall you went to, I'm sure if you ask the right people you will get the answer you wanted to. If I asked the right people (and I don't have to since I know enough of them to already know the answer) I would get the answer I want to. When you mesh these two points together, we get a fact that many people don't have full benefits.
The bulk of your post was an answer to a question no one asked, so good job buddy. I never said there weren't poor people that could make better, I said there were some poor people that couldn't. You're taking what I am saying, assuming I am talking about the majority, and proving it wrong. But what you aren't doing is looking at the whole picture and where my points are coming from. This is ignorant, and stupid. I call those who make ignorant points ignorant, and I call those who act retarded retards.
You see a man who did not answer my point? I saw you rebutting my point (initially) and skewing it to fit your said rebuttal. That's not making a point.
Is your point that some poor can make better for themselves? I never disagreed. Do you want another cookie?
Here's a newsflash: I never said we should increase taxes, my original point was that we shouldn't decrease them for the millionaires. But you would know that already, since you always read my posts before responding, right?
Your last statement is completely contrary to that. So I ask, who isn't answering to my point but his own?
Oh, and you wouldn't happen to be ignorant to the fact that it is more expensive to live in some places than it is to live in others, right? If you work at a mall in New York (for example, don't get all excited) you may get paid more than if you worked at the mall in Kansas City (for example, again-calm down) and these differences may not cover the cost of living differences completely. (Don't forget, if you disagree with this completely-you are ignorant to the fact that it could happen in one situation, making me correct to say that it could happen. See what I mean by ignorant?).
Actually I don't really use bookmarks too much either. But I have 11k of them. Turns out, I only have 20 or so web pages bookmarked...ARIN, Slashdot, a few other news sources, dictionary.com, RFC archive page, and a few personal ones...I wouldn't call it bookmark happy, and it sure beats having someone else keep track of everything for me...
Do you want a cookie or a medal or something? Your wife doesn't work, that's great. You should be thankful that you can, but don't be so ignorant to believe anyone with the will also has the way or means to do so too.
My first impression was that 500,000 is half of 1 million, and 1 million is twice 500,000. This IS Bible truth. Who is this guy?
Go to the mall yourself and ask one of those 6 or 7 employees what kind of medical plan they have. Enough said.
The fact that you meant a chain doesn't change the fact that those employees DO NOT recieve benefits, and realistically could not raise a family on that income alone. I went to school on loans too, and scholarships. This doesn't change that the rich should not be given more tax-breaks in the current climate we are in today, economic and otherwise. This was the reason for my first post, if you have since learned to read. And no, not everyone can afford appropriate education. Just because you and I could, does not mean everyone....do you see what I mean when I say you have an ignorant point of view yet?!?
If someone sends me a URL, I click it or open it in my web browser, then save it as a bookmark. Web Browser-storing web link...seems to make more sense. If i don't or can't open the link right away, I leave the IM window open until I can. It's really simple. Sometimes I get crazy and copy and paste the URL into notepad or some fancy thing...of the people that didn't stand in line for the newest AOL upgrade, I don't think I'm in a minority.
Re:Personal black boxes arent automatically bad.
on
Spies Riding Shotgun
·
· Score: 1
I didn't realize they could be used to say, "While driving between the VASCAR you averaged 44 mph".
That would be scary if they could, but I think their use to refute bogus tickets is a little overratted.
ok, you have too much time on your hands, proof: you can go through my posts line by line and take them out of context (similar to being narrow minded) and refute them. This is easy. I'm asking you look at the big picture, not the tiny world view you seem to enjoy.
I started slinging an insult because I'm tired of the rich getting richer while the poor are uncontrollably getting poorer. Can you argue that this is just?
I said you are narrow minded because you are taking everything I said into your context, not the context in which I am saying it. Also, you're looking at one thing and thinking everything else should follow the same rules. The world doesn't work like that!
I don't think the Pizza Hut guy only makes 500,000 a year, but I could be wrong. And last time I checked 1 million was (well about twice as much) more than 500,000. Again, ignoring what I am saying to refute the argument you think I am making to fit your rebuttal. This is ignorant.
College is not a right, you can argue health care isn't either...but wouldn't it be better if everyone could afford appropriate education and health care? I mean, isn't this the goal we should be aspiring towards, rather than making the poor even more unable to afford these things?
Here's another example of your ignorance, I said 'just a hunch' and you immediately responded demanding proof. Do you know what that means if I say 'just a hunch'. Look it up yourself, but I'm still pretty sure I'm correct. Home Depot had over 64 billion dollars in revenue (Jan 2004), I think it's safe to say the president (to whom you were referring--in context) makes more than 500,000 dollars a year. I'm sure most of the cashiers may not have full benefits, but I also feel safe in saying most of the top half of the administration, etc... has benefits. Again, this is a hunch, but maybe more of an educated guess. So please, please, please read my posts and not take them out of context when arguing back. One can easily argue that that is an ignorant thing to do. Plus, it only makes you look more ignorant and foolish when you ignore these warnings and continue to take what I say out of context to fit your argument.
you are easily the most narrow-minded person i've seen in a while. do you know what an example is? did you know that there's more than one combination of events that make up different people's lives? And I really don't think that many individuals who earn 500,000 employ that many people, just a hunch. So take your 500 dollars and go give your kids health care, buy medicine, and send the to college with it. Just please stop being an ignorant fool by twisting my words and living in your tiny little world any longer.
you lost me way back a while ago when you stopped reading my posts and kept talking about whatever world you live in; regardless, I'll bite...Is it fair to give $500 to an impoverished family and give $10,000 to the rich guy who inherited daddy's fortune and lives by himself?
well, first of all--I didn't lose. I could go out on a limb and say democracy lost and the people of this once great nation lost...but that would be my opinion. Per the rest of your post, I think it's time for you to go outside for a little while now...
p.s. a few hundred thousand votes is not a 'huge margin'
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you're confusing 'reception' with 'what-the-other-party-is-receiving'. If the other party has a problem with reception, there's truly nothing you (with a Treo 650 or any other phone) can do about it...they have poor reception. End of story.
If there's a problem with your phone's setting, then it's a real stretch to blame the other person's reception.....
Perhaps there's another problem you're overlooking. I get excellent reception with my Cingular Treo 600. If there are 4 bars I cannot think of a better phone I've owned, and if there are 0 bars (yes, zero)...well I still get to connect to the call quickly with excellent reception. Haven't heard any complaints from the people I'm calling either.
I believe GSM requires line-of-sight to avoid significant packet loss, perhaps you should be complaining about where they put (and didn't put) towers in your area rather than the phone. I know there is one spot on a certain road I get lousy reception, but it's not the phone's fault. Sometimes when I have two bars I get some static, but its just about always temporary (unless I'm driving through valleys and mountains).
Sweet link...I have a working III myself--I'll have to check out all the links tonight...still cracks me up to look at the pictures in that manual
What's to forget, I still love my TRS-80!
That's gotta be the 'take-all-defaults- Excel © graphing wizard...
Well, this could cause some problems for those evil scripts...
What is the Domain Redemption Period?
The redemption period is a Domain Registry period of up to 30 days that occurs when a domain name is deleted after having expired unrenewed. Instead of just getting deleted and returning to the pool of domain names available for registration, the existing registry keeps a hold on the domain name in a what is technically called as REDEMPTION PERIOD.
*IMPORTANT PART*
During this 30-day redemption period, the original domain registrant (owner of the domain) is allowed to retrieve the domain name from deletion by contacting their Registrar. [Google search]
I actually own a name that expired in September--having forgotten to renew it even I am having trouble transfering it back to myself (through a different registrar)...so them must be some incredible magical scripts....
Until the next report?
the subject seems to make me think you're in disagreement,
reading your post, you don't really bring up any points disproving (or even disagreeing with) anything in the article. I'm confused...I mean, come on! They used "sophisticated climate models and new statistical techniques" for goodness sake!!!
email is used by smtphunter and a bunch of other spam relaying 'people'...but then I guess a new article could be, only old people spam from Korea?
That's understandable (your side), but if they let just anyone rip the thing apart to replace the speaker they would be opening a gigantic can of worms...what if you solder incorrectly and blow the whole circuit board, what if you short something out with the screwdrive as you pry it open...I'm not saying they shouldn't fix your problem, but since it was purchased used it's also understandable. However, maybe if you could get the new speaker and sign a waiver making any future warranty void (since you're ripping the thing open and soldering stuff together), but then it just comes back to the 'purchased used' dilema...but even still, 179 bucks is rather crazy, but still cheaper than a new, fully guaranteed one.....
Which they typically get from a sponsoring government.
Let's review, typically means not all the time...hmmmm, this touches on the difference between probable and possible. I'm saying it's possible, and you're dismissing it because it's not probable.
O/Usama Bin Laden makes millions, if not billions, from the black market--opium, etc... but then maybe you don't think he's a good example of a terrorist...
Um, you picked the word, not I.
Unless Slashdot is playing tricks on me again, I thought I replied to what you originally said.
I know the article used the word "terrorist" (I'm assuming that's 'the word' you're referring too?), and I know you did too in your post; that's the one I replied to...thinking it would be relevant--yes, I used the word too. If that's not the word you're referring too, then I'm just lost.
The rest of your last post is funny. Usually you start the investigation off assuming you have a criminal, right? Then try to prove or disprove who and what the criminal is and what they did or did not do? Just a guess, but you'd have to start with something, evidence or a hunch...granted they didn't find any evidence saying they were terrorists (since they say in the article that they don't think they are terrorists), but with the DoHS and the FBI involved, I don't think it's entirely inefficient to rule out terrorism...especially because they did destroy life-saving infrastructure (911) and communications within the U.S. (not exactly the first target you might expect to be hit by terrorists, but it certainly wouldn't be ignorant to think they might).
And yes, I'd hope the mugging that happened to Joe Schmoe isn't taken to the FBI and I would certainly hope there isn't a newspaper article with headlines, "Mugger has no ties to terrorism" (although the thought of a mugger jumping out from a dark alley would certainly constitute terror...but that's another issue all-together).
Terrorists need money to buy explosives and fake passports...stolen property can be sold for money without having to have paid for it...they were going to be sold on the black market...more than likely sold to a second-world country...
Of course I'm not saying they were terrorsits, I obviously have way too little information to make such an ascertion...but to put those pieces together and think there is no way they can be terrorists, that's just plain ignorance.
When was the last time you bought something used and it still had a full warranty? Just curious, because I can't think of any.
Also taken for what it's worth: I had a 600 that they replaced for free (and even shipped me a new one before sending the busted one back) and they even paid shipping for both ways. Granted, it was covered under warranty because I didn't buy it used from Jimbo's Pawn Shop down on 15th street.
Is it renowned for its English program, since that would seem a lot more relevant to a specific grammar question? Part of writing (especially as an art form) grants a lot of leniency in these kinds of areas, so any citations of particular rules would be a pointless.
By that logic, I can put a microphone (or voice recorder with magnetic tape buffer) between your mouth and the telephone you're speaking into. This wouldn't be wiretapping either, since the interstate phone lines aren't being accessed, just the voice waves in that local room. But I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be legal either. It seems more like a case where the law hasn't caught up to technology to me...
it's impressive how much you think you know of me from a few simple comments posted on a website. I call you ignorant because you ignore what I say to argue points I never made. You change my words to make them words you can argue with. This is ignorant. Perhaps you aren't retarded. Perhaps you're only a moron, but I doubt you're an idiot. Actually a moron would be by definition retarded, so I'll leave it to you to figure that out. Perhaps it was more of what you were doing that was retarded and I used the ol' 'judge a man by his actions' stance. Do you know where I volunteer, which church I work at, or where I donate my money? Do you know where my old clothes go when I do not wear them? Or perhaps you were only being ignorant.
As for the mall you went to, I'm sure if you ask the right people you will get the answer you wanted to. If I asked the right people (and I don't have to since I know enough of them to already know the answer) I would get the answer I want to. When you mesh these two points together, we get a fact that many people don't have full benefits.
The bulk of your post was an answer to a question no one asked, so good job buddy. I never said there weren't poor people that could make better, I said there were some poor people that couldn't. You're taking what I am saying, assuming I am talking about the majority, and proving it wrong. But what you aren't doing is looking at the whole picture and where my points are coming from. This is ignorant, and stupid. I call those who make ignorant points ignorant, and I call those who act retarded retards.
You see a man who did not answer my point? I saw you rebutting my point (initially) and skewing it to fit your said rebuttal. That's not making a point.
Is your point that some poor can make better for themselves? I never disagreed. Do you want another cookie?
Here's a newsflash:
I never said we should increase taxes, my original point was that we shouldn't decrease them for the millionaires.
But you would know that already, since you always read my posts before responding, right?
Your last statement is completely contrary to that. So I ask, who isn't answering to my point but his own?
Oh, and you wouldn't happen to be ignorant to the fact that it is more expensive to live in some places than it is to live in others, right?
If you work at a mall in New York (for example, don't get all excited) you may get paid more than if you worked at the mall in Kansas City (for example, again-calm down) and these differences may not cover the cost of living differences completely. (Don't forget, if you disagree with this completely-you are ignorant to the fact that it could happen in one situation, making me correct to say that it could happen. See what I mean by ignorant?).
Actually I don't really use bookmarks too much either. But I have 11k of them. Turns out, I only have 20 or so web pages bookmarked...ARIN, Slashdot, a few other news sources, dictionary.com, RFC archive page, and a few personal ones...I wouldn't call it bookmark happy, and it sure beats having someone else keep track of everything for me...
Why bother arguing if its just, its not true
You don't think the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer? Are you retarded? (yes, I said it again, you can quote me if you want.)
wow.
Do you want a cookie or a medal or something? Your wife doesn't work, that's great. You should be thankful that you can, but don't be so ignorant to believe anyone with the will also has the way or means to do so too.
My first impression was that 500,000 is half of 1 million, and 1 million is twice 500,000. This IS Bible truth. Who is this guy?
Go to the mall yourself and ask one of those 6 or 7 employees what kind of medical plan they have. Enough said.
The fact that you meant a chain doesn't change the fact that those employees DO NOT recieve benefits, and realistically could not raise a family on that income alone. I went to school on loans too, and scholarships. This doesn't change that the rich should not be given more tax-breaks in the current climate we are in today, economic and otherwise. This was the reason for my first post, if you have since learned to read. And no, not everyone can afford appropriate education. Just because you and I could, does not mean everyone....do you see what I mean when I say you have an ignorant point of view yet?!?
If someone sends me a URL, I click it or open it in my web browser, then save it as a bookmark. Web Browser-storing web link...seems to make more sense. If i don't or can't open the link right away, I leave the IM window open until I can. It's really simple. Sometimes I get crazy and copy and paste the URL into notepad or some fancy thing...of the people that didn't stand in line for the newest AOL upgrade, I don't think I'm in a minority.
I didn't realize they could be used to say, "While driving between the VASCAR you averaged 44 mph".
That would be scary if they could, but I think their use to refute bogus tickets is a little overratted.
ok, you have too much time on your hands, proof: you can go through my posts line by line and take them out of context (similar to being narrow minded) and refute them. This is easy. I'm asking you look at the big picture, not the tiny world view you seem to enjoy.
I started slinging an insult because I'm tired of the rich getting richer while the poor are uncontrollably getting poorer. Can you argue that this is just?
I said you are narrow minded because you are taking everything I said into your context, not the context in which I am saying it. Also, you're looking at one thing and thinking everything else should follow the same rules. The world doesn't work like that!
I don't think the Pizza Hut guy only makes 500,000 a year, but I could be wrong. And last time I checked 1 million was (well about twice as much) more than 500,000. Again, ignoring what I am saying to refute the argument you think I am making to fit your rebuttal. This is ignorant.
College is not a right, you can argue health care isn't either...but wouldn't it be better if everyone could afford appropriate education and health care? I mean, isn't this the goal we should be aspiring towards, rather than making the poor even more unable to afford these things?
Here's another example of your ignorance, I said 'just a hunch' and you immediately responded demanding proof. Do you know what that means if I say 'just a hunch'. Look it up yourself, but I'm still pretty sure I'm correct. Home Depot had over 64 billion dollars in revenue (Jan 2004), I think it's safe to say the president (to whom you were referring--in context) makes more than 500,000 dollars a year. I'm sure most of the cashiers may not have full benefits, but I also feel safe in saying most of the top half of the administration, etc... has benefits. Again, this is a hunch, but maybe more of an educated guess. So please, please, please read my posts and not take them out of context when arguing back. One can easily argue that that is an ignorant thing to do. Plus, it only makes you look more ignorant and foolish when you ignore these warnings and continue to take what I say out of context to fit your argument.
It tells you when your laundry is done?! No software installed...that leaves...hardware?
you are easily the most narrow-minded person i've seen in a while. do you know what an example is? did you know that there's more than one combination of events that make up different people's lives? And I really don't think that many individuals who earn 500,000 employ that many people, just a hunch. So take your 500 dollars and go give your kids health care, buy medicine, and send the to college with it. Just please stop being an ignorant fool by twisting my words and living in your tiny little world any longer.
you lost me way back a while ago when you stopped reading my posts and kept talking about whatever world you live in; regardless, I'll bite...Is it fair to give $500 to an impoverished family and give $10,000 to the rich guy who inherited daddy's fortune and lives by himself?
well, first of all--I didn't lose. I could go out on a limb and say democracy lost and the people of this once great nation lost...but that would be my opinion. Per the rest of your post, I think it's time for you to go outside for a little while now...
p.s. a few hundred thousand votes is not a 'huge margin'