I do enjoy fictional storytelling, though. I guess I just like a different type of fiction. For instance, I actually liked 'Dances with Wolves'. "Waterworld" was a piece of shit, but we all already know that.
I saw Sherlock Holmes with my sister, my brother-in-law, and our friends on Saturday. It was OK, the books are better, but the movie was better than I expected it to be.
On the DVD shelf that I can see right now, I have all of the Underworld movies, LA Confidential, Wind that Shakes the Barley, Land and Freedom, American Gangster, some James Bond stuff, Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings, etc. Then box sets of Jimmy Stewart, Carry Grant, etc.
Film isn't my preferred method of story-telling, so I don't really watch a lot of movies. The ones that I like I tend to like a whole lot though. 'Avatar' just looks unappealing to me. When they make an 'Avatar: The Last Airbender', I'll go see that though. There was a lot of good character development and deep issues in that story line despite it being a "kid's show"
I explain why I don't want to see the movie in greater detail in a reply above.
As to the colonialism/noble savage thing, my issues with post-colonial analysis came to a head in a Literary Theory class in which we discussed 'The Tempest' and were made to believe that Caliban is some sort of nobel creature who is completely unfairly reduced by Prospero and that he was without sin until the evil European came along.
For fair historical accuracy, take a look at Apocalypto. Let us just be honest for a second -- the indigenous peoples of Mexico and Central/South America practiced human sacrifice, cannibalism (to a degree of eating the hearts during sacrifice), engaged in wars of conquest with each other, over-farmed their resources, etc. However, in popular history we're meant to believe that all the ill deeds lay at the feet of the Spanish with their guns and disease.
Surely, the Spanish Conquest was brutal and likely intensified suffering. It lay an entire continent to essential slavery. However, its not like the Aztecs, Maya, etc, were really that much better off BEFORE the Spanish came. They were driving themselves into the ground, enslaving their own people, etc, before the Spanish came.
Nobody was really that good when you look at it objectively -- they all sucked equally much. I'm just not really down with the idea that we need to retroactively go "well, human sacrifice and slash-and-burn agriculture is OK because otherwise we're imperialist racists. That's just their culture and we need to accept it." That's really just sort of dumb.
I don't dislike historical movies. I saw about half of 300, but wasn't particularly impressed with it. I majored in English Literature with a minor in Classical History, so I came to the movie with a bit of a different perspective than many people, having studied the actual event. it just didn't really do it for me.
Similarly, I about damned near went berserk during the version of Beowulf which had Angelina Jolie in it. I've read that poem over 300 times. I've translated it from the original myself. That movie was straight up bullshit.
This movie seems to be of a new trend where poor story telling is "made up for" by fancy graphics to bring people into the theatre. The entirety of the new Star Wars trilogy was the same. 300 also made use of fancy graphics to make up for poor historical accuracy.
If they wanted to make a film about the American Indians, that's cool. I'd go see it if were weren't dressed up in computer-generated smurfs, poorly masked allegorical names, and a bunch of other bullshit.
I also tend not to really dig on science fiction films that much. I did enjoy Firefly/Serenity, and some older movies are pretty cool. I was a major fan of Jurassic Park, which of course uses Malcolm's rants to inject the commentary and opinion on man manipulating nature that was clearly the point of the whole exercise.
So, I think that this mostly has to do with my dislike of "blockbuster" type films than it does with the story per-se. Maybe I'm a pretentious private-school polo-shirt wearer who just happens to make his living off of a high school hobby that was spawned from my un-willingness to do math by hand rather than a "true geek" who eeks out over flashy graphics. Chances are I'm a total jerk like that.
But its not because I think that Indians got a raw deal and I don't want to be reminded that my great grandfather graduated West Point in 1883, was commissioned in the cavalry and actually did fight indians (incidentally, he was born on a plantation in 1853 and my family did own slaves, so I'm pretty much directly in line for blame of all the bad things to happen in this country). I just don't want to watch a bunch of computer-generated blue people fight against future East India Company because they couldn't find actors like Jimmy Stewart, Steve McQueen or Paul Newman 'cause the "movie stars" and the animators drove all the story telling and art out of mass-market film, causing me to have to suffer through the weird-ass shit on IFC if I want to see something where they're at least trying.
Frankly, I have no plans to see this movie -- I never had even the slightest interest in it. In fact, I just generally don't like any movie like this. Not my thing. I do enjoy making fun of it vis-a-vis the "Dances with Smurfs" thing from South Park, but what I've heard about the movie, that's probably a pretty apt sort of representation.
If you remember "Dances with Wolves" at all, its about an American military officer just after the Civil War who goes out to a frontier post and then ends up making friends with the Indians, and then helping them against a later invasion to attempt to drive them out onto a reservation type situation. Here, the Indians have been replaced by those little blue smurf-y things.
As someone noted above, the military force in this particular situation was private and not governmental, however it was essentially the private armies of the British East and West India Companies that were responsible for most of the horrors of colonization by the British (I've never been too clear on the situation with the Spanish insofar as to whether or not they were regular military or not).
This seems to be more like some sort of post-colonial clap-trap than an "anti-technology" film, of course the two things usually go hand-in-hand when perpetrating the myth of the noble savage. In any case, I have no interest in actually watching it.
We provided "fully managed" hosting. Customers could take root only after agreeing to specific terms, and we mostly just left them alone. I agree that poking around someone else's shit isn't cool, and I didn't like doing it even when asked.
Are you co-locating a machine you own outright, or do you have a "dedicated hosting" package with the company? I was a system admin at a web hosting company for a long while, and on our dedicated packages if a customer took root access they had to inform us if they changed the root password. We also kept root ssh keys to all of the servers just in case someone wanted to try and be a dick about it. The logic is the machine is actually our property and the customer is renting its use, just as most apartment complexes will keep master keys to the units.
However, if you own the machine and just have it stuck some place, essentially just paying to rack it and plug into the network, then you may just want to create a limited account that has read permissions on syslog stuff and let them have that for investigative purposes when you need to request access. But, if it's not their machine then they don't need to be shutting you off, booting single-users and rummaging through your stuff.
Yes, the ~/Library directory was a NeXT thing. If you use GNUStep software, such as WindowMaker et al, all the GNUStep stuff goes into ~/Library, but your normal unix things still use the dotfiles. The same is true with OS X. For instance, any "real" Mac app writes out to ~/Library, but I still drop in my.exrc and.cshrc for vim and tcsh configs as that is what's expected.
The dot-files don't show up in Finder, but I don't expect them to, nor do I even want them to. If I'm poking around in Finder, then I know I don't want any of that stuff, but I'm perfectly capable of opening Terminal (actually, I don't really seem capable of closing it, as I never do) and typing `ls -altrShi` when I want to see things the Unix way.
But back on topic, I actually kind of liked the spacial view vs browser view, especially if I'd intended on moving/copying large numbers of files via drag and drop to get around funny file names.
I'm quite proficient with tcsh and bash and many command-line utlitiies. On a real *nix system, I'm extremely happy. I think I just found there to be a lack of integration that was getting in my way and it was probably due to my perception of what it was supposed to be vs what it actually was.
I was never really impressed
on
Cygwin 1.7 Released
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Let's be honest -- whether Linux or BSD is ready for the desktop, ready for the laptop is something slightly lacking, and I mostly have laptops these days. I couldn't take it anymore with Linux or BSD on my laptop, so I bought Vista. Of course, I can't live without a command line, because that's what I'm used to. I remembered having used Cygwin years ago, back in the Win95 days, and so I tried to give it ago.
No dice -- it doesn't really integrate with the rest of the system very well, I find. Maybe I'm just not doing it right, but whatever. Then I gave up and grabbed SFU off of Microsoft's website. It was OK, but not really stellar. It's more for running batch jobs and giving something to code against than for interactive use, same as Cygwin I guess.
Eventually I got so pissed sick of it all that I just bought a MacBook Pro so that I could have a Unix-ish environment without having to worry about power management or weird wifi issues that I'd had with Fedora, CentOS, Ubuntu, Slackware, ZenWalk, Mint, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and PC-BSD on the Toshiba hardware.
So, I guess my question is -- is Cygwin meant for interactive use, or just to give the POSIX API and build environment so you can see whether or not your code will compile against a Unix machine? Because it seems like they've been putting an awful lot of effort into this for a very long time for it to suck so bad if its meant to be an interactive method of accessing a Windows machine by Unix commands.
It's perhaps not the best solution, as a lot of problems I've faced since I started getting more into networking stuff than software configuration and web server administration have been related to bad cables rather than bad IOS settings, but virtualization can help you create test situations on the cheep. Specifically, GNS3 allows you to create test networks in a virtual environment, then import software images for your Cisco routers, switches, PIX firewalls, Juniper hardware, etc, all run on hypervisor technology.
You can also use QEMU to create virtual network nodes. If you have enough RAM, then this can help at least get the logical issues worked out and the software configurations square. Then you just need to do the real work:) I'm still pretty new to networking myself, and I use it to make little test labs for myself when I need to do more than I can with the two 3600 and the 2600-series routers I got to take home for experimenting with. I actually copied the IOS images off of them via TFTP and then can replicate them as many times as I need to, but I can claim I have whatever interfaces I need, plus it will (thankfully) simulate the ATM switch for me as well.
I don't know what your deal is, but seriously, fuck you. I honestly don't care what this gets modded, because I have plenty of karma to burn, but on what planet was what I said a "troll"?
So, some Brit tabloid prints a story about an American cell carrier (as if it even affects them at all), and everyone jumps on a bandwagon of "z0mg!! t3h 3vil M$ is attacking Google!!" and you're willing to believe that over the word of a customer with the phone in question who actually experienced the event in question?
Go to hell. Really. Just go to hell.
In no way, shape or form was my search choice removed. It took two fucking seconds to remove an icon from my phone and put it out of my way, and then just carry on with business as usual and I'm hardly some sort of phone god doing anything special. Any random person would have likely done the same thing and not had "search choice" "removed" and anyone else here who has had this happen to them should be able to back this up.
I have a BlackBerry Storm through Verizon, and the other day I noticed the Bing icon show up on my screen, which I thought was strange, but seeing as how I'm sort of generally disenchanted with Google these days, I didn't really care. However, if you open up the actual browser app instead of clicking the new icon, then you can still search via Google by default in there without any disruption.
Verizon didn't remove search choice, and they aren't forcing Bing, they just stuck an extra icon on the phone. Delete it and move on. Seriously.
I thought it was awesome at first, because it seemed to just be a demo reel for SGI and Alias|WaveFront. Then I realized that it was a "real" movie, and that it was supposed to be Star Wars... then I realized how bad it was. Apparently so did the rest of the world, and they seem to have taken it out on SGI. Poor SGI... it wasn't their fault!
It doesn't even mention his hunting in his Wikipedia article, which at the very least casts doubt onto his huntsmanship being "noted," as the summary suggests. As far as I can tell, he's hardly a Ted Nugent.
I'm sorry, but this is just sort of childish. The GP is right -- under normal circumstances, it is almost impossible to hit any potential caps, and the people that this will affect aren't keeping up their end of the contractual obligation anyway, so terms can be nullified for them -- ie, they shouldn't be entitled to "unlimited" bandwidth for the same price if they're going to cheat.
Look at it like this -- back in the dialup days, if I were to pay for "unlimited" internet access, that would be with the understanding that I would connect one modem to one phone line and tie up one interface. What if I were to channel bond two or more modems, dial in, combine the bandwidth and in the processes suck up half a modem bank at the ISP? Sure, I'm paying for "unlimited" internet access, but what about the people who are also paying just as much as I am but who cannot take advantage of the service because I'm monopolizing the pipe? I actually got kicked from an ISP in high school for doing something similar, which is why I use this as an example.
I'm not an iPhone user, and I'm not on AT&T either way. I have a BlackBerry Storm on Verizon, and I pay for "unlimited data." I don't use it much, but occasionally I do. Paying for "unlimited" to me means that if I average 100-200M per billing cycle, but occasionally have heavy usage, such as a few days somewhere without my laptop, and end up pulling a gig during a billing period, then I don't get charged overages that I otherwise might have, had I purchased, for example, a 500Mbit per cycle plan thinking that I'm never going to go over it. I'm not tethering my phone to my laptop and using it as a cellular modem to run cvsup of the entire FreeBSD source tree and laughing all the way to the bank.
Just because we're technically capable of doing out-of-band things that 95% of users of the same product (such as iphone or blackberry) aren't even aware that they can do doesn't mean that it's OK to do them then bitch when our special fun time gets cut off. As a system admin at a web hosting company, I've put the smack down on more than enough users who thought that "unlimited bandwidth" meant "I can stream hi-def video at 50Mbit/sec all day every day and to hell with anyone else on that segment of the network" to know that if I were to take the side of "the masses" on this issue, it would by hypocritical. And publicly advertising a mass attempt to bring down the network to prove some sort of point just makes my skin crawl, and I'm not an AT&T employee who's probably thinking of calling out sick on Friday just to not have to deal with the crap if this gets off the ground.
You forgot to note that he said "join their clause", rather than "join their cause", thus making himself just as guilty of typo's as the submitter of the article. And at any rate, the 19th was a Friday last year. Close enough for Zune timestamps.
I think he's only being treated as a martyr to it by people who never got rid of their "Free Kevin" tshirts. While I may envy his committment to BOFHism, he really didn't have a right to do what he did and treating him like some sort of hero is just asinine and, much like Christmas, something I wish would just be overwith already.
I once had an Office Max employee try and sell me an extended warranty on a mouse pad, which wasn't even $10. If my mouse pad somehow managed to malfunction (seriously?), buying a new one would be cheaper than paying for a damned warranty. Recently, I purchased a Nikon D300 and a 13" MacBook Pro, about 2 months apart from each other, at BestBuy. In each case they attempted to sell me the extended warranty, but gave me 14 days within which to think about it. I told them I'd think about it, then just left, but there was no way they were going to bilk me for an extra $2-300 when the purchase was expensive enough. I'm careful with things, and I can afford to replace them if necessary anyway.
Yes, true liberation was in WWII, but that's a foregone conclusion which I hope I wouldn't have to point out. People seem to forget about WWI a lot though. However, given the fact that Germany had lost no territory and fewer men than the allies, i think that our assistance in WWI went slightly beyond mere reinforcements.
Slashdot Mirror
I do enjoy fictional storytelling, though. I guess I just like a different type of fiction. For instance, I actually liked 'Dances with Wolves'. "Waterworld" was a piece of shit, but we all already know that.
I saw Sherlock Holmes with my sister, my brother-in-law, and our friends on Saturday. It was OK, the books are better, but the movie was better than I expected it to be.
On the DVD shelf that I can see right now, I have all of the Underworld movies, LA Confidential, Wind that Shakes the Barley, Land and Freedom, American Gangster, some James Bond stuff, Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings, etc. Then box sets of Jimmy Stewart, Carry Grant, etc.
Film isn't my preferred method of story-telling, so I don't really watch a lot of movies. The ones that I like I tend to like a whole lot though. 'Avatar' just looks unappealing to me. When they make an 'Avatar: The Last Airbender', I'll go see that though. There was a lot of good character development and deep issues in that story line despite it being a "kid's show"
I explain why I don't want to see the movie in greater detail in a reply above.
As to the colonialism/noble savage thing, my issues with post-colonial analysis came to a head in a Literary Theory class in which we discussed 'The Tempest' and were made to believe that Caliban is some sort of nobel creature who is completely unfairly reduced by Prospero and that he was without sin until the evil European came along.
For fair historical accuracy, take a look at Apocalypto. Let us just be honest for a second -- the indigenous peoples of Mexico and Central/South America practiced human sacrifice, cannibalism (to a degree of eating the hearts during sacrifice), engaged in wars of conquest with each other, over-farmed their resources, etc. However, in popular history we're meant to believe that all the ill deeds lay at the feet of the Spanish with their guns and disease.
Surely, the Spanish Conquest was brutal and likely intensified suffering. It lay an entire continent to essential slavery. However, its not like the Aztecs, Maya, etc, were really that much better off BEFORE the Spanish came. They were driving themselves into the ground, enslaving their own people, etc, before the Spanish came.
Nobody was really that good when you look at it objectively -- they all sucked equally much. I'm just not really down with the idea that we need to retroactively go "well, human sacrifice and slash-and-burn agriculture is OK because otherwise we're imperialist racists. That's just their culture and we need to accept it." That's really just sort of dumb.
I don't dislike historical movies. I saw about half of 300, but wasn't particularly impressed with it. I majored in English Literature with a minor in Classical History, so I came to the movie with a bit of a different perspective than many people, having studied the actual event. it just didn't really do it for me.
Similarly, I about damned near went berserk during the version of Beowulf which had Angelina Jolie in it. I've read that poem over 300 times. I've translated it from the original myself. That movie was straight up bullshit.
This movie seems to be of a new trend where poor story telling is "made up for" by fancy graphics to bring people into the theatre. The entirety of the new Star Wars trilogy was the same. 300 also made use of fancy graphics to make up for poor historical accuracy.
If they wanted to make a film about the American Indians, that's cool. I'd go see it if were weren't dressed up in computer-generated smurfs, poorly masked allegorical names, and a bunch of other bullshit.
I also tend not to really dig on science fiction films that much. I did enjoy Firefly/Serenity, and some older movies are pretty cool. I was a major fan of Jurassic Park, which of course uses Malcolm's rants to inject the commentary and opinion on man manipulating nature that was clearly the point of the whole exercise.
So, I think that this mostly has to do with my dislike of "blockbuster" type films than it does with the story per-se. Maybe I'm a pretentious private-school polo-shirt wearer who just happens to make his living off of a high school hobby that was spawned from my un-willingness to do math by hand rather than a "true geek" who eeks out over flashy graphics. Chances are I'm a total jerk like that.
But its not because I think that Indians got a raw deal and I don't want to be reminded that my great grandfather graduated West Point in 1883, was commissioned in the cavalry and actually did fight indians (incidentally, he was born on a plantation in 1853 and my family did own slaves, so I'm pretty much directly in line for blame of all the bad things to happen in this country). I just don't want to watch a bunch of computer-generated blue people fight against future East India Company because they couldn't find actors like Jimmy Stewart, Steve McQueen or Paul Newman 'cause the "movie stars" and the animators drove all the story telling and art out of mass-market film, causing me to have to suffer through the weird-ass shit on IFC if I want to see something where they're at least trying.
Frankly, I have no plans to see this movie -- I never had even the slightest interest in it. In fact, I just generally don't like any movie like this. Not my thing. I do enjoy making fun of it vis-a-vis the "Dances with Smurfs" thing from South Park, but what I've heard about the movie, that's probably a pretty apt sort of representation.
If you remember "Dances with Wolves" at all, its about an American military officer just after the Civil War who goes out to a frontier post and then ends up making friends with the Indians, and then helping them against a later invasion to attempt to drive them out onto a reservation type situation. Here, the Indians have been replaced by those little blue smurf-y things.
As someone noted above, the military force in this particular situation was private and not governmental, however it was essentially the private armies of the British East and West India Companies that were responsible for most of the horrors of colonization by the British (I've never been too clear on the situation with the Spanish insofar as to whether or not they were regular military or not).
This seems to be more like some sort of post-colonial clap-trap than an "anti-technology" film, of course the two things usually go hand-in-hand when perpetrating the myth of the noble savage. In any case, I have no interest in actually watching it.
We provided "fully managed" hosting. Customers could take root only after agreeing to specific terms, and we mostly just left them alone. I agree that poking around someone else's shit isn't cool, and I didn't like doing it even when asked.
Are you co-locating a machine you own outright, or do you have a "dedicated hosting" package with the company? I was a system admin at a web hosting company for a long while, and on our dedicated packages if a customer took root access they had to inform us if they changed the root password. We also kept root ssh keys to all of the servers just in case someone wanted to try and be a dick about it. The logic is the machine is actually our property and the customer is renting its use, just as most apartment complexes will keep master keys to the units.
However, if you own the machine and just have it stuck some place, essentially just paying to rack it and plug into the network, then you may just want to create a limited account that has read permissions on syslog stuff and let them have that for investigative purposes when you need to request access. But, if it's not their machine then they don't need to be shutting you off, booting single-users and rummaging through your stuff.
Yes, the ~/Library directory was a NeXT thing. If you use GNUStep software, such as WindowMaker et al, all the GNUStep stuff goes into ~/Library, but your normal unix things still use the dotfiles. The same is true with OS X. For instance, any "real" Mac app writes out to ~/Library, but I still drop in my .exrc and .cshrc for vim and tcsh configs as that is what's expected.
The dot-files don't show up in Finder, but I don't expect them to, nor do I even want them to. If I'm poking around in Finder, then I know I don't want any of that stuff, but I'm perfectly capable of opening Terminal (actually, I don't really seem capable of closing it, as I never do) and typing `ls -altrShi` when I want to see things the Unix way.
But back on topic, I actually kind of liked the spacial view vs browser view, especially if I'd intended on moving/copying large numbers of files via drag and drop to get around funny file names.
I'm quite proficient with tcsh and bash and many command-line utlitiies. On a real *nix system, I'm extremely happy. I think I just found there to be a lack of integration that was getting in my way and it was probably due to my perception of what it was supposed to be vs what it actually was.
Let's be honest -- whether Linux or BSD is ready for the desktop, ready for the laptop is something slightly lacking, and I mostly have laptops these days. I couldn't take it anymore with Linux or BSD on my laptop, so I bought Vista. Of course, I can't live without a command line, because that's what I'm used to. I remembered having used Cygwin years ago, back in the Win95 days, and so I tried to give it ago.
No dice -- it doesn't really integrate with the rest of the system very well, I find. Maybe I'm just not doing it right, but whatever. Then I gave up and grabbed SFU off of Microsoft's website. It was OK, but not really stellar. It's more for running batch jobs and giving something to code against than for interactive use, same as Cygwin I guess.
Eventually I got so pissed sick of it all that I just bought a MacBook Pro so that I could have a Unix-ish environment without having to worry about power management or weird wifi issues that I'd had with Fedora, CentOS, Ubuntu, Slackware, ZenWalk, Mint, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and PC-BSD on the Toshiba hardware.
So, I guess my question is -- is Cygwin meant for interactive use, or just to give the POSIX API and build environment so you can see whether or not your code will compile against a Unix machine? Because it seems like they've been putting an awful lot of effort into this for a very long time for it to suck so bad if its meant to be an interactive method of accessing a Windows machine by Unix commands.
It's perhaps not the best solution, as a lot of problems I've faced since I started getting more into networking stuff than software configuration and web server administration have been related to bad cables rather than bad IOS settings, but virtualization can help you create test situations on the cheep. Specifically, GNS3 allows you to create test networks in a virtual environment, then import software images for your Cisco routers, switches, PIX firewalls, Juniper hardware, etc, all run on hypervisor technology.
:) I'm still pretty new to networking myself, and I use it to make little test labs for myself when I need to do more than I can with the two 3600 and the 2600-series routers I got to take home for experimenting with. I actually copied the IOS images off of them via TFTP and then can replicate them as many times as I need to, but I can claim I have whatever interfaces I need, plus it will (thankfully) simulate the ATM switch for me as well.
You can also use QEMU to create virtual network nodes. If you have enough RAM, then this can help at least get the logical issues worked out and the software configurations square. Then you just need to do the real work
I haven't seen it, and I'm not planning on it. You can't just take Dances with Smurfs and call it something else! That's not kewwwwwwwwww'!
Ok, to whomever modded me "troll" --
I don't know what your deal is, but seriously, fuck you. I honestly don't care what this gets modded, because I have plenty of karma to burn, but on what planet was what I said a "troll"?
So, some Brit tabloid prints a story about an American cell carrier (as if it even affects them at all), and everyone jumps on a bandwagon of "z0mg!! t3h 3vil M$ is attacking Google!!" and you're willing to believe that over the word of a customer with the phone in question who actually experienced the event in question?
Go to hell. Really. Just go to hell.
In no way, shape or form was my search choice removed. It took two fucking seconds to remove an icon from my phone and put it out of my way, and then just carry on with business as usual and I'm hardly some sort of phone god doing anything special. Any random person would have likely done the same thing and not had "search choice" "removed" and anyone else here who has had this happen to them should be able to back this up.
Dicks.
I have a BlackBerry Storm through Verizon, and the other day I noticed the Bing icon show up on my screen, which I thought was strange, but seeing as how I'm sort of generally disenchanted with Google these days, I didn't really care. However, if you open up the actual browser app instead of clicking the new icon, then you can still search via Google by default in there without any disruption.
Verizon didn't remove search choice, and they aren't forcing Bing, they just stuck an extra icon on the phone. Delete it and move on. Seriously.
I thought it was awesome at first, because it seemed to just be a demo reel for SGI and Alias|WaveFront. Then I realized that it was a "real" movie, and that it was supposed to be Star Wars... then I realized how bad it was. Apparently so did the rest of the world, and they seem to have taken it out on SGI. Poor SGI... it wasn't their fault!
It doesn't even mention his hunting in his Wikipedia article, which at the very least casts doubt onto his huntsmanship being "noted," as the summary suggests. As far as I can tell, he's hardly a Ted Nugent.
Wireshark is the new name for what started out as Ethereal, not the other way around.
What's life without irony? Just another episode of Law and Order, that's what.
I'm sorry, but this is just sort of childish. The GP is right -- under normal circumstances, it is almost impossible to hit any potential caps, and the people that this will affect aren't keeping up their end of the contractual obligation anyway, so terms can be nullified for them -- ie, they shouldn't be entitled to "unlimited" bandwidth for the same price if they're going to cheat.
Look at it like this -- back in the dialup days, if I were to pay for "unlimited" internet access, that would be with the understanding that I would connect one modem to one phone line and tie up one interface. What if I were to channel bond two or more modems, dial in, combine the bandwidth and in the processes suck up half a modem bank at the ISP? Sure, I'm paying for "unlimited" internet access, but what about the people who are also paying just as much as I am but who cannot take advantage of the service because I'm monopolizing the pipe? I actually got kicked from an ISP in high school for doing something similar, which is why I use this as an example.
I'm not an iPhone user, and I'm not on AT&T either way. I have a BlackBerry Storm on Verizon, and I pay for "unlimited data." I don't use it much, but occasionally I do. Paying for "unlimited" to me means that if I average 100-200M per billing cycle, but occasionally have heavy usage, such as a few days somewhere without my laptop, and end up pulling a gig during a billing period, then I don't get charged overages that I otherwise might have, had I purchased, for example, a 500Mbit per cycle plan thinking that I'm never going to go over it. I'm not tethering my phone to my laptop and using it as a cellular modem to run cvsup of the entire FreeBSD source tree and laughing all the way to the bank.
Just because we're technically capable of doing out-of-band things that 95% of users of the same product (such as iphone or blackberry) aren't even aware that they can do doesn't mean that it's OK to do them then bitch when our special fun time gets cut off. As a system admin at a web hosting company, I've put the smack down on more than enough users who thought that "unlimited bandwidth" meant "I can stream hi-def video at 50Mbit/sec all day every day and to hell with anyone else on that segment of the network" to know that if I were to take the side of "the masses" on this issue, it would by hypocritical. And publicly advertising a mass attempt to bring down the network to prove some sort of point just makes my skin crawl, and I'm not an AT&T employee who's probably thinking of calling out sick on Friday just to not have to deal with the crap if this gets off the ground.
Seriously, just WTF.
You forgot to note that he said "join their clause", rather than "join their cause", thus making himself just as guilty of typo's as the submitter of the article. And at any rate, the 19th was a Friday last year. Close enough for Zune timestamps.
yeah, heinous typo. It should have just been "who's" anyway.
With all the secret provisions of the PATRIOT ACT, whose' really to say?
what happened to my skeeeeewwwww???!?!?!
I think he's only being treated as a martyr to it by people who never got rid of their "Free Kevin" tshirts. While I may envy his committment to BOFHism, he really didn't have a right to do what he did and treating him like some sort of hero is just asinine and, much like Christmas, something I wish would just be overwith already.
I once had an Office Max employee try and sell me an extended warranty on a mouse pad, which wasn't even $10. If my mouse pad somehow managed to malfunction (seriously?), buying a new one would be cheaper than paying for a damned warranty. Recently, I purchased a Nikon D300 and a 13" MacBook Pro, about 2 months apart from each other, at BestBuy. In each case they attempted to sell me the extended warranty, but gave me 14 days within which to think about it. I told them I'd think about it, then just left, but there was no way they were going to bilk me for an extra $2-300 when the purchase was expensive enough. I'm careful with things, and I can afford to replace them if necessary anyway.
Yes, true liberation was in WWII, but that's a foregone conclusion which I hope I wouldn't have to point out. People seem to forget about WWI a lot though. However, given the fact that Germany had lost no territory and fewer men than the allies, i think that our assistance in WWI went slightly beyond mere reinforcements.