I recently noticed the same type of happening when I was shopping for a Verisign SSL cert (clients *sighs* don't get me started on why). When I use Safari or Firefox, the price for a 1-year "Secure Site" SSL cert (with site seal) is $499 - however, when I switch to Chrome or IE8, I get a price of $399. I only had to buy the one, and so wrote it off as a fluke - but I just re-verified that this is still happening for me (tested on both Mac and Windows), given the news on this article.
This smacks me as being seriously wrong - now I have to test all browsers when buying something online, to be sure I'm getting the right price? And no, I'm not going to change my default browser habits, just to get lower pricing...
Creationism is not an "equal" belief - it is a belief that has no concrete evidence behind it.
*shakes head* and so speaks yet another person with a sense of false authority. It's quite apparent that you have never really explored the viewpoints or scientific claims of the creationists, who do indeed have arguments that from a *pure* logical viewpoint have some level of credence. Your assumption is that because they believe in some things which are non-empiracally proveable concepts (such as God), that all of their beliefs or viewpoints/concepts are illogical or non-proveable using modern scientific knowledge, skills or practices - to which I say: grow up.
Of course, why am I suprised at the number of logical fallacies in slashdot comments? Silly me:P
riiight... lets not let facts get in the way here. I mean the earth was OBVIOUSLY created in 7 days! God put dino bones in the ground to fool non-believers!
A classic example of someone who's never really bothered to KNOW what the creationists claim - if you're going to try to argue against the validity of their claims, AT LEAST HAVE ENOUGH BRAINS TO DO SOME RESEARCH before you claim absolute knowledge on a subject. Stop regurgitating something that you once read in high school biology...
Dinosaur bones and other fossil evidences are probably one of the most easily explained phenomena, from the creationist point of view, as various types of fossils, sedimentary layers in the geological record etc (including different viewpoints on the various fossil dating methods) can theoretically be explained by the worldwide flood that the creationists believe in, using empirically collected data...
You don't have to take my word for it - try doing some research on your own (For instance, the AIG 's Q&A page I linked to earlier has a lot of interesting information).
If you're going to try and throw around the weight of your scientific acumen, at least don't bore us with childish and whimsical notions - have the decency back it up with some real information.
And, of course, for those who are interested in yet more alternative views, and more "fascinating information", here are some other nice links, as helpful as the above one:
Yup, I wrote my own (as did a friend of mine) - I didn't want a lot of the extra features that most of these packages include, and I wanted to have the experience of figuring out how to do it myself.
Also, many of these packages want to be your entire site, whereas I wanted mine to be only one part (a sub-section, in fact) of the site.
All in all, it's been amusing writing my own, and I've enjoyed having the freedom of being able to tweak to my hearts content, and knowing that I can claim the fact that I've done it:P
> Or, just ask people to "donate" by maintaining a wishlist of packages schools are looking to run.
Umm - that's the whole purpose of the "Compatibility" area of the CodeWeavers website is for....? Why not just get schools (or related people) who are willing to add such programs to the list, "advocate" the project (provide help and testing), and/or pledge (donate) towards them? If there are enough people (parents??) who are willing to vote or drop in a few dollars, I'm sure that would make a good difference...
This is what everyone was talking about a year ago: Bootable Linux game CD's.
Ugh, that's got to be the worst idea ever. What's one of the biggest things that most people hate about Windows, and that *nix users love to crow about? The fact that you have to REBOOT Windows all the time....
Don't encourage the game manufacturers to come up with some silly mini-OS (linux-based or not) just to play their games - that's a horrendous concept. *ponders* although it definitely would make SOME groups happy, since anyone that wanted to steal/copy their game would probably have to back-engineer their little OS just to get at the game itself...
"Want to play our game? You must reboot your computer to play, and then reboot again when you're done".....
You may get 3Mbps downstream (as do I with my cable setup), but note that cable providers limit the upstream - usually to 384kbps or less. So in that aspect at least, the broadband-over-powerlines is more than double the cable offering.
A better comparison, I would think, would be that this is 2/3rds of a T1, at a FRACTION of the cost!
I'm also wondering if b-over-p suffers from the same amount of network congestion problems as cable (and even DSL) are prone too....
I had someone pass me a copy of a magazine article once that described how much computer support (tech, web, etc) staff actually dislike taking vacation.
Why? because it's one of the few jobs where the work stacks up so much, that 5 minutes after you get back from vacation - regardless of how relaxing or fun it was - you're right back to the same (or greater) level of frustration and work stress that you had before you left....
After having been in the computer tech and internet world (support, as well as development), I can honestly say that I agree with this - especially for tech staff that are in smaller companies or offices where there isn't anyone to really cover your work while you're gone....
I was a tech support person for years, and had the same trouble trying to find a diag. product that was really useful. One thing that I ran across (but never had a chance to test) that may be worth it for you if you do this full time was a product that was a PCI card that would test the various bits of hardware, and report a 2-digit code that would tell what the problem was, and where.
Unfortunately, it was a few years ago, and I couldn't afford it personally (it was like $500 US at the time?), so I don't know how well it really works - but the theory is sound. I think it was something along the lines of this product:
Given how much everyone (rightly) despises the concept of having to pay postage on email - how is this that much different?
Despite the fact money in "escrow" technically belongs to the person who put it there, it is still money that is not within that person's full control. While you might say that it still is, but the company running the escrow business has a say over it (for instance, how fast it can be withdrawn).
And the other huge gaping hole is this - suppose I don't like someone - what's to prevent me from faking an email from them to myself (plenty of ways to do this), and then claiming the money from their escrow?
Hey, I doubt that this will even make it into the moderated post list (I joined the thread too late - so sad!), but I'll add it anyway.
I have a wireless LAN in my apt (just for myself) and I live on the top floor of a 3-floor apt. building. I have a *single* Linksys 802.11b Router/AP, and I get a full strength (100%/11Mb) signal down in the basement (it's nice being able to do work and/or game online wirelessly from the basement *heh*).
That being said, your ability to do this will depend highly on the structural materials of your building, as well as partially on the dimensions (for instance - 4 stories you've said - but how many apts per floor?). Some buildings used a wire mesh to do drywall around which is death to wireless.
I am an AT&T cell subscriber, and have been for quite a few years (they were the only group that had the coverage in all the areas I needed until Verizon finally kicked themselves into gear, and by then I was very attached to my cellphone number). I've been keeping an eye on the number portability for a while now. Not that I am displeased with their general service or coverage (there are small annoying things, but I'm sure all providers have those).
Anyway, I was back home for Thanksgiving, and I wandered into a local AT&T shop looking for some accessories for my (Nokia) phone - and I specifically heard the sales rep say that AT&T would not be able to provide cellphone number portability until next March!! I thought to myself, "Umm, wasn't it federally mandated that you had to have this available by November?". Unfortunately, there's no arguing with a retail store sales rep - they're all convinced they're in charge of all the facts:P
My second note is this (for the people talking about AT&T GSM). I've also been drooling over the phones and extra options available via the GSM plans at AT&T (I would *love* to have a Nokia 6800 with the Java SSH app that would allow me to SSH into the various Linux boxes I help maintain *grins*) - but note that if you go with the AT&T GSM plans (and if you're used to their One Rate "no roaming, no long distance" service), then be aware you have to start worrying about roaming ($0.80+/minute) again if you wander outside of an AT&T GSM covered area...talk about a royal pain *sighs*
Oops, that's what I get for hitting the wrong key sequence. I *meant* to add that it supports almost all (or maybe all, I'm not sure based on your description) of what you are after:
web-based management
multiple queues, with the ability to transfer request "tickets" between the queues
Think about it - if they REALLY did put this law through, unless they have IPv6 *fully* ready to use at the given time (the song "Dream" comes to mind at this point), we'd run out of IP addresses instantly, and there would be hordes of people and companies that would have to shut down...
After all, how many businesses (that have even just email and basic networks set up) do you know of that do *not* use NAT or Proxy servers, specifically b/c they can only afford 4-24 IP addresses from the ISP, and have dozens or thousands of computers behind their connection server(s) [NAT or Proxy] in order to support these? There are even ISP's that do it this way, as I recall....
Not to mention such companies as Microsoft, Dell, and others that have so many users that they have to operate in such a way (eg NAT/firewall/Proxy)....
If the legislators (*cough* idiots *cough*) were to actually put through this law, it would kill any company that had more computers than IP's that needed to be online. It can't happen w/out DRAMATICALLY affecting the entire business structures of the USA, which they're not going to do....
*ponders* come to think of it, I wonder how many government agencies use NAT/firewalls or proxy servers - it would be hysterical to find out that the group of legislators who put this bill into consideration use such technology in their own office, wouldn't it? *hehe*
I use AT&T's Digital OneRate plan, and have been very satisfied with it. It provides the greatest coverage of any of the providers, and even though they have a stifling contract with Motorola (which prevents use of some of the nicer new phones), with the right phone you can make and receive calls from almost anywhere....
If you're going to be traveling into non-digital areas more than a few times a year (ie - business trips that include long drives, or trips to non-metropolitan areas), then the AT&T package is the only one that will really fill your needs. None of the other service providers (Sprint, Nextel, AllTel, etc) cover enough of BOTH analog and digital areas across the continental US, which is crucial if you're going to be out of a digital calling area. AT&T covers something like 95+% of the continental US, and you can use either analog or digital - whichever has the strongest signal!.....
The AT&T plans are generally more expensive, and the new AT&T phones are slow to come out, but overall, it's the only way to go if you're really going to do that much traveling....
*IF* you're going to be traveling to major metropolitan areas _only_, then a Sprint or Nextel phone and plan may be more appropriate....
It's not the fact of censorship, it's what people have seemed to miss about COPPA! The fact of the matter is, and most people seem to have missed this - is that COPPA is NOT just about protecting children from online porn! This legislation (if it survives) affects how ANY site that has content for children will be able to gather/use information. For instance, most people have at one point or another in their childhood life wanted to get that super-cool toy that was advertised on the back of a cereal box - suppose that one of these cereal companies decided to do an online promotional, giving away free toys to kids who came there? They'd obviously have to get basic contact info (name, address) - which, under the COPPA rules, has to be preceeded by the getting of VERIFIABLE parental consent.
How ridiculous is that? considering that today most kids are more computer literate than their parents, how is one supposed to do this? The FTC actually suggests that organizations ask for credit card #'s, as a way of proving that the parents are who they say are. Puh-lease! Like a parent is going to give up a credit card #, so that they're kid can get a free toy, or sign up for a humor/joke mailing list, etc...
While I believe that a parent should have some right to control what their kids get into, this is way over the top, IMO. Tweakr.
Do you really think that places such as China and Iraq FOLLOW those conventions, when it's not convenient for them? Just because all of these countries have signed on with this means nothing really. I mean, technically, China is a country that supports freedom of religion (yeah, right)....but I dare you to try living over there, as a Christian, per se.... The fact of the matter is, and most people seem to have missed this - is that COPPA is NOT just about protecting children from online porn! This legislation (if it survives) affects how ANY site that has content for children will be able to gather/use information. For instance, most people have at one point or another in their childhood life wanted to get that super-cool toy that was advertised on the back of a cereal box - suppose that one of these cereal companies decided to do an online promotional, giving away free toys to kids who came there? They'd obviously have to get basic contact info (name, address) - which, under the COPPA rules, has to be preceeded by the getting of VERIFIABLE parental consent. How ridiculous is that? considering that today most kids are more computer literate than their parents, how is one supposed to do this? The FTC actually suggests that organizations ask for credit card #'s, as a way of proving that the parents are who they say are. Puh-lease! Like a parent is going to give up a credit card #, so that they're kid can get a free toy, or sign up for a humor/joke mailing list, etc... While I believe that a parent should have some right to control what their kids get into, this is way over the top, IMO.
Twykr. -A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
Actually, it only costs more if you go with a local plan. As to Motorola signal receiving, and dual-mode phones, the newer ones actually choose the strongest signal strength, regardless of whether it's analog or digital, providing the person with the clearest call support for that particular area. And while analog signals do use up more battery life, isn't that an argument to get a phone that supports digital signals, and EXTEND your battery life?
My key consideration in picking my cellphone, after having used several brand of cellphones (Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola), was the ability of the phone to pick up a usuable signal in different areas. Of all the phones I've tried, the BEST one at doing this was the Motorola StarTac Digital (model 7797 - AT&T's version). While the Nokia 6100 series (with extra life vibrating battery) does have the longest battery life of all the dual mode phones I've used, the signal pickup isn't as good as the StarTac Digital.
I researched cellphones for a year and a half before I bought my first one (Nokia 6160), and it was great for what I wanted to do then.... The main question you have to ask yourself is how you're going to use the phone - are you going to want to use it outside your area/for calling outside your area? Different providers use different phones - not all have the phone you may want. And depending on what kind of coverage you want (local vs. larger area), you'll need to pick a certain kind of provider (local vs. large area).
IMHO (assuming you live in the US), if Sprint covers the areas you want covered, then I'd do their $50/500 minutes package, and just be happy with that. You can go most places in the US, and use the phone w/out roaming charges, as well as call long distance on it. I chose AT&T because they're the only large-area provider that covers my hometown digitally (in NY), and they have the largest coverage (analog + digital) of all the providers.
Twykr -The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese!
So picture this situation (and if they make db's copyrightable, it'll happen) - Some company goes out and makes a db of all the poisons in the world, as well as the known antitdotes and treatments (tada - Poisindex!) - it's a great idea, and they've done a lot of work to get all that information together. So now they copyright the information to protect their work. Understandable, to a degree...
Now along comes another company (or even a college) who decides that it's a great idea to have such a thing. So they do all the same research, and come up with the same information...
Then along comes Micromedex (the group that made Poisindex), and they sue the second group, claiming infringement/copyright violation.
If you allow the data in these databases to be copyrighted, then you're basically giving the owners of the database complete control of that data - and if you want that information, it doesn't matter how you get it, 'cause you're going to end up paying them (or getting sued by them) for it. After all, once they own the rights to the data in their database, who's to say EXACTLY how the next group that wants to use the data, or some portion of it, got it?
Nato. -it's a nickname, not a statement of support for the organization - get over it.
c'mon people! think!! I think everyone is missing a few large points here (and interestingly enough, I think it's a fair indication first of all that creation is true - which if it is, leads one towards the existence of God, which leads one to the presence of the human soul, which leads one to consider the condition of the human soul before God (but that's a different discussion)...[no, I'm not RC])
This guy has done something new and impressive, yes - BUT he hasn't really "created" anything...
"A BLUEPRINT for the creation of life is about to be unveiled by scientists."
Creation of life? Chalk up another one to the media for over-hyping something, or else to this guy for blowing his breakthrough a little out of proportion. Look at what he's really managed to do: He's supposedly "worked out the process to 'create' a synthetic bacterium". THAT'S IT! (the word create is used a little out of context)
Has he come up with a new DNA base pair? Has he built a lifeform without the use of DNA strands? Has he created some new type of lifeform that man has never seen before? Nope - all he's managed to do is figure out how the DNA of a bacterium is put together, and then managed to make a man-made COPY!
Oh sure, in the future he might be able to modify the DNA slightly, and perhaps make a bacteria that always moves to the left, or some such thing - but he's still working with an organism that is easily recognized as a bacterium.
This is analogous to impregnating a woman's ovum by going to a sperm bank. Have they managed to create a new human without a man? no - all they've managed to do is remove sex from the issue.
Suppose they "clone" a human ovum and sperm, and then put the two together, and come up with a viable embryo - even then, they haven't managed to create anything, 'cause all they'll have done is made a copy of something that already exists!
Impressive, perhaps, but definitely a world apart from actual creation......the main problem with this whole thing is that they've used the word "create[creation]" in a very poor context, and it's lead everyone to understand the wrong thing....interesting how many people believe that belief in God is anti-intelligence, anti-scientific, anti-progress....goes to show how little they actually know about what the world has labeled "religion" - interesting how big of a fit people throw when the articles call all "hackers" bad people, complaining about being stereotyped, but then turn around and say that all those who believe in God are idiots, or lamebrains or some such - people like Bishop John Jukes don't help much, true, but since when is he representative of even.001% of the population that believes in God?
"The realization I had was that each of our cells can do that better than the best supercomputers can," -Venter [hrm, evolution did this? I think not] (http://www.sciam.com/1998/0898 issue/0898profile.html - this is a better article on this guy and his work)
Nato. -it's a nickname, not a statement of support for the organization - get over it.
Slashdot Mirror
I recently noticed the same type of happening when I was shopping for a Verisign SSL cert (clients *sighs* don't get me started on why). When I use Safari or Firefox, the price for a 1-year "Secure Site" SSL cert (with site seal) is $499 - however, when I switch to Chrome or IE8, I get a price of $399. I only had to buy the one, and so wrote it off as a fluke - but I just re-verified that this is still happening for me (tested on both Mac and Windows), given the news on this article.
This smacks me as being seriously wrong - now I have to test all browsers when buying something online, to be sure I'm getting the right price? And no, I'm not going to change my default browser habits, just to get lower pricing...
*shakes head* and so speaks yet another person with a sense of false authority. It's quite apparent that you have never really explored the viewpoints or scientific claims of the creationists, who do indeed have arguments that from a *pure* logical viewpoint have some level of credence. Your assumption is that because they believe in some things which are non-empiracally proveable concepts (such as God), that all of their beliefs or viewpoints/concepts are illogical or non-proveable using modern scientific knowledge, skills or practices - to which I say: grow up.
Of course, why am I suprised at the number of logical fallacies in slashdot comments? Silly me :P
riiight... lets not let facts get in the way here. I mean the earth was OBVIOUSLY created in 7 days! God put dino bones in the ground to fool non-believers!
A classic example of someone who's never really bothered to KNOW what the creationists claim - if you're going to try to argue against the validity of their claims, AT LEAST HAVE ENOUGH BRAINS TO DO SOME RESEARCH before you claim absolute knowledge on a subject. Stop regurgitating something that you once read in high school biology...
Dinosaur bones and other fossil evidences are probably one of the most easily explained phenomena, from the creationist point of view, as various types of fossils, sedimentary layers in the geological record etc (including different viewpoints on the various fossil dating methods) can theoretically be explained by the worldwide flood that the creationists believe in, using empirically collected data...
You don't have to take my word for it - try doing some research on your own (For instance, the AIG 's Q&A page I linked to earlier has a lot of interesting information).
If you're going to try and throw around the weight of your scientific acumen, at least don't bore us with childish and whimsical notions - have the decency back it up with some real information.
And, of course, for those who are interested in yet more alternative views, and more "fascinating information", here are some other nice links, as helpful as the above one:
*grins* now we're getting somewhere :)
Yup, I wrote my own (as did a friend of mine) - I didn't want a lot of the extra features that most of these packages include, and I wanted to have the experience of figuring out how to do it myself.
Also, many of these packages want to be your entire site, whereas I wanted mine to be only one part (a sub-section, in fact) of the site.
All in all, it's been amusing writing my own, and I've enjoyed having the freedom of being able to tweak to my hearts content, and knowing that I can claim the fact that I've done it :P
Umm - that's the whole purpose of the "Compatibility" area of the CodeWeavers website is for....? Why not just get schools (or related people) who are willing to add such programs to the list, "advocate" the project (provide help and testing), and/or pledge (donate) towards them? If there are enough people (parents??) who are willing to vote or drop in a few dollars, I'm sure that would make a good difference...
This is what everyone was talking about a year ago: Bootable Linux game CD's.
Ugh, that's got to be the worst idea ever. What's one of the biggest things that most people hate about Windows, and that *nix users love to crow about? The fact that you have to REBOOT Windows all the time....
Don't encourage the game manufacturers to come up with some silly mini-OS (linux-based or not) just to play their games - that's a horrendous concept. *ponders* although it definitely would make SOME groups happy, since anyone that wanted to steal/copy their game would probably have to back-engineer their little OS just to get at the game itself...
You may get 3Mbps downstream (as do I with my cable setup), but note that cable providers limit the upstream - usually to 384kbps or less. So in that aspect at least, the broadband-over-powerlines is more than double the cable offering.
A better comparison, I would think, would be that this is 2/3rds of a T1, at a FRACTION of the cost!
I'm also wondering if b-over-p suffers from the same amount of network congestion problems as cable (and even DSL) are prone too....
I had someone pass me a copy of a magazine article once that described how much computer support (tech, web, etc) staff actually dislike taking vacation.
Why? because it's one of the few jobs where the work stacks up so much, that 5 minutes after you get back from vacation - regardless of how relaxing or fun it was - you're right back to the same (or greater) level of frustration and work stress that you had before you left....
After having been in the computer tech and internet world (support, as well as development), I can honestly say that I agree with this - especially for tech staff that are in smaller companies or offices where there isn't anyone to really cover your work while you're gone....
I was a tech support person for years, and had the same trouble trying to find a diag. product that was really useful. One thing that I ran across (but never had a chance to test) that may be worth it for you if you do this full time was a product that was a PCI card that would test the various bits of hardware, and report a 2-digit code that would tell what the problem was, and where.
Unfortunately, it was a few years ago, and I couldn't afford it personally (it was like $500 US at the time?), so I don't know how well it really works - but the theory is sound. I think it was something along the lines of this product:
Given how much everyone (rightly) despises the concept of having to pay postage on email - how is this that much different?
Despite the fact money in "escrow" technically belongs to the person who put it there, it is still money that is not within that person's full control. While you might say that it still is, but the company running the escrow business has a say over it (for instance, how fast it can be withdrawn).
And the other huge gaping hole is this - suppose I don't like someone - what's to prevent me from faking an email from them to myself (plenty of ways to do this), and then claiming the money from their escrow?
May it never, ever come to be....
Hey, I doubt that this will even make it into the moderated post list (I joined the thread too late - so sad!), but I'll add it anyway.
I have a wireless LAN in my apt (just for myself) and I live on the top floor of a 3-floor apt. building. I have a *single* Linksys 802.11b Router/AP, and I get a full strength (100%/11Mb) signal down in the basement (it's nice being able to do work and/or game online wirelessly from the basement *heh*).
That being said, your ability to do this will depend highly on the structural materials of your building, as well as partially on the dimensions (for instance - 4 stories you've said - but how many apts per floor?). Some buildings used a wire mesh to do drywall around which is death to wireless.
Cheerios!
I am an AT&T cell subscriber, and have been for quite a few years (they were the only group that had the coverage in all the areas I needed until Verizon finally kicked themselves into gear, and by then I was very attached to my cellphone number). I've been keeping an eye on the number portability for a while now. Not that I am displeased with their general service or coverage (there are small annoying things, but I'm sure all providers have those).
Anyway, I was back home for Thanksgiving, and I wandered into a local AT&T shop looking for some accessories for my (Nokia) phone - and I specifically heard the sales rep say that AT&T would not be able to provide cellphone number portability until next March!! I thought to myself, "Umm, wasn't it federally mandated that you had to have this available by November?". Unfortunately, there's no arguing with a retail store sales rep - they're all convinced they're in charge of all the facts :P
My second note is this (for the people talking about AT&T GSM). I've also been drooling over the phones and extra options available via the GSM plans at AT&T (I would *love* to have a Nokia 6800 with the Java SSH app that would allow me to SSH into the various Linux boxes I help maintain *grins*) - but note that if you go with the AT&T GSM plans (and if you're used to their One Rate "no roaming, no long distance" service), then be aware you have to start worrying about roaming ($0.80+/minute) again if you wander outside of an AT&T GSM covered area...talk about a royal pain *sighs*
etc.....
Sorry for the two-part post
Cheerios!
Think about it - if they REALLY did put this law through, unless they have IPv6 *fully* ready to use at the given time (the song "Dream" comes to mind at this point), we'd run out of IP addresses instantly, and there would be hordes of people and companies that would have to shut down...
After all, how many businesses (that have even just email and basic networks set up) do you know of that do *not* use NAT or Proxy servers, specifically b/c they can only afford 4-24 IP addresses from the ISP, and have dozens or thousands of computers behind their connection server(s) [NAT or Proxy] in order to support these? There are even ISP's that do it this way, as I recall....
Not to mention such companies as Microsoft, Dell, and others that have so many users that they have to operate in such a way (eg NAT/firewall/Proxy)....
If the legislators (*cough* idiots *cough*) were to actually put through this law, it would kill any company that had more computers than IP's that needed to be online. It can't happen w/out DRAMATICALLY affecting the entire business structures of the USA, which they're not going to do....
*ponders* come to think of it, I wonder how many government agencies use NAT/firewalls or proxy servers - it would be hysterical to find out that the group of legislators who put this bill into consideration use such technology in their own office, wouldn't it? *hehe*
Why? Check out this rather interesting article:
6 13,00.html
:)
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,57
Just posted today no less! Interesting timing
I use AT&T's Digital OneRate plan, and have been very satisfied with it. It provides the greatest coverage of any of the providers, and even though they have a stifling contract with Motorola (which prevents use of some of the nicer new phones), with the right phone you can make and receive calls from almost anywhere....
If you're going to be traveling into non-digital areas more than a few times a year (ie - business trips that include long drives, or trips to non-metropolitan areas), then the AT&T package is the only one that will really fill your needs. None of the other service providers (Sprint, Nextel, AllTel, etc) cover enough of BOTH analog and digital areas across the continental US, which is crucial if you're going to be out of a digital calling area. AT&T covers something like 95+% of the continental US, and you can use either analog or digital - whichever has the strongest signal!.....
The AT&T plans are generally more expensive, and the new AT&T phones are slow to come out, but overall, it's the only way to go if you're really going to do that much traveling....
*IF* you're going to be traveling to major metropolitan areas _only_, then a Sprint or Nextel phone and plan may be more appropriate....
Nathan.
It's not the fact of censorship, it's what people have seemed to miss about COPPA!
The fact of the matter is, and most people seem to have missed this - is that COPPA is NOT just about protecting children from online porn! This legislation (if it survives) affects how ANY site that has content for children will be able to gather/use information. For instance, most people have at one point or another in their childhood life wanted to get that super-cool toy that was advertised on the back of a cereal box - suppose that one of these cereal companies decided to do an online promotional, giving away free toys to kids who came there? They'd obviously have to get basic contact info (name, address) - which, under the COPPA rules, has to be preceeded by the getting of VERIFIABLE parental consent.
How ridiculous is that? considering that today most kids are more computer literate than their parents, how is one supposed to do this? The FTC actually suggests that organizations ask for credit card #'s, as a way of proving that the parents are who they say are. Puh-lease! Like a parent is going to give up a credit card #, so that they're kid can get a free toy, or sign up for a humor/joke mailing list, etc...
While I believe that a parent should have some right to control what their kids get into, this is way over the top, IMO.
Tweakr.
Do you really think that places such as China and Iraq FOLLOW those conventions, when it's not convenient for them?
Just because all of these countries have signed on with this means nothing really. I mean, technically, China is a country that supports freedom of religion (yeah, right)....but I dare you to try living over there, as a Christian, per se....
The fact of the matter is, and most people seem to have missed this - is that COPPA is NOT just about protecting children from online porn! This legislation (if it survives) affects how ANY site that has content for children will be able to gather/use information. For instance, most people have at one point or another in their childhood life wanted to get that super-cool toy that was advertised on the back of a cereal box - suppose that one of these cereal companies decided to do an online promotional, giving away free toys to kids who came there? They'd obviously have to get basic contact info (name, address) - which, under the COPPA rules, has to be preceeded by the getting of VERIFIABLE parental consent.
How ridiculous is that? considering that today most kids are more computer literate than their parents, how is one supposed to do this? The FTC actually suggests that organizations ask for credit card #'s, as a way of proving that the parents are who they say are. Puh-lease! Like a parent is going to give up a credit card #, so that they're kid can get a free toy, or sign up for a humor/joke mailing list, etc...
While I believe that a parent should have some right to control what their kids get into, this is way over the top, IMO.
Twykr. -A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
FYI, here are the general RAID levels:
Raid 0 - disk mirroring
Raid 1 - disk striping/no parity
Raid 4 - hair striping?...no wait, wrong list *hehe*
Raid 5 - disk striping with parity
Do you ever feel like you're diagonally parked in a parallel universe?
Actually, it only costs more if you go with a local plan. As to Motorola signal receiving, and dual-mode phones, the newer ones actually choose the strongest signal strength, regardless of whether it's analog or digital, providing the person with the clearest call support for that particular area. And while analog signals do use up more battery life, isn't that an argument to get a phone that supports digital signals, and EXTEND your battery life?
My key consideration in picking my cellphone, after having used several brand of cellphones (Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola), was the ability of the phone to pick up a usuable signal in different areas. Of all the phones I've tried, the BEST one at doing this was the Motorola StarTac Digital (model 7797 - AT&T's version). While the Nokia 6100 series (with extra life vibrating battery) does have the longest battery life of all the dual mode phones I've used, the signal pickup isn't as good as the StarTac Digital.
I researched cellphones for a year and a half before I bought my first one (Nokia 6160), and it was great for what I wanted to do then.... The main question you have to ask yourself is how you're going to use the phone - are you going to want to use it outside your area/for calling outside your area? Different providers use different phones - not all have the phone you may want. And depending on what kind of coverage you want (local vs. larger area), you'll need to pick a certain kind of provider (local vs. large area).
IMHO (assuming you live in the US), if Sprint covers the areas you want covered, then I'd do their $50/500 minutes package, and just be happy with that. You can go most places in the US, and use the phone w/out roaming charges, as well as call long distance on it. I chose AT&T because they're the only large-area provider that covers my hometown digitally (in NY), and they have the largest coverage (analog + digital) of all the providers.
Twykr -The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese!
So picture this situation (and if they make db's copyrightable, it'll happen) - Some company goes out and makes a db of all the poisons in the world, as well as the known antitdotes and treatments (tada - Poisindex!) - it's a great idea, and they've done a lot of work to get all that information together. So now they copyright the information to protect their work. Understandable, to a degree...
Now along comes another company (or even a college) who decides that it's a great idea to have such a thing. So they do all the same research, and come up with the same information...
Then along comes Micromedex (the group that made Poisindex), and they sue the second group, claiming infringement/copyright violation.
If you allow the data in these databases to be copyrighted, then you're basically giving the owners of the database complete control of that data - and if you want that information, it doesn't matter how you get it, 'cause you're going to end up paying them (or getting sued by them) for it. After all, once they own the rights to the data in their database, who's to say EXACTLY how the next group that wants to use the data, or some portion of it, got it?
Nato.
-it's a nickname, not a statement of support for the organization - get over it.
c'mon people! think!! I think everyone is missing a few large points here (and interestingly enough, I think it's a fair indication first of all that creation is true - which if it is, leads one towards the existence of God, which leads one to the presence of the human soul, which leads one to consider the condition of the human soul before God (but that's a different discussion)...[no, I'm not RC])
.001% of the population that believes in God?
This guy has done something new and impressive, yes - BUT he hasn't really "created" anything...
"A BLUEPRINT for the creation of life is about to be unveiled by scientists."
Creation of life? Chalk up another one to the media for over-hyping something, or else to this guy for blowing his breakthrough a little out of proportion. Look at what he's really managed to do: He's supposedly "worked out the process to 'create' a synthetic bacterium". THAT'S IT! (the word create is used a little out of context)
Has he come up with a new DNA base pair? Has he built a lifeform without the use of DNA strands? Has he created some new type of lifeform that man has never seen before? Nope - all he's managed to do is figure out how the DNA of a bacterium is put together, and then managed to make a man-made COPY!
Oh sure, in the future he might be able to modify the DNA slightly, and perhaps make a bacteria that always moves to the left, or some such thing - but he's still working with an organism that is easily recognized as a bacterium.
This is analogous to impregnating a woman's ovum by going to a sperm bank. Have they managed to create a new human without a man? no - all they've managed to do is remove sex from the issue.
Suppose they "clone" a human ovum and sperm, and then put the two together, and come up with a viable embryo - even then, they haven't managed to create anything, 'cause all they'll have done is made a copy of something that already exists!
Impressive, perhaps, but definitely a world apart from actual creation......the main problem with this whole thing is that they've used the word "create[creation]" in a very poor context, and it's lead everyone to understand the wrong thing....interesting how many people believe that belief in God is anti-intelligence, anti-scientific, anti-progress....goes to show how little they actually know about what the world has labeled "religion" - interesting how big of a fit people throw when the articles call all "hackers" bad people, complaining about being stereotyped, but then turn around and say that all those who believe in God are idiots, or lamebrains or some such - people like Bishop John Jukes don't help much, true, but since when is he representative of even
"The realization I had was that each of our cells can do that better than the best supercomputers can," -Venter [hrm, evolution did this? I think not] (http://www.sciam.com/1998/0898 issue/0898profile.html - this is a better article on this guy and his work)
Nato.
-it's a nickname, not a statement of support for the organization - get over it.