However the flying cars are coming along nicely, thanks. You should be able to buy one in about 4 years. That is if you aren't connected to the military or something so you don't have to worry about FAA paperwork - in that case possibly only a few months.
I installed that Centurion on nearly a hundred machines in a past job. It's not nearly as good as you're making it out to be. It's pathetically easy to defeat.
Re:i'm so confused Crack Smoking confusing you?
on
AOL Wins Anti-Spam Case
·
· Score: 5, Informative
You ever try to cancel an account with them? Good three monhts before you get any results. Plus the asshole who gets rude on the phone with when you try to cancel
Yes, in 1994 when I actually used the service.
It was cancelled immediately.
Why is it that whenever a person speaks to a rude customer service representative, that they assume the entire company is a collection of assholes? Perhaps it was just my limited experience in tech support, but believe it or not, it is possible that out of hundreds or thousands of good representatives, there are a few bad ones.
While it's true that a single asshole rep shouldn't be taken as a smear on the entire company, they do have a big problem here, not just one rep. It's a structural thing. They have taken it upon themselves to make cancelling very difficult, on the apparently accurate assumption that their subscribers are rather easy to manipulate. They have a cancellation department, and those people are the only ones that can cancel your account. If you ask someone in another department, they can't transfer you, they can't even give you the number normally (unless you tell them you can't get online at all) rather they are to send you to 'keyword cancel'. There you find the number to call. There are one or two other choices, I think you can snail mail them (certified mail!), and maybe send a fax. Most people will call on the tollfree number, and it's set up to encourage that. When you call the tollfree number, you wait on hold for a fairly long period of time normally. If you hold on long enough, you eventually get a 'cancellation representative.' Now these guys are trained and expected, not to cancel your account as asked, but to find some way, any way, to talk you out of cancelling! In fact, their job performance is rated by the percentage of calls they 'save' from cancellation, and if that percentage dips below the goal, they are out looking for a job again. This can be turned to your advantage if you really didn't want to cancel, as they can and will give you free service for a month or sometimes more in order to get you off the phone without cancelling, but it's annoying as all hell if you really don't want the service. And given the pressure these kids are under to 'save' you whether you want to be saved or not, and the training they receive (adapted from the training developed for hard sell telemarketing) it's not surprising at all when one gets rude. She may, in fact, be fired for cancelling your account, so why wouldn't she be stressed out?
Your experience is somewhat dated btw, AOL in 1994 was a very different company. I don't know exactly when the system I described was put in place, but I know it's been this way since '99, and almost certainly a bit earlier, but probably not in '94 - there was a huge cultural shift at AOL after the huge expansions of the mid to late 90s.
There should probably be something in the contract to require the code be treated appropriately in light of it's status as a 'trade secret' - i.e. basically a non-disclosure agreement, a requirement that anyone that works with the code sign one individually as well, specific provisions for how a breach would be punished...
Gack, no Sorenson for linux, I forgot that (I'm on a Mac currently.) That's annoying. I wonder if Apple would sick their lawyers on someone for converting them to.mpegs and making them available that way. Technically a copyright violation, but it would be one that helps, rather than hurts, the copyright holder...
Go here to see her ad and you can make your own decisions. Warning - if you have a soft place in your heart for cute goofy stoner chicks you just might become obsessed.:)
Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't need to fix it, it's not a problem, and I wasn't complaining. I don't care how much spam hits that account because I never use it, for anything, I never even log into it. Nothing sent to it is of any importance to me whatsoever. It's just a datapoint regarding how much spam a hotmail account receives by default.
But my username at hotmail is not a common first or last name, it does contain a word from the dictionary, barely, but it's also got numbers added. So I think they are doing more than running a list of common names, they have to be doing at least a dictionary attack with numerical additions. And I wouldn't be surprised a bit if MS cooperates with the larger ones, and/or spams me themselves despite what the checkmarks on registration say.
I've got two @msn.com accounts, and one @hotmail.com account. At most, I'll get two to three spam mails a week. I get more then that on my isp account (@attbi.com).
I don't believe you.
I'll tell you why. First, my mom has an MSN account, and it's overloaded with spam daily. Now granted, that may be her own damn fault, she could have given it out in ways she shouldn't, etc. But, I also have a hotmail account. I made it a few months ago solely to have a login to the MSN chat thingy because one particular client wanted to contact me that way. I was very careful to make sure that I read every page during sign up, and un-checked all the appropriate boxes - I opted in to NOTHING. I NEVER gave it to ANYONE, I never posted it anywhere, I never even logged into it, I only know about the email that hits it because the chat program tells you how many new mails you have when you sign in. I haven't used that either in awhile, but two weeks after creating the account, it had over 380 new messages.
If you want to get a lot of spam to test your filters with, just check the archives of NANAS on Usenet. What precisely this new thing does that a spider of that archive couldn't give you I don't know.
And it might make sense to use more than that, say you have three workstations in the house, if you have four nics on the router, you don't need a hub. No?
I don't really know, I've been sheltered so far, always used Cisco routers at home and work... but at the moment I'm in a different position and looking into the possibility of setting up a router-on-floppy type solution myself, so if you know any good resources let me know. The ISP here is a bit strange for me, I moved recently from the US to Europe and their systems seem a little different, plus I had to get rid of most of my hardware in the move...
Yeah, fun is the right word. Sorry, little cross language confusion precipitated by tiredness last night. In swedish it's 'kul'. I find myself mixing swedish and english in speech, but I think this is the first time I've done it accidentally in writing.
I did read the article, and it's essentially as you said. The effects will be to hunger and cool. The hunger part I can see, I eat McDonalds food sometimes myself, but cool? Please, that's just silly.
Anyway, I think what people are upset about, at least the ones that wrote the article, is more the notion this will be a slippery slope, that if EA doesn't experience a huge backlash 'product placement' will become the fixture in the gaming world it already is in Hollywood. That would suck enourmously.
Actually, a very good argument can be made that the Israeli government is a sort of suicide bomber. It does consistently take actions that increase the chances of its own people dying, for political reasons.
It's probably the bad choice of targets of these suicide bombers, that you want to point out as one of the reasons for supporting Israel. Well, both sides are guilty there: when Israel sends its helicopters against a town that supposedly harbors terrorists, and fires missiles into their homes, innocent civilians die. These aren't precision military bombings as some would suggest. The town is chosen for harboring terrorists but the people wounded and killed in these raids are not picked off carefully. In my opinion that is just as bad as a suicide bombing.
It is. And I think most americans misunderstand the situation so far as what palestinians target as well. Because Israel is a state that practices compulsory military service, when they target busses or nightclubs they are targetting military targets in a sense; the busses are primarily transportation for military personnel, and of course the nightclub patrons are in large majority military personnel, because they are of the age where that is compulsory. The argument is a double edged sword - the palestinians inflict civilian casualties - but the Israeli government uses those civilians as human shields, making it nearly impossible to attack military targets without inflicting civilian casualties. Both the US and Israel routinely inflict casualties on civilians and excuse it as 'collateral damage' - whatever validity that argument has (I am extremely skeptical of it) it has for the palestinians just as much as for others.
Disagreeing with the Israeli government is not anti-semitism, although there are all too many who will cheapen that word by slurring with it as if that were so. The Israeli government, and its overzealous defenders, in fact, are manufacturing anti-semitism with such misuse.
As a footnote to those readers who now think I'm anti-semitic, note that both of my links are to articles written by Jews whose forthright dedication to truth and justice I hold up as shining examples to be emulated by all people. The Jewish people are not identical to the Israeli government, either individually or collectively, and it's quite possible to criticise one without any prejudice towards the other. Take a minute, read the links, and think instead of reacting for once, please.
Put yourself in his place. You register your name.com and put your business on it and, later on, a certain Japanese car company starts using their own name (which they hadn't been doing, in the US, rather using a pseudonym) and suddenly you start getting massive hits from people looking for cars, and you run a computer business?
I'd probably put up some links to car-sellers too, and if I could get paid for it all the better.
1.Since about 1990,the ROC constitution no longer claims the mainland.
Sources? I think you're referring to the amendments of '91, but if so, I think you're way off, I don't remember them disclaiming the mainland and I know, in fact, they specifically added provisions for representation of mainland residents in the ROC.
2.The PRC has never recognized the legitamacy of the ROC on Taiwan. Even the Chinese newspapers, when discussing Tawain's leaders, place their titles in quotes. i.e. "President" Chen
In principle they have, that's what one china two systems means. In practice they're less than happy with that, of course, not the least because ROC officials are so obviously working to Helsinkify Taiwan and return it to it's state as a vassal of Japan instead. And A-bians title in quotes is hardly limited to the mainland - you must admit, the circumstances of his election are suspicious, to say the least.
3.The comparision with Florida being ruled by another government is pretty bad too. A better comparision would be if the Confederate leaders fled to Cuba after the Civil War and claimed it was part of the USA (or CSA), since Taiwan was ruled by the Japanese until the end of WWII
Two points, first that's not a very good analogy at all, I was consciously avoiding it, because the Confederacy never claimed any authority over the rest of the US , and second because Cuba was never part of the US. Taiwan was ruled by Japan through the end of WWII, yes, but then again, for most of that time so was Manchuria, ("Manchuguo" ring a bell?) what's your point? Taiwan has been part of China for centuries, and a few years of occupation doesn't exactly change that.
4. 400 ballistic missles in the Fujian province pointed at Taiwan is not belligerent? The "incident" in 1996 when China launched the missles over Taiwan during their presidential election wasn't belligerent?
If they were belligerent they would have hit something with them. Or hit someone, somewhere, outside of China maybe? Let's see, there was the dustup with India, and they intervened at the very last minute to prevent North Korea from becoming a US stronghold, but other than that I can't think of any instances of belligerence from the PRC. They tend to stick to terrorising people inside China, which is bad, and I'm not condoning it, but belligerence implies terrorising people distant from your own borders, and I just don't see that in the PRC.
Actually they are the same country, but different governments. Both constitutions insist on this. And while the PRC is certainly both brutal and totalitarian, belligerent really doesn't fit. They've been involved in far fewer wars than any other country of their side recently, certainly far fewer than the US, and showed precious little interest in changing that. They even cooperate fairly well with the ROC, and sort-of recognise their legitimacy, under the doctrine of one nation two systems. More than I can imagine the US doing under similar circumstanced (imagine a dissident government in control of Florida and claiming sovereignty over the entire US today.)
Just aboun the price... I have flat rate from Vodafon in Hungary for 3200 HUF per month! Thats ~15 USD (1 USD = 240 HUF =)
Wow, that would rock. Vodafon is one of the biggies here too, I'm on Comviq instead at the moment but I should check if they offer that here, I'll switch it a heartbeat for reasonable unlimited GPRS... 3200 forint is 122 kronor... damn that would rock. Thanks for the tip.
Aww, that wasn't much of a shitstorm, you should have seen some of the exchanges between my two archaeology professors... that was very polite, excepting Trinkaus' reply went a little overboard, but he realised it and yanked it.
Cro Magnon does have a useful meaning, which is why it's used, you can parse it as HSS with archaic characteristics, it's just not thought that those characteristics approach being so significant as to justify a separate subspecies category.
Terminology in Anthropology is rather conservative to change, witness that my professor who was very much of the opposing camp to Trinkaus still said Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, not Homo Neanderthalis. Why? Well, he was 90% sure they were really a species not a subspecies, but on purely morphological grounds they look like a subspecies, and that has priority, at least until he's 99% sure instead of just 90%, in matters of taxonomy...
The data from Israel, IIRC, is pretty conclusively against the possibility. I remember Binford saying that you have HSS and HSN living in close proximity there for about 90k years with no genetic convergence - a very strong argument for biological incompatibility, over that period of time if it was physically possible for them to interbreed, knowing what we do about human and primate behaviour in general, one would expect to see some serious convergence.
Of course Trinkaus has always claimed the opposite, and periodically come up with evidence he claims supports it, but it was my impression that the only people that find his evidence convincing tend to be the ones who were already convinced.
That said, I'm not current on the debate and there may have been some important developments I'm not aware of. Certainly I think the reasonable expectation is that either Neanderthal and Modern humans were biologically incompatible or they interbred considerably.
Oh, as to your PS I think it's been pretty well settled for decades that Cro Magnon is Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, solotrek was pretty crappy.
However the flying cars are coming along nicely, thanks. You should be able to buy one in about 4 years. That is if you aren't connected to the military or something so you don't have to worry about FAA paperwork - in that case possibly only a few months.
I installed that Centurion on nearly a hundred machines in a past job. It's not nearly as good as you're making it out to be. It's pathetically easy to defeat.
While it's true that a single asshole rep shouldn't be taken as a smear on the entire company, they do have a big problem here, not just one rep. It's a structural thing. They have taken it upon themselves to make cancelling very difficult, on the apparently accurate assumption that their subscribers are rather easy to manipulate. They have a cancellation department, and those people are the only ones that can cancel your account. If you ask someone in another department, they can't transfer you, they can't even give you the number normally (unless you tell them you can't get online at all) rather they are to send you to 'keyword cancel'. There you find the number to call. There are one or two other choices, I think you can snail mail them (certified mail!), and maybe send a fax. Most people will call on the tollfree number, and it's set up to encourage that. When you call the tollfree number, you wait on hold for a fairly long period of time normally. If you hold on long enough, you eventually get a 'cancellation representative.' Now these guys are trained and expected, not to cancel your account as asked, but to find some way, any way, to talk you out of cancelling! In fact, their job performance is rated by the percentage of calls they 'save' from cancellation, and if that percentage dips below the goal, they are out looking for a job again. This can be turned to your advantage if you really didn't want to cancel, as they can and will give you free service for a month or sometimes more in order to get you off the phone without cancelling, but it's annoying as all hell if you really don't want the service. And given the pressure these kids are under to 'save' you whether you want to be saved or not, and the training they receive (adapted from the training developed for hard sell telemarketing) it's not surprising at all when one gets rude. She may, in fact, be fired for cancelling your account, so why wouldn't she be stressed out?
Your experience is somewhat dated btw, AOL in 1994 was a very different company. I don't know exactly when the system I described was put in place, but I know it's been this way since '99, and almost certainly a bit earlier, but probably not in '94 - there was a huge cultural shift at AOL after the huge expansions of the mid to late 90s.
There should probably be something in the contract to require the code be treated appropriately in light of it's status as a 'trade secret' - i.e. basically a non-disclosure agreement, a requirement that anyone that works with the code sign one individually as well, specific provisions for how a breach would be punished...
Woot! You probably should post that as a reply to the parent of my post though, he was the one that could use it.
Mmmm yummy. Not sure I agree she's MUCH cuter than Ellen, but she's definately quite scrumptuous in her own right.
I usually feel cheated after reading a troll, but that little nugget made it worthwhile. Thanks.
Gack, no Sorenson for linux, I forgot that (I'm on a Mac currently.) That's annoying. I wonder if Apple would sick their lawyers on someone for converting them to .mpegs and making them available that way. Technically a copyright violation, but it would be one that helps, rather than hurts, the copyright holder...
Go here to see her ad and you can make your own decisions. Warning - if you have a soft place in your heart for cute goofy stoner chicks you just might become obsessed. :)
Here's a Mirror for you!
Sorry, couldn't resist. Can someone post a mirror of the article please? ;)
Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't need to fix it, it's not a problem, and I wasn't complaining. I don't care how much spam hits that account because I never use it, for anything, I never even log into it. Nothing sent to it is of any importance to me whatsoever. It's just a datapoint regarding how much spam a hotmail account receives by default.
If he's anything like me, he'd eat them both.
But my username at hotmail is not a common first or last name, it does contain a word from the dictionary, barely, but it's also got numbers added. So I think they are doing more than running a list of common names, they have to be doing at least a dictionary attack with numerical additions. And I wouldn't be surprised a bit if MS cooperates with the larger ones, and/or spams me themselves despite what the checkmarks on registration say.
I don't believe you.
I'll tell you why. First, my mom has an MSN account, and it's overloaded with spam daily. Now granted, that may be her own damn fault, she could have given it out in ways she shouldn't, etc. But, I also have a hotmail account. I made it a few months ago solely to have a login to the MSN chat thingy because one particular client wanted to contact me that way. I was very careful to make sure that I read every page during sign up, and un-checked all the appropriate boxes - I opted in to NOTHING. I NEVER gave it to ANYONE, I never posted it anywhere, I never even logged into it, I only know about the email that hits it because the chat program tells you how many new mails you have when you sign in. I haven't used that either in awhile, but two weeks after creating the account, it had over 380 new messages.
So I must say your claim is quite unbelievable.
If you want to get a lot of spam to test your filters with, just check the archives of NANAS on Usenet. What precisely this new thing does that a spider of that archive couldn't give you I don't know.
Well a bank can contain as few as two.
And it might make sense to use more than that, say you have three workstations in the house, if you have four nics on the router, you don't need a hub. No?
I don't really know, I've been sheltered so far, always used Cisco routers at home and work... but at the moment I'm in a different position and looking into the possibility of setting up a router-on-floppy type solution myself, so if you know any good resources let me know. The ISP here is a bit strange for me, I moved recently from the US to Europe and their systems seem a little different, plus I had to get rid of most of my hardware in the move...
If they took out the hard drive and all the multimedia crap and gave it a bank of nics instead it'd make a hell of a home router.
Yeah, fun is the right word. Sorry, little cross language confusion precipitated by tiredness last night. In swedish it's 'kul'. I find myself mixing swedish and english in speech, but I think this is the first time I've done it accidentally in writing.
I did read the article, and it's essentially as you said. The effects will be to hunger and cool. The hunger part I can see, I eat McDonalds food sometimes myself, but cool? Please, that's just silly.
Anyway, I think what people are upset about, at least the ones that wrote the article, is more the notion this will be a slippery slope, that if EA doesn't experience a huge backlash 'product placement' will become the fixture in the gaming world it already is in Hollywood. That would suck enourmously.
Actually, a very good argument can be made that the Israeli government is a sort of suicide bomber. It does consistently take actions that increase the chances of its own people dying, for political reasons.
It is. And I think most americans misunderstand the situation so far as what palestinians target as well. Because Israel is a state that practices compulsory military service, when they target busses or nightclubs they are targetting military targets in a sense; the busses are primarily transportation for military personnel, and of course the nightclub patrons are in large majority military personnel, because they are of the age where that is compulsory. The argument is a double edged sword - the palestinians inflict civilian casualties - but the Israeli government uses those civilians as human shields, making it nearly impossible to attack military targets without inflicting civilian casualties. Both the US and Israel routinely inflict casualties on civilians and excuse it as 'collateral damage' - whatever validity that argument has (I am extremely skeptical of it) it has for the palestinians just as much as for others.
Disagreeing with the Israeli government is not anti-semitism, although there are all too many who will cheapen that word by slurring with it as if that were so. The Israeli government, and its overzealous defenders, in fact, are manufacturing anti-semitism with such misuse.
As a footnote to those readers who now think I'm anti-semitic, note that both of my links are to articles written by Jews whose forthright dedication to truth and justice I hold up as shining examples to be emulated by all people. The Jewish people are not identical to the Israeli government, either individually or collectively, and it's quite possible to criticise one without any prejudice towards the other. Take a minute, read the links, and think instead of reacting for once, please.
Put yourself in his place. You register your name.com and put your business on it and, later on, a certain Japanese car company starts using their own name (which they hadn't been doing, in the US, rather using a pseudonym) and suddenly you start getting massive hits from people looking for cars, and you run a computer business?
I'd probably put up some links to car-sellers too, and if I could get paid for it all the better.
Sources? I think you're referring to the amendments of '91, but if so, I think you're way off, I don't remember them disclaiming the mainland and I know, in fact, they specifically added provisions for representation of mainland residents in the ROC.
In principle they have, that's what one china two systems means. In practice they're less than happy with that, of course, not the least because ROC officials are so obviously working to Helsinkify Taiwan and return it to it's state as a vassal of Japan instead. And A-bians title in quotes is hardly limited to the mainland - you must admit, the circumstances of his election are suspicious, to say the least.
Two points, first that's not a very good analogy at all, I was consciously avoiding it, because the Confederacy never claimed any authority over the rest of the US , and second because Cuba was never part of the US. Taiwan was ruled by Japan through the end of WWII, yes, but then again, for most of that time so was Manchuria, ("Manchuguo" ring a bell?) what's your point? Taiwan has been part of China for centuries, and a few years of occupation doesn't exactly change that.
If they were belligerent they would have hit something with them. Or hit someone, somewhere, outside of China maybe? Let's see, there was the dustup with India, and they intervened at the very last minute to prevent North Korea from becoming a US stronghold, but other than that I can't think of any instances of belligerence from the PRC. They tend to stick to terrorising people inside China, which is bad, and I'm not condoning it, but belligerence implies terrorising people distant from your own borders, and I just don't see that in the PRC.
Actually they are the same country, but different governments. Both constitutions insist on this. And while the PRC is certainly both brutal and totalitarian, belligerent really doesn't fit. They've been involved in far fewer wars than any other country of their side recently, certainly far fewer than the US, and showed precious little interest in changing that. They even cooperate fairly well with the ROC, and sort-of recognise their legitimacy, under the doctrine of one nation two systems. More than I can imagine the US doing under similar circumstanced (imagine a dissident government in control of Florida and claiming sovereignty over the entire US today.)
Wow, that would rock. Vodafon is one of the biggies here too, I'm on Comviq instead at the moment but I should check if they offer that here, I'll switch it a heartbeat for reasonable unlimited GPRS... 3200 forint is 122 kronor... damn that would rock. Thanks for the tip.
Aww, that wasn't much of a shitstorm, you should have seen some of the exchanges between my two archaeology professors... that was very polite, excepting Trinkaus' reply went a little overboard, but he realised it and yanked it.
Cro Magnon does have a useful meaning, which is why it's used, you can parse it as HSS with archaic characteristics, it's just not thought that those characteristics approach being so significant as to justify a separate subspecies category.
Terminology in Anthropology is rather conservative to change, witness that my professor who was very much of the opposing camp to Trinkaus still said Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, not Homo Neanderthalis. Why? Well, he was 90% sure they were really a species not a subspecies, but on purely morphological grounds they look like a subspecies, and that has priority, at least until he's 99% sure instead of just 90%, in matters of taxonomy...
The data from Israel, IIRC, is pretty conclusively against the possibility. I remember Binford saying that you have HSS and HSN living in close proximity there for about 90k years with no genetic convergence - a very strong argument for biological incompatibility, over that period of time if it was physically possible for them to interbreed, knowing what we do about human and primate behaviour in general, one would expect to see some serious convergence.
Of course Trinkaus has always claimed the opposite, and periodically come up with evidence he claims supports it, but it was my impression that the only people that find his evidence convincing tend to be the ones who were already convinced.
That said, I'm not current on the debate and there may have been some important developments I'm not aware of. Certainly I think the reasonable expectation is that either Neanderthal and Modern humans were biologically incompatible or they interbred considerably.
Oh, as to your PS I think it's been pretty well settled for decades that Cro Magnon is Homo Sapiens Sapiens.