Except you couldn't reconnect with old friends whom you haven't seen for years using personal home pages.
Really? Let me introduce you to http://www.google.com/ and as far as chatting goes, when you email your old pal you say "Hey, are you on AOL instant messenger or MSN Live Messenger or ICQ or Yahoo Messenger or . . . my screen name is foo. Please IM Me I would love to chat. Or better yet, let's be actual humans and talk. my number is 555-555-5555. Call me!"
Of course, if the site was built in frontpage, all bets are off since frontpage is the anti-SEO program.
Well, we did put them in office. We did vote Bush into the White House. We did keep voting Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank into the senate, where they helped create the mortgage crisis.
We did vote Barak Obama into the white house, believing that he would somehow SAVE us money by giving everyone government-funded health care, increase government service, AND lower taxes to the point where no one making less than what, $200K will have to pay any taxes. He was also going to get us out of the middle east. How is all of that working out?
Yeah, I do think that they think we are that stupid, because as a whole we are. to quote MIB: "A person is smart; people are dumb." If we were smart as a whole, we'd be voting libertarians into government, keeping government at a minimal size, government "services" (as in defense, police, and maybe infrastructure) would be funded by tariffs, and private citizens would be able to help the less fortunate. We wouldn't be demanding a nanny state.
. . . and going back to the roots of crappy GUI design, the gnu folks are taking Gimp's interface and dumbing it down by giving it an MDI window - which is taking not just a single step backward, but gigantic leaps backward.
Now, you can either use that functionality, but would be forced to relicense your project as GPL (thereby giving up your freedom of being able to choose how you want to license the code you have written), or re-implement the same functionality yourself and license it as MIT (thereby duplicating effort).
That is exactly the point. You have the freedom to use GPL code so long as you release any linked code as GPL as well, or you can rewrite it yourself or use an alternative. Everybody wins!
However, if you take GPL code, obfuscate it and try to pass it off as your own, everyone loses.
Around 1999 when the high-volume spammers really got going, russian child porn spam was very common. The first few times I forwarded them to the FBI (at the time they had email addies on their web sites) along with the full headers of the emails, but never received any response, then I wised up and realized that actually forwarding them on could prove me guilty of possession - of something I unwillingly received. Now I don't report any kind of scams, illegal porn, or anything else that might come through as spam or I might stumble across on the web. It's not worth the risk of getting into trouble when just vainly trying to get a bureaucracy to put a stop to it at the source. (thanks to ASSP though, I don't get more than 1-2 spam messages a week so I don't even know if that kind of spam is commonplace anymore)
. . . which is direct response to the unlimited internet advertised for downloading and listening to music, watching movies, videos, videoconferencing, and so forth. How exactly is the consumer in the wrong again?
And yet, I still can't find dimmable PAR20 and PAR15 CFL lamps at Home Depot or Lowes. Heck, I can't find a single normal pure white dimmable light bulb at Home Depot or Lowes, or even Sprawl-Mart. Asking about dimmable CFLs or even simply asking for pure white (~3500K-4000K color temp) produces blank stares from the voids who^H^H^Hthat work there. So, replacing the lamps in my living room and kitchen simply isn't possible.
Oh, I found dimmable white (not the yellow "soft white" or blue "cool white" crap) CFLs online, but they're $16.00 a pop. Multiply that by 7 for the kitchen, and 6 for the living room, and, well, I'm not paying that much because it will take a LONG time for the savings to catch up with the purchase price.
They SHOULD be forced to deliver what they sold because at least here they are government-granted monopolies (or at best duopolies). There really isn't anyone else to turn to for the service.
So I was wondering what makes US-based (and probably other) ISPs come to such a conclusion and apply such policies.
Modern American society has a sense of entitlement, and that applies even to the government-granted monopolies. ISPs were given hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars to push broadband out to every address in the US. They didn't do it, never got spanked for it, and abuse the customers and continually charge more using "service enhancements" and "upgrades" as their justification, when in actuality, the upgrades were paid for with our tax dollars, and they are REDUCING service by enforcing undisclosed caps.
Bandwidth hogs do not exist. Well, some do - ones who "uncap" their modems and get MORE bandwidth than they are paying for. Hacking a modem you rent, not own, is a problem and those users should be punted. However, simply using the bandwidth that was advertised and you purchased is NOT hogging bandwidth by ANY stretch of the imagination. Placing limits on users who simply use the product as advertised is unethical, immoral, and actually illegal because then those ISPs are engaging in a bait-and-switch - or more succinctly, FRAUD.
Although, it really doesn't matter if Alice gets 99% of the bandwidth if Bob is only trying to use.1 % of the bandwith.
Honestly, that's not the customer's problem. The ISP offered a service for money, the customer accepted and paid that money, now the ISP should be forced to deliver - and if that means they have to fix their network design flaws, then they should fix those problems. They shouldn't be allowed to punt a customer who decided to simply use the product/service the ISP offered and they accepted as evidenced by their payments for product/service.
Even fairer would be for the ISPs to actually deliver what they advertised to their customers, and not impose limits on "unlimited" internet use after having accepted payment for the service they sold.
I don't believe there's any reason, for example, that Coaxial cables couldn't be manufactured such that, in addition to the current center conductor and outer conductor (which carry the data signal), they would have additional 'rings' of outer conductors designed to carry some DC power for powering phones and other devices.
There is "siamesed" coax - RG-59 and RG-6 with 18/2 conductors running alongside in a separate jacket. There isn't any real reason that what you propose couldn't be done with existing RG-59 and RG-6 cable; it's (relatively) cheap to manufacture, splice, and so forth. What you seem to be proposing is multiple rings of jackets, which would be far, far more expensive to manufacture, HUGELY increase the mass of the conductor (don't forget each layer will be progressively larger and heavier, and would also reduce flexibility). It would also be a pain in the neck to splice, not to mention time consuming. If anything, twisted pair would be the way to go as it would be cheaper and in most cases should offer decent noise rejection.
Standard responses to new user questions up to around 2005
"man $foo"/"RTFM" (nice reply. This is why it was SOOOO hard for Linux to gain ANY traction in the first 15 years it existed.)
"it's open source. Fix it yourself."
"it's open source. Document it yourself." (Um, if they don't know how the app works, they can't document it)
"Read the tutorials/howtos" (The tutorials/howtos might cover the very basics, but often don't even touch upon what the user is asking about. Even better is when the tutorial says "to be added later." Or, the howtos are written for sysadmin types by developers with asperger's syndrome, not written for typical users. They may a well have been written in hieroglyphics as far as end users are concerned)
TomTom first trolled Microsoft, so Microsoft dug into their portfolio and found a nuke they could use for mutually assured destruction. In that instance, Microsoft actually used their software patents as a retaliatory strike against TomTom. Microsoft wasn't the bad guy in that case, and they're not the bad guy in this one either.
There is plenty to hate Microsoft for, but their suit against TomTom isn't one of them.
Non-public information? How can such a thing exist on a commodity good that has already been released to the public, and especially when they are trying to cover up a defect which renders their product offering as fraudulent (because it doesn't work as advertised) and not fit for sale? Did they expect this to NOT blow up publicly when they ignored user complaints?
After being banned [CC] [PDF] from the Dell Forums for revealing 'non-public information,' one user went so far as to write and publish a 59-page report [CC] [PDF] explaining and diagnosing the throttling problem in incredible detail.
what could they have possibly done to improve it? Raise the price? Cuz I bet you're still locked into their app store, their cell provider, and their everything else.
They could back key features they pulled a bait and switch on (tethering) and not only that they could open it up a bit, since power users jailbreak them anyhow, and preventing hacking is nearly impossible. Someone somewhere will crack it when they have unfettered physical access. Somehow I don't think they're going to take the steps required to prevent hacking, i.e., require iPhone owners to use their phones under supervision at Apple stores and not let customers take them outside the store.;)
If a *nix box doesn't have swap space and runs out of memory, causing apps to terminate, then we can't say that OS X in general, Linux, or even Solaris can multitask.
No one is trying to redefine "multitasking" here except you.
"in seconds" was intended to be a figure of speech; compared to the years that WWII dragged on it had to have felt like mere moments. Have you not heard of hyperbole?
I know this may come across as extremely controversial but I urge you to hear me out.
For decades parents have looked to schools, sports, and the telly to be their babysitters, and the latest is for myspace, yahoo, and AOL chat rooms to watch over their preteens. This has proven to not work out so well - child molestation is becoming more commonplace, children's attention spans are about the same as that of a goldfish, and they have become very unruly and disrespectful, dropping the F-bomb to old ladies.
Now people are urging the gubbament to step in and introduce a panic button their children can hit, so the government will babysit their children.
The crux of the issue is personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past; viewed as outmoded and harmful. After all, if government doesn't take care of you, who will?
No, what I suggest is revolutionary. It's also frightening, and it takes effort. However, in the long run I think it could work.
My suggestion is that we bring back personal responsibility. Parents should actually supervise their children. If your child isn't old enough to go out on a date by her or himself, or isn't old enough to go to a pool hall and stay out of trouble, then that child is young enough to require constant supervision. Grow a set, put in some time and actually be PARENTS. You made the conscious decision to conceive a child, now frigging raise the child. Don't look to me to pay taxes for the government to do it for you.
Oh, and on a different-yet-similar topic: bullying. Don't push for laws against bullying, because what you are doing is creating thought crime. The current bills being introduce don't make bullying a crime based on action and intention, but on perception. They are worded such that if, for example, I have a migraine and my brow is furrowed and I glance in your direction, you could interpret that as intimidation or harassment, and press charges against me. Or, similarly, if you're listening to a podcast and are LOLing at it, and you happen to be glancing in the direction of someone with low self esteem on the subway, that person could think you're laughing at them and press charges for bullying. Instead, you should be instructing your kid who is being bullied to just grow a pair. He should beat the snot out of the bully - or at least make his very best effort to kick the bully in the family jewels. Bleeding hearts claim violence never solves violence, but that's bullshit. Appeasement never curbed the aggression of axis powers, but a nuke ended WWII in seconds. Israel has attempted to appease radical Muslims for decades and yet the Muslims will not be happy until all the Jews are pushed into the sea and Muslims occupy that puny strip of land they had ZERO interest in prior to 1947. What HAS worked is attacking the Arab states back in definitive, decisive blows.
Bullies have been bullies since man started to walk, and you know what has worked? Not ignoring them. Not killing them with kindness. Not tattling to the teacher or principal. No, what works is not taking their shit, turn around, and beat the shit out of the bully - or at least try to. Then, the bullies stop because they know you're not an easy target.
Stop looking to government to solve all of your personal problems.
Personal responsibilty; Crime and consequences. If you do not want to engage in an interactive, responsible relationship with your children, or are unable to, do not bring children into the world - or give them up for adoption by a couple who is willing to put forth the effort.
We're creating a nanny state and allowing too much government interference in personal lives as it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Let me introduce you to http://www.google.com/ and as far as chatting goes, when you email your old pal you say "Hey, are you on AOL instant messenger or MSN Live Messenger or ICQ or Yahoo Messenger or . . . my screen name is foo. Please IM Me I would love to chat. Or better yet, let's be actual humans and talk. my number is 555-555-5555. Call me!"
Of course, if the site was built in frontpage, all bets are off since frontpage is the anti-SEO program.
Well, we did put them in office.
We did vote Bush into the White House.
We did keep voting Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank into the senate, where they helped create the mortgage crisis.
We did vote Barak Obama into the white house, believing that he would somehow SAVE us money by giving everyone government-funded health care, increase government service, AND lower taxes to the point where no one making less than what, $200K will have to pay any taxes. He was also going to get us out of the middle east. How is all of that working out?
Yeah, I do think that they think we are that stupid, because as a whole we are. to quote MIB: "A person is smart; people are dumb." If we were smart as a whole, we'd be voting libertarians into government, keeping government at a minimal size, government "services" (as in defense, police, and maybe infrastructure) would be funded by tariffs, and private citizens would be able to help the less fortunate. We wouldn't be demanding a nanny state.
. . . and going back to the roots of crappy GUI design, the gnu folks are taking Gimp's interface and dumbing it down by giving it an MDI window - which is taking not just a single step backward, but gigantic leaps backward.
That is exactly the point. You have the freedom to use GPL code so long as you release any linked code as GPL as well, or you can rewrite it yourself or use an alternative. Everybody wins!
However, if you take GPL code, obfuscate it and try to pass it off as your own, everyone loses.
Well, as long as they steer clear of Windows, they won't get a BSOD when trying to plug in any kind of scanner.
Around 1999 when the high-volume spammers really got going, russian child porn spam was very common. The first few times I forwarded them to the FBI (at the time they had email addies on their web sites) along with the full headers of the emails, but never received any response, then I wised up and realized that actually forwarding them on could prove me guilty of possession - of something I unwillingly received. Now I don't report any kind of scams, illegal porn, or anything else that might come through as spam or I might stumble across on the web. It's not worth the risk of getting into trouble when just vainly trying to get a bureaucracy to put a stop to it at the source. (thanks to ASSP though, I don't get more than 1-2 spam messages a week so I don't even know if that kind of spam is commonplace anymore)
. . . which is direct response to the unlimited internet advertised for downloading and listening to music, watching movies, videos, videoconferencing, and so forth. How exactly is the consumer in the wrong again?
And yet, I still can't find dimmable PAR20 and PAR15 CFL lamps at Home Depot or Lowes. Heck, I can't find a single normal pure white dimmable light bulb at Home Depot or Lowes, or even Sprawl-Mart. Asking about dimmable CFLs or even simply asking for pure white (~3500K-4000K color temp) produces blank stares from the voids who^H^H^Hthat work there. So, replacing the lamps in my living room and kitchen simply isn't possible.
Oh, I found dimmable white (not the yellow "soft white" or blue "cool white" crap) CFLs online, but they're $16.00 a pop. Multiply that by 7 for the kitchen, and 6 for the living room, and, well, I'm not paying that much because it will take a LONG time for the savings to catch up with the purchase price.
They SHOULD be forced to deliver what they sold because at least here they are government-granted monopolies (or at best duopolies). There really isn't anyone else to turn to for the service.
Modern American society has a sense of entitlement, and that applies even to the government-granted monopolies. ISPs were given hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars to push broadband out to every address in the US. They didn't do it, never got spanked for it, and abuse the customers and continually charge more using "service enhancements" and "upgrades" as their justification, when in actuality, the upgrades were paid for with our tax dollars, and they are REDUCING service by enforcing undisclosed caps.
Bandwidth hogs do not exist. Well, some do - ones who "uncap" their modems and get MORE bandwidth than they are paying for. Hacking a modem you rent, not own, is a problem and those users should be punted. However, simply using the bandwidth that was advertised and you purchased is NOT hogging bandwidth by ANY stretch of the imagination. Placing limits on users who simply use the product as advertised is unethical, immoral, and actually illegal because then those ISPs are engaging in a bait-and-switch - or more succinctly, FRAUD.
Honestly, that's not the customer's problem. The ISP offered a service for money, the customer accepted and paid that money, now the ISP should be forced to deliver - and if that means they have to fix their network design flaws, then they should fix those problems. They shouldn't be allowed to punt a customer who decided to simply use the product/service the ISP offered and they accepted as evidenced by their payments for product/service.
Even fairer would be for the ISPs to actually deliver what they advertised to their customers, and not impose limits on "unlimited" internet use after having accepted payment for the service they sold.
Find a sucker on feeBay!
There is "siamesed" coax - RG-59 and RG-6 with 18/2 conductors running alongside in a separate jacket. There isn't any real reason that what you propose couldn't be done with existing RG-59 and RG-6 cable; it's (relatively) cheap to manufacture, splice, and so forth. What you seem to be proposing is multiple rings of jackets, which would be far, far more expensive to manufacture, HUGELY increase the mass of the conductor (don't forget each layer will be progressively larger and heavier, and would also reduce flexibility). It would also be a pain in the neck to splice, not to mention time consuming. If anything, twisted pair would be the way to go as it would be cheaper and in most cases should offer decent noise rejection.
"and then reach for an O'Reilly (via Safari) or Addison-Wesley book "
Really? I search the pirate bay for the ebook!
(I'm joking)
Standard responses to new user questions up to around 2005
"man $foo"/"RTFM" (nice reply. This is why it was SOOOO hard for Linux to gain ANY traction in the first 15 years it existed.)
"it's open source. Fix it yourself."
"it's open source. Document it yourself." (Um, if they don't know how the app works, they can't document it)
"Read the tutorials/howtos" (The tutorials/howtos might cover the very basics, but often don't even touch upon what the user is asking about. Even better is when the tutorial says "to be added later." Or, the howtos are written for sysadmin types by developers with asperger's syndrome, not written for typical users. They may a well have been written in hieroglyphics as far as end users are concerned)
If you were to use KDE4, all you need to do is search the "k menu" for CD or DVD and you will find k3b right away.
TomTom first trolled Microsoft, so Microsoft dug into their portfolio and found a nuke they could use for mutually assured destruction. In that instance, Microsoft actually used their software patents as a retaliatory strike against TomTom. Microsoft wasn't the bad guy in that case, and they're not the bad guy in this one either.
There is plenty to hate Microsoft for, but their suit against TomTom isn't one of them.
Non-public information? How can such a thing exist on a commodity good that has already been released to the public, and especially when they are trying to cover up a defect which renders their product offering as fraudulent (because it doesn't work as advertised) and not fit for sale? Did they expect this to NOT blow up publicly when they ignored user complaints?
Wow, so they're just like Apple!
install Backgrounder (You will have to jailbreak) - it's wonderful for fixing annoyances like incoming calls interrupting navigation.
They could back key features they pulled a bait and switch on (tethering) and not only that they could open it up a bit, since power users jailbreak them anyhow, and preventing hacking is nearly impossible. Someone somewhere will crack it when they have unfettered physical access. Somehow I don't think they're going to take the steps required to prevent hacking, i.e., require iPhone owners to use their phones under supervision at Apple stores and not let customers take them outside the store. ;)
If a *nix box doesn't have swap space and runs out of memory, causing apps to terminate, then we can't say that OS X in general, Linux, or even Solaris can multitask.
No one is trying to redefine "multitasking" here except you.
"in seconds" was intended to be a figure of speech; compared to the years that WWII dragged on it had to have felt like mere moments. Have you not heard of hyperbole?
Hi all,
I know this may come across as extremely controversial but I urge you to hear me out.
For decades parents have looked to schools, sports, and the telly to be their babysitters, and the latest is for myspace, yahoo, and AOL chat rooms to watch over their preteens. This has proven to not work out so well - child molestation is becoming more commonplace, children's attention spans are about the same as that of a goldfish, and they have become very unruly and disrespectful, dropping the F-bomb to old ladies.
Now people are urging the gubbament to step in and introduce a panic button their children can hit, so the government will babysit their children.
The crux of the issue is personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past; viewed as outmoded and harmful. After all, if government doesn't take care of you, who will?
No, what I suggest is revolutionary. It's also frightening, and it takes effort. However, in the long run I think it could work.
My suggestion is that we bring back personal responsibility. Parents should actually supervise their children. If your child isn't old enough to go out on a date by her or himself, or isn't old enough to go to a pool hall and stay out of trouble, then that child is young enough to require constant supervision. Grow a set, put in some time and actually be PARENTS. You made the conscious decision to conceive a child, now frigging raise the child. Don't look to me to pay taxes for the government to do it for you.
Oh, and on a different-yet-similar topic: bullying. Don't push for laws against bullying, because what you are doing is creating thought crime. The current bills being introduce don't make bullying a crime based on action and intention, but on perception. They are worded such that if, for example, I have a migraine and my brow is furrowed and I glance in your direction, you could interpret that as intimidation or harassment, and press charges against me. Or, similarly, if you're listening to a podcast and are LOLing at it, and you happen to be glancing in the direction of someone with low self esteem on the subway, that person could think you're laughing at them and press charges for bullying. Instead, you should be instructing your kid who is being bullied to just grow a pair. He should beat the snot out of the bully - or at least make his very best effort to kick the bully in the family jewels. Bleeding hearts claim violence never solves violence, but that's bullshit. Appeasement never curbed the aggression of axis powers, but a nuke ended WWII in seconds. Israel has attempted to appease radical Muslims for decades and yet the Muslims will not be happy until all the Jews are pushed into the sea and Muslims occupy that puny strip of land they had ZERO interest in prior to 1947. What HAS worked is attacking the Arab states back in definitive, decisive blows.
Bullies have been bullies since man started to walk, and you know what has worked? Not ignoring them. Not killing them with kindness. Not tattling to the teacher or principal. No, what works is not taking their shit, turn around, and beat the shit out of the bully - or at least try to. Then, the bullies stop because they know you're not an easy target.
Stop looking to government to solve all of your personal problems.
Personal responsibilty; Crime and consequences. If you do not want to engage in an interactive, responsible relationship with your children, or are unable to, do not bring children into the world - or give them up for adoption by a couple who is willing to put forth the effort.
We're creating a nanny state and allowing too much government interference in personal lives as it is.