That's what I've been saying since this all started. Most broadband markets have at least two providers now; If one goes to this approach and websites refuse to play ball, they'll lose market share.
I wouldn't put it past Google to post a message: "You're connecting to our site via AT&T DSL. We apologize if the site is slower than usual; your ISP is artificially limiting the bandwidth to our website. Call AT&T Customer Service at xxx-xxx-xxxx for more information."
Picking a fight with Google is probably a bad idea.
Because I'd have sworn I paid for a 3 Mb connection. If Google can provide me with 3 Mb bandwidth, why exactly should they be paying the ISP I already paid?
My son is 18 months. He's got a vocabulary somewhere around 50 words and strings together short sentences. "I got out" was the first sentence we heard him say, maybe two months ago.
At 10 months, he had actually named his two favorite toys (Gah and Meh) and would look up if you said "light". If you said "tractor" he would want to go outside, because that's where the tractor is at his grandfather's house. He wasn't talking then (he barely is now) but it was clear that he understood words.
Yeah, that's what Dell said, too. (I kid...but seriously, not everyone likes an OEM's choice in software)
require little or no setup...for use as a standalone system. My experience with trying to put OSX on my network has yielded somewhat different results.
and do pretty much everything most people need a computer to do.
Heh...define "need". I "need" it to run the games I play on weekends. Oh...
Plus, you'll get some absolutely unparalleled OS features.
Don't guess I've ever seen those. I certainly have found a particular benefit of any given OS outside the obvious: Windows has the largest commercial software library and the easiest administration; OSX has the shiniest UI, better stability through better QA, and security through obscurity; *nix has the best stability, highest level of control, and a massive open source movement.
(obviously many of these points are arguable, my point is no OS really outshines the competition on all points...if it did, it would be the only one on the market)
Oh and yeah, it really does look nicer.
No argument there. Though I'm not a fan of the Mini's form factor...I think I like the new iMacs better.
I would expect MS to simply change the behavior of Windows Explorer to launch IE (or whatever other browser you set as default) when you type a web address in a WE bar. It wouldn't be that difficult.
Who shouted bloody murder when the anti-sodomy laws were struck down as "unconstitutional?"
A handful of Republicans who are still trying to get their feet out of their mouths and their heads out of their asses. They don't speak for the whole party. One of the idiots fighting this was Santorum, and he is certainly not part of the majority of this party.
Most of them were crying "slippery slope!" anyway. They didn't want those laws struck down because they thought the next step would be gay marriage which they think is going to somehow result in the wholesale slaughter of straight people. Or something.
It's unfair to say "some" Republicans are pro-life.
McCain.
Then you rewrite history by claiming that Republicans held the moral high ground on the slavery issue. The fact is, Lincoln's objection to slavery says less about his being a Republican, and more about his being a Northerner. Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats were basically two separate parties. Anyhow, the Republican party today would be unrecognizable to Republicans fifty years ago, much less one hundred and fifty years ago. Claiming their moral superiority as your own is like taking credit for your great great grandfather's part in the American Revolution.
There's no rewriting of history there. Lincoln was a Republican. If we're going to assume everything is drawn along party lines, then it was Republicans who put an end to slavery. North? South? Irrelevant. A Republican president was in office, so we get the credit. That's just how politics work, sucks huh?
No? Then let's not give Clinton credit for the economic boom of the 90s (or the fact that it was largely bogus and fell apart even before Bush took office).
The fact of the matter is, party affiliation just means you find them favorable on more issues than any other party. I'm a Republican. I am in favor of restrictions on abortion (but not an outright ban). I have no problem with gay marriage...it will probably benefit us in the long run by making a few more stable households. I want social security reform, but think Bush's idea of reform is nuts. I *hate* No Child Left Behind and the state of public schools in general. I think the Republicans are being too soft on the issue of illegal immigration (amnesty? bah) and the whole government has run amok on the subject of security.
The Democrats don't get any points there...most of them played along with the GOP right up until it was fashionable to criticize the president again, then they
No, instead the "New Aged GOP" (cavorting as the Republican Party) has been pushing for a Constitutional Ammendment to stop "gay marriage". I don't know what would be worse -- pushing for laws that are unenforceable because the act takes place behind closed doors (usually) or a Constitutional Ammendment to make another group second class citizens because it disagrees with religious beliefs.
There have been some legitimate arguments made against gay marriage, specifically that "marriage" is defined by popular opinion.
I personally could care less either way, and I'm a Republican. So the statement that Republicans think or do certain things is completely without merit.
Illegal comparison. Move along.
Oh? There was a time when blacks were considered less than human. Today a fetus is considered less than human. Many Republicans (and some Democrats) believe that they are indeed human beings and are entitled to the right to life, thus trumping the mother's right to choose.
Pro New Aged GOP speak. Bzzzt. Move along. The New Aged GOP wants to scare everyone into believing that they have nothing to hide, no rights to privacy, and that Big Business and Big Government know what's best for them.
"New Aged GOP?" Oh, you've found a new euphemism for "neocon." That tells me more than you might realize...
No Republican is pushing anti-sodomy laws now, or in the past 50 years (that I know of). I bet you'd find plenty of Democrats voting for such laws in the past as well.
SOME Republicans want to regulate what is done to a living fetus; it's not about a woman's body, it's about whether the fetus has a right to life. I recall a certain Republican president standing up for the rights of blacks about 150 years ago. A lot of Democrats didn't think they had rights, either.
Some Republicans just want more sensible, coherent security laws. What's on the books is largely outdated and confusing. I'd prefer we threw the whole thing out and replaced it with laws that were designed to work together.
Libertarians are for less controls on businesses, too.
As for the PA, DoHS, etc...it's funny how most of the Democrats objected to it only after the fact.
This is just the sort of response which I was complaining about. You speak so generally, I have no idea whether it is true or not. Either I should take you at your word that the PA tramples on the Bill of Rights, or not.
I've sat down and read large sections of the act at various times since it was enacted; between the intense legalese and constant references to other laws, it's hard to make sense of most of it. I guess what I'm looking for is somewhere that can show me specifically what has changed with the PA that impacts civil liberties.
As I understand it, a lot of the "warrantless" activities of the PA are limited in scope and designed to be scrutinized by Congress and the judicial branch to avoid such abuses. But again, I've never been able to sit through a reading of the whole thing (who can?) and I've yet to stumble across the sections that are apparently so controversial.
...could someone PLEASE finally tell me what civil liberties are threatened by the PA?
I've been hearing about this for five years or so now, but it's always this vague "oh no they're taking our civil liberties". No one ever actually states the real problem.
When did it become so difficult to actually inform the people, rather than just spout the equivalent of sensationalist headlines? It's hard to be worried about the PA when I haven't been affected by it at all and no one who tells me I should worry can tell me specifically why.
Preemptive strike against negative mod points: This is NOT a troll, I'm honestly asking for information. In five years of reading stuff like this, no one has ever pointed to specific items from the PA that directly threaten my liberties. I tend not to believe anything I read on the web unless the author can support it.
Microsoft jumped into the console wars at the right time to grab a foothold. I'm not sure they'll pull off the same coup with handheld entertainment. iPods are so entrenched that the mainstream media doesn't seem to be aware that any other players exist. The PSP has had moderate success, but then we're talking about the handheld product from the console juggernaut.
MS making an attempt at the handheld market was inevitable, though. Sooner or later they had to do it.
I keep it legitimate because I'm not a big fan of piracy as anything more than a "try before you buy" for products that don't offer demos.
I've always heard that MS considers the motherboard the component to which your license is tied...upgrading the mobo is supposed to require a new purchase. Saying that you "had" to do it gets around the possibility of it coming up, they'll assume a hardware failure and won't hold that against you.
Dual booting is impractical under a lot of applications, but for some people (those constrained by budget, space, or the desire to not tote around two notebooks) it makes the most sense.
As for data exchange, unless you're packing a notebook, I'd probably just put together a lightweight file server with Linux so that you're not trying to juggle partitions on your local machine any more than is necessary.
If you have a retail license of XP, it can be transferred to the Mac. If you have an OEM copy, you have to tell MS "I just had to replace the motherboard, CPU, and RAM"
Why? Because the new iMac looks good, and now it's available to Windows users.
I not a fan of Mac OS. I can't find software for it (I would have to drive 100+ miles to purchase software at a store), and I'm not particularly fond of the UI. I've spent enough time on OSX to know that it still behaves a lot like older versions of Mac OS in some ways that I never liked. So, I'll stick with XP for my general-purpose PCs and Linux for my specialize stuff like file servers.
Now, my wife would love to move her PC into the living room. Problem is, she doesn't like the way it looks. She practically salivated over the new iMac ("oh pretty!") when she saw it in a copy of MacMall last month, and it will likely wind up being a gift for her some time this year since I now have the option of using XP on it.
Aside from that, this means that people who have to work in both XP and OSX can now dual boot and no longer need to have two systems to do their work.
...and now the Dems are jumping in to take credit for it. Kudos to them for beating the Republicans to the idea.
SBC (I just can't bring myself to call them AT&T) recently announced that they'd be bringing DSL to a nearby rural community--it's not even an incorporated town--of a few hundred people. It will cost about $15 a month.
SBC has the right idea; they're pushing for IPTV so that demand for broadband increases and areas with low population density become profitable to equip with broadband. Their stated goal is to bring fiber straight into the home. I'm fortunate to live in the state they seem to be using for a proof of concept:)
It was obviously concerning the use of the keyboard macros. He point-blank admitted the use and stated that he was not aware that it was a violation of the TOS. A business should give their customers the benefit of the doubt in a situation like this; a temporary suspension would be appropriate; obviously a permanent ban is doing nothing for Blizzard's reputation.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I've been saying since this all started. Most broadband markets have at least two providers now; If one goes to this approach and websites refuse to play ball, they'll lose market share.
I wouldn't put it past Google to post a message: "You're connecting to our site via AT&T DSL. We apologize if the site is slower than usual; your ISP is artificially limiting the bandwidth to our website. Call AT&T Customer Service at xxx-xxx-xxxx for more information."
Picking a fight with Google is probably a bad idea.
Because I'd have sworn I paid for a 3 Mb connection. If Google can provide me with 3 Mb bandwidth, why exactly should they be paying the ISP I already paid?
Seriously, do these people have kids themselves?
My son is 18 months. He's got a vocabulary somewhere around 50 words and strings together short sentences. "I got out" was the first sentence we heard him say, maybe two months ago.
At 10 months, he had actually named his two favorite toys (Gah and Meh) and would look up if you said "light". If you said "tractor" he would want to go outside, because that's where the tractor is at his grandfather's house. He wasn't talking then (he barely is now) but it was clear that he understood words.
loaded with awesome software out of the box,
...for use as a standalone system. My experience with trying to put OSX on my network has yielded somewhat different results.
Yeah, that's what Dell said, too. (I kid...but seriously, not everyone likes an OEM's choice in software)
require little or no setup
and do pretty much everything most people need a computer to do.
Heh...define "need". I "need" it to run the games I play on weekends. Oh...
Plus, you'll get some absolutely unparalleled OS features.
Don't guess I've ever seen those. I certainly have found a particular benefit of any given OS outside the obvious: Windows has the largest commercial software library and the easiest administration; OSX has the shiniest UI, better stability through better QA, and security through obscurity; *nix has the best stability, highest level of control, and a massive open source movement.
(obviously many of these points are arguable, my point is no OS really outshines the competition on all points...if it did, it would be the only one on the market)
Oh and yeah, it really does look nicer.
No argument there. Though I'm not a fan of the Mini's form factor...I think I like the new iMacs better.
Yes, and this robot will start the revolution by leading a group of nuns to their DOOM!!!
DOOM I tell you!
Yeah, I heard he got all into Scientology and had to divorce her when she called it a cult.
Cheapest Mini I see is $600 without a monitor.
You can buy/build a much more powerful PC for $600, install a Linux distro of your choice, and run Firefox.
for that matter, why not just install Firefox?
I would expect MS to simply change the behavior of Windows Explorer to launch IE (or whatever other browser you set as default) when you type a web address in a WE bar. It wouldn't be that difficult.
Who shouted bloody murder when the anti-sodomy laws were struck down as "unconstitutional?"
A handful of Republicans who are still trying to get their feet out of their mouths and their heads out of their asses. They don't speak for the whole party. One of the idiots fighting this was Santorum, and he is certainly not part of the majority of this party.
Most of them were crying "slippery slope!" anyway. They didn't want those laws struck down because they thought the next step would be gay marriage which they think is going to somehow result in the wholesale slaughter of straight people. Or something.
It's unfair to say "some" Republicans are pro-life.
McCain.
Then you rewrite history by claiming that Republicans held the moral high ground on the slavery issue. The fact is, Lincoln's objection to slavery says less about his being a Republican, and more about his being a Northerner. Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats were basically two separate parties. Anyhow, the Republican party today would be unrecognizable to Republicans fifty years ago, much less one hundred and fifty years ago. Claiming their moral superiority as your own is like taking credit for your great great grandfather's part in the American Revolution.
There's no rewriting of history there. Lincoln was a Republican. If we're going to assume everything is drawn along party lines, then it was Republicans who put an end to slavery. North? South? Irrelevant. A Republican president was in office, so we get the credit. That's just how politics work, sucks huh?
No? Then let's not give Clinton credit for the economic boom of the 90s (or the fact that it was largely bogus and fell apart even before Bush took office).
The fact of the matter is, party affiliation just means you find them favorable on more issues than any other party. I'm a Republican. I am in favor of restrictions on abortion (but not an outright ban). I have no problem with gay marriage...it will probably benefit us in the long run by making a few more stable households. I want social security reform, but think Bush's idea of reform is nuts. I *hate* No Child Left Behind and the state of public schools in general. I think the Republicans are being too soft on the issue of illegal immigration (amnesty? bah) and the whole government has run amok on the subject of security.
The Democrats don't get any points there...most of them played along with the GOP right up until it was fashionable to criticize the president again, then they
You may laugh but I think we're coming up on that being a lawsuit waiting to happen.
WARNING
Do not consume cellular phone
For external use only
No, instead the "New Aged GOP" (cavorting as the Republican Party) has been pushing for a Constitutional Ammendment to stop "gay marriage". I don't know what would be worse -- pushing for laws that are unenforceable because the act takes place behind closed doors (usually) or a Constitutional Ammendment to make another group second class citizens because it disagrees with religious beliefs.
There have been some legitimate arguments made against gay marriage, specifically that "marriage" is defined by popular opinion.
I personally could care less either way, and I'm a Republican. So the statement that Republicans think or do certain things is completely without merit.
Illegal comparison. Move along.
Oh? There was a time when blacks were considered less than human. Today a fetus is considered less than human. Many Republicans (and some Democrats) believe that they are indeed human beings and are entitled to the right to life, thus trumping the mother's right to choose.
Pro New Aged GOP speak. Bzzzt. Move along. The New Aged GOP wants to scare everyone into believing that they have nothing to hide, no rights to privacy, and that Big Business and Big Government know what's best for them.
"New Aged GOP?" Oh, you've found a new euphemism for "neocon." That tells me more than you might realize...
How did this ignorance get modded up?
No Republican is pushing anti-sodomy laws now, or in the past 50 years (that I know of). I bet you'd find plenty of Democrats voting for such laws in the past as well.
SOME Republicans want to regulate what is done to a living fetus; it's not about a woman's body, it's about whether the fetus has a right to life. I recall a certain Republican president standing up for the rights of blacks about 150 years ago. A lot of Democrats didn't think they had rights, either.
Some Republicans just want more sensible, coherent security laws. What's on the books is largely outdated and confusing. I'd prefer we threw the whole thing out and replaced it with laws that were designed to work together.
Libertarians are for less controls on businesses, too.
As for the PA, DoHS, etc...it's funny how most of the Democrats objected to it only after the fact.
This is just the sort of response which I was complaining about. You speak so generally, I have no idea whether it is true or not. Either I should take you at your word that the PA tramples on the Bill of Rights, or not.
I've sat down and read large sections of the act at various times since it was enacted; between the intense legalese and constant references to other laws, it's hard to make sense of most of it. I guess what I'm looking for is somewhere that can show me specifically what has changed with the PA that impacts civil liberties.
As I understand it, a lot of the "warrantless" activities of the PA are limited in scope and designed to be scrutinized by Congress and the judicial branch to avoid such abuses. But again, I've never been able to sit through a reading of the whole thing (who can?) and I've yet to stumble across the sections that are apparently so controversial.
...could someone PLEASE finally tell me what civil liberties are threatened by the PA?
I've been hearing about this for five years or so now, but it's always this vague "oh no they're taking our civil liberties". No one ever actually states the real problem.
When did it become so difficult to actually inform the people, rather than just spout the equivalent of sensationalist headlines? It's hard to be worried about the PA when I haven't been affected by it at all and no one who tells me I should worry can tell me specifically why.
Preemptive strike against negative mod points: This is NOT a troll, I'm honestly asking for information. In five years of reading stuff like this, no one has ever pointed to specific items from the PA that directly threaten my liberties. I tend not to believe anything I read on the web unless the author can support it.
Microsoft jumped into the console wars at the right time to grab a foothold. I'm not sure they'll pull off the same coup with handheld entertainment. iPods are so entrenched that the mainstream media doesn't seem to be aware that any other players exist. The PSP has had moderate success, but then we're talking about the handheld product from the console juggernaut.
MS making an attempt at the handheld market was inevitable, though. Sooner or later they had to do it.
CorpEd is nice, unless you're using the one(s?) MS knows are pirated.
I keep it legitimate because I'm not a big fan of piracy as anything more than a "try before you buy" for products that don't offer demos.
I've always heard that MS considers the motherboard the component to which your license is tied...upgrading the mobo is supposed to require a new purchase. Saying that you "had" to do it gets around the possibility of it coming up, they'll assume a hardware failure and won't hold that against you.
Google?
(well...sorta kinda in a way but not really)
That's not even factoring the mac users who want to play the latest games at full speed.
:D
Or the people who just don't like OSX
Dual booting is impractical under a lot of applications, but for some people (those constrained by budget, space, or the desire to not tote around two notebooks) it makes the most sense.
As for data exchange, unless you're packing a notebook, I'd probably just put together a lightweight file server with Linux so that you're not trying to juggle partitions on your local machine any more than is necessary.
He said PC, not "license of Windows XP".
If you have a retail license of XP, it can be transferred to the Mac. If you have an OEM copy, you have to tell MS "I just had to replace the motherboard, CPU, and RAM"
Why? Because the new iMac looks good, and now it's available to Windows users.
I not a fan of Mac OS. I can't find software for it (I would have to drive 100+ miles to purchase software at a store), and I'm not particularly fond of the UI. I've spent enough time on OSX to know that it still behaves a lot like older versions of Mac OS in some ways that I never liked. So, I'll stick with XP for my general-purpose PCs and Linux for my specialize stuff like file servers.
Now, my wife would love to move her PC into the living room. Problem is, she doesn't like the way it looks. She practically salivated over the new iMac ("oh pretty!") when she saw it in a copy of MacMall last month, and it will likely wind up being a gift for her some time this year since I now have the option of using XP on it.
Aside from that, this means that people who have to work in both XP and OSX can now dual boot and no longer need to have two systems to do their work.
...and now the Dems are jumping in to take credit for it. Kudos to them for beating the Republicans to the idea.
:)
SBC (I just can't bring myself to call them AT&T) recently announced that they'd be bringing DSL to a nearby rural community--it's not even an incorporated town--of a few hundred people. It will cost about $15 a month.
SBC has the right idea; they're pushing for IPTV so that demand for broadband increases and areas with low population density become profitable to equip with broadband. Their stated goal is to bring fiber straight into the home. I'm fortunate to live in the state they seem to be using for a proof of concept
It was obviously concerning the use of the keyboard macros. He point-blank admitted the use and stated that he was not aware that it was a violation of the TOS. A business should give their customers the benefit of the doubt in a situation like this; a temporary suspension would be appropriate; obviously a permanent ban is doing nothing for Blizzard's reputation.
So it's okay that the banned him because you assume he was lying and obviously cheated to attain his high level?
Sounds like level envy to me.