I've never really gone the "do it yourself" route, but I can definitely recommend my current solution. I host my mail with Critical Path (disclaimer: I'm a former employee, so I don't exactly pay for the service).
Besides them handling all maintenance and keeping the service up 24/7, there's IMAP, POP and webmail access. Account provisioning is easy through their web admin interface or through an API. And they've got all sorts of feature I don't really need for my personal email (LDAP, etc), but might interest other folks.
Rather than use enscript an imagemagick which would make the solution very platform dependant, why not use XSL-T to create an SVG representation of the barcode?
I've never had a chance to play with it myself, but I found this article that discusses the process.
Pay per e-mail sucks because it can't account for foreign exchange disparities. $1 to send 100 e-mails is a whole lot cheaper for an average income earner in the US than R7 is here (ZA). The countries that will be the worst affected are the poorest 3rd world countries, that most need the benefit of cheap Internet access to improve their economic condition.
Pay per email has promise, but if it is limited to actual currencies, it is destined to fail (for all the reasons you've enumerated.) The other way to force the sender to pay to send the message is to force them to expend a certain amount of CPU cycles before sending the message. It's a negligible cost (in time) to someone sending a few messages, but to someone sending millions of SPAM messages, it would bring the cost of sending those messages above the profits they can generate from sending those messages.
What's needed is an extension to SMTP which uses HashCash or something like it to ensure that the sender has to do a certain amount of work to send the message. If all the large MTAs began to support such an extension and the larger ISPs (err...largest ISP...*cough*AOL*cough*) began to require it to send messages to their users and through their servers, SPAM would end up being almost non-existant and the anonymous nature of email would be preserved.
Yes, but it is still a distinct organization that is not part of the RIAA. It's membership includes far more of the smaller labels that the RIAA's does. The parent poster was saying that the RIAA will be collecting all the royalties and wouldn't distribute them to smaller labels/artists and, despite the fact that SoundExchange was started by the major labels, it does not represent only their interests.
There's a lot of ways the RIAA is evil, but their methods for collecting royalties isn't necessarily one of them. There may be other statistical methods that would work better, but there isn't a way to distribute royalties based on exactly what is played.
If the webcaster's alliance ever intended to find a suitable settlement, then I'd agree with you that they'd be doomed to fail. But most of them are, as you said, small setups that never really get above 3-4 listeners. They've never intended on negotiating, in good faith, an alternative to the CARP rates. Most of them weren't even webcasting until after the CARP rates were announced.
What they're really after is publicity and a way to push their own individual agendas. They were almost able to ruin the recent settlement that allowed many of the medium-sized webcasters to keep broadcasting. They failed at that, so now they're going after more publicity.
Radio stations pay royalties to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.
Online webcasters, in addition to paying ASCAP/BMI/SESAC fees, pay royalties to SoundExchange.
The notable difference between what you've said and the actual situation is that the RIAA has a limitted membership consisting of only the larger labels. However, membership in the groups that collect royalties is basically unlimitted. Royalties are distributed to labels/artists based on statistical sampling done at random to determine what percentage of the pie each label/artist is entitled to. It might end up favoring the big labels, but doing it differently would make the whole process incredibly complex.
Friendster should create the concept of a non-linking profile. That way, these "fauxsters" (as you call them) could be setup to enable people to find people with similar interests without adding millions of people to your circle of friends.
Setup correctly, these gimmicky profiles could make it much easier to meet other like-minded people (just look at the example in the article where the woman met potential dates by setting up an identity for a common lesbian hangout bar). This kind of problem can be handled by either embracing the phenomenon or combatting it. One way will earn the ire of their users, the other won't. It would seem like a no-brainer to me which one they'd choose.
I highly doubt that Nutch is going to offer an alternative to Google in the area of web search. What they seem to be doing is offering an alternative in the area of Enterprise search.
Currently, the company that I work for pays Verity (used to be Inktomi, before that Infoseek) tens of thousands of dollars a year for the use of their software. We use their software to make our own site searchable. If Nutch offered us a free alternative to our Ultraseek server, we'd definitely be interested.
We don't have to worry about anyone "googlebombing" our search collections because, well, we create all the content that goes into those collections. We'd love it if the algorithm that determined rankings was open-source. That way, we could change it to suit our specific needs if we thought it would help return more relevant results. There are currently a number of undesirable phenomena that we live with or work around because the mechanics of the problem are burried within proprietary Ultraseek code.
Google is the best of the best in web search and I don't think anyone short of MS is interested in challenging them for that. But 'search engine' in this case means something entirely different.
In response to the announcement of the creation of the Dept of Software (DoS), Microsoft announced that it would start a new program to sell it's software at half of normal price to better compete with the free software the DoS would be offering.
Microsoft believes "Operation Half-Priced Software" (OS/2, for short) will make its software more competitively priced. CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as saying, "We belive that OS/2 software is superior to DoS software and we think users will be willing to pay a premium for it."
The basic premise is, if you watch this short video (included on the DVD), you will die one week later. However, one can be saved by copying the video and passing it on to someone else.
So you're basically faced with the choice of a gruesome death or committing piracy...it's a pretty tough choice.
There is also the remarkably arrogant attitude held by corporations here in the US that they should have every right to do whatever is best to make a buck without any repercussions.
The government's job is to look out for it's own citizens, not it's own corporations. They need to make policies (tarriffs, taxes, etc) that encourage companies to make it worthwhile to hire over-priced US workers. These companies are more than happy to exploit the standard of living in the US by selling their overpriced crap here for huge profits that they can't really get anywhere else. They just don't want to support that same standard of living by paying workers here what's necessary to maintain the standard of living.
So...yeah, it may be arrogant of me to expect my government to represent the average citizen rather than the corporations who rape us at every opportunity, but I don't seem to remember honest Abe saying anything about "Government of the corporation/CEO, by the corporation/CEO and for the corporation/CEO."
I have a friend who's company worked on a contract for one of the spyware companies. His job was to find software to bundle the spyware with. Some of the potential candidates already came with quite a few other spyware packages as well.
Aparently, in the negotiations with the software developers, it was very important to be the last spyware package installed during the install process as that could ensure that their spyware package could control the users search bar and other aspects of their browser. He showed me the test computer he installed everything on and typed a non-url into his address bar in IE. For approximately 10 seconds, the screen flashed and the browser did nothing as it attempted to figure out which spyware package was to control the response to his request. The idea that people live with this sickens me.
Do the federal drug agents care when they storm into these people's "gardens" and prosecute them to the full extent of FEDERAL law?
Ummm...I think they're beginning to. Take a look at the Ed Rosenthal case. He is/was a grower of medical marijuana in San Francisco who was arrested and charged in federal court under federal law. Upon being conviction, he was sentenced to a whopping 1 day in prison. That sentence never would have happened if it weren't for California's state laws.
Not to mention that the anti-PA local legislation is of a different nature. Instead of legalizing an otherwise illegal activity, it makes illegal an act which would otherwise be lawful. Federal law won't protect any law enforcement official who breaks state or local laws unless the case get's appealed to the Supreme Court.
CD/Jewel Cases are the easy part. Selling those in stores is the hard part. You need a distributor and a lot of publicity before record stores will put the album on the shelves. The RIAA has worked really hard to make the situation in brick-and-mortar record stores like this and they won't adopt any online replacement until the barriers for entry by smaller record labels are as high or higher than those currently in place at record stores.
It's about control of the distribution channel. They'd rather control 100% of a smaller market than %75 of a much larger one.
The problem isn't that we need privacy laws to protect user's SSNs...those can be publicly available. The problem is that the SSN has been overloaded by businesses and other organizations.
A SSN is a number granted to an individual by the government for the purposes of identifying that person to the government. It shouldn't be a means of identifying someone to a credit card company, bank or other institution (my university used SSN as our student ID numbers). If one of these institutions wants to identify me by a number, they can assign me their own damn number.
What we need is legislation preventing private institutions from assigning extra significance to any government issued piece of identification. Just because SSN is a handy primary key for their db tables doesn't mean that they should be allowed to use it.
</rant>
Whenever Meche hit those spots, he wasn't getting the call. Maddux was getting them on reputation, as much as anything else.
Was meche hitting the catcher's mit as perfectly as Maddux? Was Wilson framing the pitches as well as Lopez? Were the Atlanta batters crowding the plate as much as the Mariners were? Was Meche throwing with the same speed and movement on his pitches as Maddux? (as that can influence the appearance of the pitch) These are all idiosyncrasies that make the strike zone appear different. All the idiosyncrasies that make baseball more fun to watch.
Squeezing the hitters like that is detrimental to enjoyment of the game...A Maddux v. Martinez matchup should be a treat -- a real battle of skills.
But don't you see, the ability to convince an umpire that a ball outside is actually a strike is a skill. Maddux can't hit 90mph or get the kind of movement that many of the younger players can. He has to use other tools in his arsenal to succeed. So long as he's not receiving blatant favoritism (which, despite your conclusions, sounds like something an opposing team's fan would say), then it adds to the game that the strike calls are subjective.
BTW, putting all my cards on the table, I'm an A's fan, so will likely be predisposed to disliking the M's.
what the major leagues want to see from theses changes is more offense.
Not really a reply to you so much as a commentary on MLB. First they try to speed up games by getting umpires to call more strikes and crack down on delaying tactics of players and then they install these computers to keep umpires from having expanded strike zones. Seems idiotic to me. If they feel that changing the game will help them compete in the ADHD world of today, I think they'll end up losing some of what's great about baseball. The value of a HR is cheapened if several are hit in every game.
I think there are some errors in sports that do make the game better. Ball/Strike calling is one of them.
Pitcher's like Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux have made careers out of being so accurate with their pitches that they can "expand" the strike zone. They start on the outside corner and gradually move further outside...if the ump calls the first one a strike, it's hard for him to draw the line between a strike and a ball if the difference is only an inch or two. Pitcher's like Curt Schilling study the umpires to see what kinds of pitches are likely to be called strikes. These examples are all part of what is the art of pitching...getting the hitter and/or umpire to believe a ball is a strike.
There are other parts of baseball where I'm sure umpires and fans would welcome technological help. For instance, determining whether a ball is caught on the fly or trapped. Or determining whether a ball hit over the foul pole was on the fair side or foul side. Those kinds of aids would improve the game.
But having a human umpire is part of the game...just as much as wooden bats. Like QuesTec, metal bats are a technological improvement, but we don't welcome those in the major leagues. I see no reason to accept QuesTec either.
As for the increased complexity of games, shouldn't it - at least in part - be offset by code reuse? Developing a similar game or a sequel should be much easier than the initial title.
I had a friend who worked at Berkeley Systems on their "You Don't Know Jack" line. According to him, the first game lost money. But when they developed it, they made it in such a way that it was extremely easy to come out with different edition (granted, trivia games do lend themselves to this naturally.) The figure I was told was that it took them 2 weeks to create a new edition of the game. This meant that subsequent games were huge money makers and that the overall line of games was a big success.
So sometimes the code re-use angle is figured into the cost of the first title. The first title might lose money on the expectation that subsequent titles will make it up.
On the contrary, perhaps the vaccine will _prevent_ us from having to take malaria tablets in future.
You seemed to have missed the point of my previous comment.
Malaria pills are notorious for having widely different side effects depending on the person taking them. Whereas some people experience horrendous nightmares like you did, other's (like me;) experience wonderful, vividly colorful dreams. Contrary to feeling totally drained like you did, I awoke refreshed and ended up having to sleep less to receive enough rest to make it through my days.
Therefore, as I imagine a vaccine would eliminate any need for the pills beyond the recreational, I would be sad to never again be able to duplicate my experiences with malaria pills...hence the conclusion of my last post.
...and had to deal with the resulting, acid-trip-like dreams vivid enough to rival the experience on even the most expensive of illicit substances, I have this to say:
Yep...I got this working pretty easily as well. I'm using a D-Link wireless gateway router. (quick plug for the 714P+...the print server feature is great!)
Anyway, SBC/Yahoo DSL uses a completely standard PPoE connection, only it took a while to figure out that the username you log in with is actually your username that you registered with '@sbcglobal.net' tacked on to the end. Other than that it was a quick and easy setup. Other than that, everything was completely the way I expected it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's my solution.
I've never really gone the "do it yourself" route, but I can definitely recommend my current solution. I host my mail with Critical Path (disclaimer: I'm a former employee, so I don't exactly pay for the service).
Besides them handling all maintenance and keeping the service up 24/7, there's IMAP, POP and webmail access. Account provisioning is easy through their web admin interface or through an API. And they've got all sorts of feature I don't really need for my personal email (LDAP, etc), but might interest other folks.
...it also marks the last time a bug report contained an adequate description of the problem.
I completely agree. Teach OOP concepts first, then students will have a much easier time groking Java when it's presented to them.
IMHO, the best book for presenting OOP principles is Object Design: Roles Responsibilities and Collaborations. It presents most concepts in a language-neutral fashion.
Rather than use enscript an imagemagick which would make the solution very platform dependant, why not use XSL-T to create an SVG representation of the barcode?
I've never had a chance to play with it myself, but I found this article that discusses the process.
Pay per e-mail sucks because it can't account for foreign exchange disparities. $1 to send 100 e-mails is a whole lot cheaper for an average income earner in the US than R7 is here (ZA). The countries that will be the worst affected are the poorest 3rd world countries, that most need the benefit of cheap Internet access to improve their economic condition.
Pay per email has promise, but if it is limited to actual currencies, it is destined to fail (for all the reasons you've enumerated.) The other way to force the sender to pay to send the message is to force them to expend a certain amount of CPU cycles before sending the message. It's a negligible cost (in time) to someone sending a few messages, but to someone sending millions of SPAM messages, it would bring the cost of sending those messages above the profits they can generate from sending those messages.
What's needed is an extension to SMTP which uses HashCash or something like it to ensure that the sender has to do a certain amount of work to send the message. If all the large MTAs began to support such an extension and the larger ISPs (err...largest ISP...*cough*AOL*cough*) began to require it to send messages to their users and through their servers, SPAM would end up being almost non-existant and the anonymous nature of email would be preserved.
Yes, but it is still a distinct organization that is not part of the RIAA. It's membership includes far more of the smaller labels that the RIAA's does. The parent poster was saying that the RIAA will be collecting all the royalties and wouldn't distribute them to smaller labels/artists and, despite the fact that SoundExchange was started by the major labels, it does not represent only their interests.
There's a lot of ways the RIAA is evil, but their methods for collecting royalties isn't necessarily one of them. There may be other statistical methods that would work better, but there isn't a way to distribute royalties based on exactly what is played.
If the webcaster's alliance ever intended to find a suitable settlement, then I'd agree with you that they'd be doomed to fail. But most of them are, as you said, small setups that never really get above 3-4 listeners. They've never intended on negotiating, in good faith, an alternative to the CARP rates. Most of them weren't even webcasting until after the CARP rates were announced.
What they're really after is publicity and a way to push their own individual agendas. They were almost able to ruin the recent settlement that allowed many of the medium-sized webcasters to keep broadcasting. They failed at that, so now they're going after more publicity.
Ummm...no...not even close.
Radio stations pay royalties to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.
Online webcasters, in addition to paying ASCAP/BMI/SESAC fees, pay royalties to SoundExchange.
The notable difference between what you've said and the actual situation is that the RIAA has a limitted membership consisting of only the larger labels. However, membership in the groups that collect royalties is basically unlimitted. Royalties are distributed to labels/artists based on statistical sampling done at random to determine what percentage of the pie each label/artist is entitled to. It might end up favoring the big labels, but doing it differently would make the whole process incredibly complex.
Friendster should create the concept of a non-linking profile. That way, these "fauxsters" (as you call them) could be setup to enable people to find people with similar interests without adding millions of people to your circle of friends.
Setup correctly, these gimmicky profiles could make it much easier to meet other like-minded people (just look at the example in the article where the woman met potential dates by setting up an identity for a common lesbian hangout bar). This kind of problem can be handled by either embracing the phenomenon or combatting it. One way will earn the ire of their users, the other won't. It would seem like a no-brainer to me which one they'd choose.
You've entirely missed the point of this project.
I highly doubt that Nutch is going to offer an alternative to Google in the area of web search. What they seem to be doing is offering an alternative in the area of Enterprise search.
Currently, the company that I work for pays Verity (used to be Inktomi, before that Infoseek) tens of thousands of dollars a year for the use of their software. We use their software to make our own site searchable. If Nutch offered us a free alternative to our Ultraseek server, we'd definitely be interested.
We don't have to worry about anyone "googlebombing" our search collections because, well, we create all the content that goes into those collections. We'd love it if the algorithm that determined rankings was open-source. That way, we could change it to suit our specific needs if we thought it would help return more relevant results. There are currently a number of undesirable phenomena that we live with or work around because the mechanics of the problem are burried within proprietary Ultraseek code.
Google is the best of the best in web search and I don't think anyone short of MS is interested in challenging them for that. But 'search engine' in this case means something entirely different.
How about 3 lines of HTML that crash IE?
<form>
<input type crash>
</form>
In response to the announcement of the creation of the Dept of Software (DoS), Microsoft announced that it would start a new program to sell it's software at half of normal price to better compete with the free software the DoS would be offering.
/me *ducks* (and appologizes profusely :-)
Microsoft believes "Operation Half-Priced Software" (OS/2, for short) will make its software more competitively priced. CEO Steve Ballmer was quoted as saying, "We belive that OS/2 software is superior to DoS software and we think users will be willing to pay a premium for it."
Or how about the movie "The Ring"???
!!!SPOILER ALERT!!!
The basic premise is, if you watch this short video (included on the DVD), you will die one week later. However, one can be saved by copying the video and passing it on to someone else.
So you're basically faced with the choice of a gruesome death or committing piracy...it's a pretty tough choice.
There is also the remarkably arrogant attitude held by corporations here in the US that they should have every right to do whatever is best to make a buck without any repercussions.
The government's job is to look out for it's own citizens, not it's own corporations. They need to make policies (tarriffs, taxes, etc) that encourage companies to make it worthwhile to hire over-priced US workers. These companies are more than happy to exploit the standard of living in the US by selling their overpriced crap here for huge profits that they can't really get anywhere else. They just don't want to support that same standard of living by paying workers here what's necessary to maintain the standard of living.
So...yeah, it may be arrogant of me to expect my government to represent the average citizen rather than the corporations who rape us at every opportunity, but I don't seem to remember honest Abe saying anything about "Government of the corporation/CEO, by the corporation/CEO and for the corporation/CEO."
I have a friend who's company worked on a contract for one of the spyware companies. His job was to find software to bundle the spyware with. Some of the potential candidates already came with quite a few other spyware packages as well.
Aparently, in the negotiations with the software developers, it was very important to be the last spyware package installed during the install process as that could ensure that their spyware package could control the users search bar and other aspects of their browser. He showed me the test computer he installed everything on and typed a non-url into his address bar in IE. For approximately 10 seconds, the screen flashed and the browser did nothing as it attempted to figure out which spyware package was to control the response to his request. The idea that people live with this sickens me.
Do the federal drug agents care when they storm into these people's "gardens" and prosecute them to the full extent of FEDERAL law?
Ummm...I think they're beginning to. Take a look at the Ed Rosenthal case. He is/was a grower of medical marijuana in San Francisco who was arrested and charged in federal court under federal law. Upon being conviction, he was sentenced to a whopping 1 day in prison. That sentence never would have happened if it weren't for California's state laws.
Not to mention that the anti-PA local legislation is of a different nature. Instead of legalizing an otherwise illegal activity, it makes illegal an act which would otherwise be lawful. Federal law won't protect any law enforcement official who breaks state or local laws unless the case get's appealed to the Supreme Court.
CD/Jewel Cases are the easy part. Selling those in stores is the hard part. You need a distributor and a lot of publicity before record stores will put the album on the shelves. The RIAA has worked really hard to make the situation in brick-and-mortar record stores like this and they won't adopt any online replacement until the barriers for entry by smaller record labels are as high or higher than those currently in place at record stores.
It's about control of the distribution channel. They'd rather control 100% of a smaller market than %75 of a much larger one.
The problem isn't that we need privacy laws to protect user's SSNs...those can be publicly available. The problem is that the SSN has been overloaded by businesses and other organizations.
A SSN is a number granted to an individual by the government for the purposes of identifying that person to the government. It shouldn't be a means of identifying someone to a credit card company, bank or other institution (my university used SSN as our student ID numbers). If one of these institutions wants to identify me by a number, they can assign me their own damn number.
What we need is legislation preventing private institutions from assigning extra significance to any government issued piece of identification. Just because SSN is a handy primary key for their db tables doesn't mean that they should be allowed to use it.
</rant>
Whenever Meche hit those spots, he wasn't getting the call. Maddux was getting them on reputation, as much as anything else.
Was meche hitting the catcher's mit as perfectly as Maddux? Was Wilson framing the pitches as well as Lopez? Were the Atlanta batters crowding the plate as much as the Mariners were? Was Meche throwing with the same speed and movement on his pitches as Maddux? (as that can influence the appearance of the pitch) These are all idiosyncrasies that make the strike zone appear different. All the idiosyncrasies that make baseball more fun to watch.
Squeezing the hitters like that is detrimental to enjoyment of the game...A Maddux v. Martinez matchup should be a treat -- a real battle of skills.
But don't you see, the ability to convince an umpire that a ball outside is actually a strike is a skill. Maddux can't hit 90mph or get the kind of movement that many of the younger players can. He has to use other tools in his arsenal to succeed. So long as he's not receiving blatant favoritism (which, despite your conclusions, sounds like something an opposing team's fan would say), then it adds to the game that the strike calls are subjective.
BTW, putting all my cards on the table, I'm an A's fan, so will likely be predisposed to disliking the M's.
what the major leagues want to see from theses changes is more offense.
Not really a reply to you so much as a commentary on MLB. First they try to speed up games by getting umpires to call more strikes and crack down on delaying tactics of players and then they install these computers to keep umpires from having expanded strike zones. Seems idiotic to me. If they feel that changing the game will help them compete in the ADHD world of today, I think they'll end up losing some of what's great about baseball. The value of a HR is cheapened if several are hit in every game.
I think there are some errors in sports that do make the game better. Ball/Strike calling is one of them.
Pitcher's like Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux have made careers out of being so accurate with their pitches that they can "expand" the strike zone. They start on the outside corner and gradually move further outside...if the ump calls the first one a strike, it's hard for him to draw the line between a strike and a ball if the difference is only an inch or two. Pitcher's like Curt Schilling study the umpires to see what kinds of pitches are likely to be called strikes. These examples are all part of what is the art of pitching...getting the hitter and/or umpire to believe a ball is a strike.
There are other parts of baseball where I'm sure umpires and fans would welcome technological help. For instance, determining whether a ball is caught on the fly or trapped. Or determining whether a ball hit over the foul pole was on the fair side or foul side. Those kinds of aids would improve the game.
But having a human umpire is part of the game...just as much as wooden bats. Like QuesTec, metal bats are a technological improvement, but we don't welcome those in the major leagues. I see no reason to accept QuesTec either.
As for the increased complexity of games, shouldn't it - at least in part - be offset by code reuse? Developing a similar game or a sequel should be much easier than the initial title.
I had a friend who worked at Berkeley Systems on their "You Don't Know Jack" line. According to him, the first game lost money. But when they developed it, they made it in such a way that it was extremely easy to come out with different edition (granted, trivia games do lend themselves to this naturally.) The figure I was told was that it took them 2 weeks to create a new edition of the game. This meant that subsequent games were huge money makers and that the overall line of games was a big success.
So sometimes the code re-use angle is figured into the cost of the first title. The first title might lose money on the expectation that subsequent titles will make it up.
On the contrary, perhaps the vaccine will _prevent_ us from having to take malaria tablets in future.
;) experience wonderful, vividly colorful dreams. Contrary to feeling totally drained like you did, I awoke refreshed and ended up having to sleep less to receive enough rest to make it through my days.
You seemed to have missed the point of my previous comment.
Malaria pills are notorious for having widely different side effects depending on the person taking them. Whereas some people experience horrendous nightmares like you did, other's (like me
Therefore, as I imagine a vaccine would eliminate any need for the pills beyond the recreational, I would be sad to never again be able to duplicate my experiences with malaria pills...hence the conclusion of my last post.
...and had to deal with the resulting, acid-trip-like dreams vivid enough to rival the experience on even the most expensive of illicit substances, I have this to say:
"Your vaccine is not welcome!"
Yeah, but you used standard multiplication...with "Matrix" multiplication a single zero doesn't zero out the entire result...
Yep...I got this working pretty easily as well. I'm using a D-Link wireless gateway router. (quick plug for the 714P+...the print server feature is great!)
Anyway, SBC/Yahoo DSL uses a completely standard PPoE connection, only it took a while to figure out that the username you log in with is actually your username that you registered with '@sbcglobal.net' tacked on to the end. Other than that it was a quick and easy setup. Other than that, everything was completely the way I expected it.