i'm a google fangirl, so anything i say is likely to be extremely biased, but surely it is better to have some google service in china than none at all? any attempt to give chinese google users access to stuff that they should really be allowed access to is bound to cause google to be put onto the great blacklist of china.
assuming that the ISPs stop cracking down on p2p, assuming that i am able to go ahead with all my p2p, then i'm fine with this idea.
if they charge this fee, and hunt down the file sharers at the same time, then screw them.
i was unaware that airlines had started allowing passengers to board their flights before they had landed. as far as i can tell from (gasp) reading the article, this happened as the guy was about to board the airplane.
...and to be perfectly honest, if AOL told me that they knew what i was doing with that suspicious looking 4GB a month, I'd probably stop. i just can't be bothered to figure out how to properly set up encryption, proxies and whatever else the rest of you do to hide your p2p.
Google, when you let me share certain items from a feed with the ENTIRE INTERNET, I somehow thought that nobody else would be able to see them. My mistake.
this hoaxious teacher sounds as incompentant as my school's head of IT. the only difference seems to be that our head of IT would have given a student detention for using internet explorer rather than firefox if it were possible.
yeah, let's show apple how we're cracking their phone. 'cause that's a good idea.
sure, open sourcing it would mean that it would be developed faster assuming that apple don't see it. unfortunately that won't be the case.
No, sorry. I just know that video A loads slowly from several seperate addresses across the UK, whereas video B works just fine at the same addresses. Loading time didn't seem to be affected by the video's popularity.
When you consider that a lot of YouTube videos are loading really slowly across the UK (yes, I have tested this).
While this is a good idea in the future, I think first priority should be ensuring that ALL videos load at an acceptable speed. 4kbps is not an acceptable speed.
My emails are being read by a computer! Oh, no! Now Google's computer knows about my girlfriend's surprise party and is planning on spoiling the surprise.
...this would be great for rechargable batteries for your wiimotes?
as is custom on/. i have not read the article, but i assume that currently these don't provide enough power for that purpose, and by the time they do, wii will be old.
The BBC's broadcasts are already free, via satellite, in Europe. I do not pay a UK license fee but can watch BBC, and the other UK channels, via Sky and without the use of any Sky subscription. I do not think that the content being available to anyone else in the world is such a major issue. The material has already been funded and you pay for your internet access so no-one is losing money. I was under the impression that to use Sky, you needed a UK phone number. I know it is possible to access Sky from Europe; we were considering it too for in Slovakia. Although it is possible to access Sky in Europe, I don't think it's allowed. Not that they'll try to stop you; that'd be bad for business.
So I'm guessing that the BBC allow their channels on Sky on the assumption that people who use Sky HAVE to be in the UK.
What I don't understand is how creationists can believe two contradictory creation stories to both be true. As far as I'm aware, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 provide two completely different creation stories, which cannot possible both be right. And yet, creationists somehow convince their minds into believing two mutually exclusive things. I am seriously confused. Surely if you are to take the Bible as God's word, then isn't God saying right at the very start that His word is not literal truth?
Maybe I just remember those chapters wrong; it has been about a decade since I read them.
Slashdot Mirror
they are trying to "encourage" parents to leave behind their PDAs
ok, i didn't read the article. sue me.
i'm a google fangirl, so anything i say is likely to be extremely biased, but surely it is better to have some google service in china than none at all? any attempt to give chinese google users access to stuff that they should really be allowed access to is bound to cause google to be put onto the great blacklist of china.
just my two generic low valued GCash coins.
combine that with the fact (read: high probability) that she doesn't even have a PC...
assuming that the ISPs stop cracking down on p2p, assuming that i am able to go ahead with all my p2p, then i'm fine with this idea. if they charge this fee, and hunt down the file sharers at the same time, then screw them.
i was unaware that airlines had started allowing passengers to board their flights before they had landed.
as far as i can tell from (gasp) reading the article, this happened as the guy was about to board the airplane.
...and to be perfectly honest, if AOL told me that they knew what i was doing with that suspicious looking 4GB a month, I'd probably stop.
i just can't be bothered to figure out how to properly set up encryption, proxies and whatever else the rest of you do to hide your p2p.
Google, when you let me share certain items from a feed with the ENTIRE INTERNET, I somehow thought that nobody else would be able to see them. My mistake.
this hoaxious teacher sounds as incompentant as my school's head of IT. the only difference seems to be that our head of IT would have given a student detention for using internet explorer rather than firefox if it were possible.
yeah, let's show apple how we're cracking their phone. 'cause that's a good idea. sure, open sourcing it would mean that it would be developed faster assuming that apple don't see it. unfortunately that won't be the case.
No, sorry. I just know that video A loads slowly from several seperate addresses across the UK, whereas video B works just fine at the same addresses. Loading time didn't seem to be affected by the video's popularity.
When you consider that a lot of YouTube videos are loading really slowly across the UK (yes, I have tested this).
While this is a good idea in the future, I think first priority should be ensuring that ALL videos load at an acceptable speed. 4kbps is not an acceptable speed.
yeah, i thought of that too. but for all the videos i tried, the page with the video player on wasn't part of either cache.
thank god for torrents!
you've obviously never met either me or my girlfriend! :P
My emails are being read by a computer! Oh, no! Now Google's computer knows about my girlfriend's surprise party and is planning on spoiling the surprise.
STFU Ballmer!
but isn't this similar to the engine of a firefly class spaceship?
So that's how the Cortex works!
where are those mod points when you need them
Damn it! Where's that amazingly witty response when you need it?
Imagine a bathtub filled with sand. Pull the plug out and record what you see. Now play that recording in reverse.
Seriously though, I have no idea. Until moment ago I was blissfully ignorant of anything other than the concept of the 13.7 billion sphere.
If only I had some sort of User Agent Switcher. Oh, wait...
...this would be great for rechargable batteries for your wiimotes?
/. i have not read the article, but i assume that currently these don't provide enough power for that purpose, and by the time they do, wii will be old.
as is custom on
...jack thompson when you need him?
glass? 'cause that's a good idea.~
Although it is possible to access Sky in Europe, I don't think it's allowed. Not that they'll try to stop you; that'd be bad for business.
So I'm guessing that the BBC allow their channels on Sky on the assumption that people who use Sky HAVE to be in the UK.
What I don't understand is how creationists can believe two contradictory creation stories to both be true. As far as I'm aware, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 provide two completely different creation stories, which cannot possible both be right. And yet, creationists somehow convince their minds into believing two mutually exclusive things.
I am seriously confused.
Surely if you are to take the Bible as God's word, then isn't God saying right at the very start that His word is not literal truth?
Maybe I just remember those chapters wrong; it has been about a decade since I read them.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.