Paula A. Michelsen (59).
Treaty of Rome (53).
Peter Lundholm Jensen (45).
Carl Barks (109).
Vincent van Gogh (157).
Netscape releases Communicator client source code (12).
Johnny Madsen (59).
Kammeratx (39).
First usenet spam (17).
My ISP had some misconfiguration/crosstalk problem, which took out my net connection from around 13:30 until this afternoon, when I called customer service and got it fixed.
Besides some annoyances, it was quite nice to be without net-access for an evening.
While it was uncool that the net connection stopped working, the customer service was good, no nonsense about restarting Windows and he provded plausible explanations - and most importantly, got the problem fixed. ⊗
Man, they sure know how to bring you down again.
Oh well.
Hopefully Android will grow into something where I can check out the source code of the email client and fix the bugs.
Or can I do that already?
It sounds like Googles new Buzz thingamajig has some annoying problems especially to users of Googles services that aren't drenched in only friends.
Ouch.
As usual (?), Google is quick to respond to the problem.
Down from "fuck you" to "screw you" on the swear-o-meter. Good times.
More damage control from Google. For some reason it seems like they still think they can just play around with their services without thinking it through completely. I guess that with more and more people depending on your service (and the perpetual "beta"-sign removed), you have to be more careful than that...
I'm happy to run my own email. ⊗
I really liked my revision 1 TV-B-Gone. Enough to get one of the newer ones (improvements included ability to restart the sequence (very, very nice) and a discrete LED blinking to indicate activity).
TV-B-Gone has also gone Open Source, which is great.
The latest TV-B-Gone Professional Super High Power looked mighty alluring when announced.
Mine arrived today, and I just went for an evening walk.
It. Is. Great.
As your attorney, I advise you to get one. Immediately. ⊗
The Math Guy writes:
"The one other thing you need to make a science news story work is to be able to answer the question "What is this good for?" Why this is an important question, has always baffled me. After all, the news media are full of reports about sports, music, movies, entertainment, and the arts, none of which are "good for anything" in the sense that science stories are supposed to live up to. "People enjoy it" or "Entertainment is a good thing in itself" or even "People are just naturally curious and want to know stuff" [...] are generally regarded as sufficient justification for most things the news media report on. Still, my colleagues in the media tell me that a science story won't work unless it gives an indication of a possible "application". And I know from many years of experience that, as in any other profession, the professionals in this case do know what they are talking about."
The Amish sound like they have some interesting rules, and ways to work around them.
"Amish electricity" is pneumatic and genetically modified plants are great (easier to harvest with non-modern methods), it is okay to be driven to work in a van when it owned by an outsider, but tractors and forklifts must have metal-wheels so people aren't inclined to run them on roads.
To me it seems a consistent logical thing to default to saying "No" to new things and consider the consequences to the society and its values before accepting new things, but all the workarounds makes me wonder if the rules aren't wrong to begin with. ⊗
Advertisement in operating system.
Way to go. ⊗