Garmin has a unit called the Astro for tracking hunting dogs. It isn't cheap, suggested retail price is $600.

The British plug is pretty indestructible. If you get in to a fight with one, it'll win. There's not much that misuse could do to it! I do recall seeing a slightly broken one once. It was an old bakelite one and the plastic had chipped slightly on the top half of the casing. Still didn't expose any wires and still went into a socket no problem. Actually, are plugs on American appliances user replaceable?

I dislike that kind of thought experiment because it explicitly dissuades you from even trying to find a way to get both, or in general thinking critically..

The original way you phrased it, it is implicit that the people who are trying to interview you are going to be not only inflexible to absolutely inflexible. If the thirty seconds it would take you to apologize, scribble a telephone number, and run off, would completely ruin the interview, then the person on the other side is a completely OCD asshole. Alternately, if the woman was in such a position that you would never ever ever ever ever meet her again if you turned her down now, or if she could skin you alive if you came back after running off--even with a good excuse--then it probably wouldn't work, and if you could make it work, is it really worth it?

The "two doors" method is pretty much the same. Rarely does one actually find a situation where things really are that clear cut, and if you do, it's probably something you wouldn't want anyway; if someone "put the job of my dreams" and "put the woman of my dreams" behind doors, then I would know they were gaming me and I wouldn't trust either of their choices; I'd simply walk away. And again, as the GP said, if the "woman of my dreams" was someone I already knew but who was not going to accept that I needed a job, screw her. And if it's someone I didn't know, why should I trust someone who's trying to make me decide?

I'm not saying that things never turn out analogously in real life--they do. But if running into a situation like that causes your brain to shut down and makes you only see two mutually exclusive options, then you pretty much already lost.

Mod parent up. They may have posted AC but it's the only post not to rely solely on anecdotal info. They must be new here...

Sounds like a combination of a bad cable modem and/or poor torrent configuration and not a case of throttling. Torrents use a lot of simultaneous connections, and it's not uncommon for modems to crash when trying to handle so many connections. At the very least, the connections may be thrashing your modem or router to the point of near unresponsiveness. You should limit the maximum number of connections your torrent client uses - start with 10 and work your way up until you start to have problems. Or head over to SBHacker and load some better firmware on your modem.

Correct of course; For any result that needs to be verified, there is a scientist out there bad enough to design an experiment which can fail to test it for any possible reason.

Well, the definition of pipes varies a bit on different OS's (even among Unix systems), but certainly on Windows you can use named pipes that are message-oriented and won't scramble up messages from multiple clients.

Unix FIFOs (which can be considered a specialized pipe) also support atomic writes if the message isn't longer than the pipe buffer (PIPE_BUF). Typically a client creates a private FIFO and then sends it's path to the well-known server FIFO. Thus a one-to-many (server to clients) capability is created. See UNIX Network Programming, Interprocess Communications Volume 2, Second Edition by W.Richard Stevens, Chapter 4.

How unfortunate that we are forced to even think of these measures.

They advertise it as "up to" and not "at least". It is confusing, but it's not misleading. That's why I've proposed a better transparency standard http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/the-need-for-a-broadband-transparency-standard/.

From TFA:

So now there are thousands of Somali pirates, rolling in money from their ongoing exploits, who have now been told that it is illegal to have fun under threat of flogging, amputation, or death.

It's karmic in its own way.

I was one of the people that had a very bad experience with SORBS.

My company got a new ISP with an external block. I'm sure at some point that block had been used as a dynamic range. I had not set a PTR record (because the IP of the mail server changed at the last second), my PTR and A record for that mail server were not set to 12 hours (seriously, who does that?), and I was banned on the SORBS list. I had an SPF record, you could obviously see that I'm part of a legitimate organization, and it would have taken maybe 2 minutes of work for an physical admin to realize that this was a mistake.

It took two support tickets with SORBS, 5 calls to my ISP, and around 10 days to get off the list. In the meantime, we could not contact certain people using it. And what's worse is that the only solution that the admin of SORBS had was to get everyone to stop using the SORBS list. I think that the TTL requirements are the worst part of their solution.

In my opinion, an unattended, automated black list is worse than the problem of too much spam. You are blocking valid mails, and because you are blocking it at the IP level, the end user doesn't even see it show up in their spam bucket many times. If SORBS had a single admin, checking their email once a day, they could easily filter out some of these issues.

I encouraged several anti-spam vendors to stop using their services for this reason, through the different companies that we interact with. There are several other blacklists that do their job well, there is no need to use an unattended blacklist.

Tell Sarah Palin that it's an attempt to create a single world government. Sit back and watch the fireworks (and teabagging).

If Geist's blog is rarely wrong, that makes it many times more accurate than the corporate media sources have been for some time.

What makes this all the more believable is that this administration has done this exact same thing, several times, and that the whole unilateral internationalist agenda, circumventing or outright ignoring national interests, has been his modus operandi since election.

Your system is most likely infected, with the virus injecting extra Javascript into web pages for additional pop-up ads and the like. Could also explain your problems downloading video files.

Of course SE should detect it, but at least it is giving you some protecting and dropping a fairly big hint that you should run further scans. If a full system scan does not pick it up, try a free online scanner like Symantec's or Bitdefender's.

All your spike would do is give him a convenient place to put the sandwich after he finished making it.