Telus seems to ignore the blacklist, at least at this time.
"I'm sure that in 1985, plutonium is available in every corner drugstore, but in 1955, it's a little hard to come by."
- Doc Brown
I sold a Gravis Ultrasound Classic a few months back for $50. There are a few hobbyest clubs around that tinker with old gear, but I doubt many will pay cash.
Ditto on the Usenet part. If I ever meet anybody IRL who I corresponded with on Usenet (and it's happened at least once), I'll know who they are immediately, because of real names. That civility and community online is rare in public forums these days, though I'm sure there's something about the type of person who had internet access those days (educated, could afford a $1000 typewriter (ie. computer) that that could also access the internet).
Slashdot was one of my first online accounts (other than email) I had created, and I didn't see any reason to use anything other than my real name. I probably would make a different choice if I could create a new account and weren't so attached to the low user ID.
Let me know when Trumpet will release a network stack, so I can load up Netscape in all its glory.
Three letter synonymn. Synonymous with three letter acronymn.
Play "will it melt" with your friends.
Communication will work, but at the cost of lowered efficiency. Typos and the lack of clarity in a sentence will force most careful readers to backtrack and reread to ensure it wasn't an error on the reader's part. To me, it's a little like driving with a dirty windshield. Sure, it's doable, but its nonetheless distracting.
On the net, I can accept that the rules of grammar are as variable as the backgrounds of the people writing and reading it. In print, or on permanent signage, I'm not so forgiving.
Since nobody's posted any links:
The best solution seems to be to burn it off.
The sea floor is a veritable desert compared to the ocean surface. The food chain starts in the first 10' of water, where plankton have access to sunlight.
Absolutely wrong. Anybody who has ever gone diving or fishing knows that the bottom is where all the action is. A reference: http://www.fathom.com/course/10701050/session2.html
While the food chain starts at the top, the biodiversity is accumulated near the bottom. Even if you might not care about biodiversity, commercial crab, shrimp, and lobster fisheries will depend on organisms on the sea floor to be uncontaminated, even if they do survive.
There are creatures that will be effected by oil on the sea floor like crabs and such, but it's still better than letting it run ashore.
Better for whom? The tourist industry?
Briefly, oil on the ocean floor or dispersed in the water column is bad. Oil on the ocean surface is worse. And oil on the ocean surface at the shoreline and in the estuaries is an ecological catastrophe.
Still wrong. As far as animal life is concerned, each is bad for its own reasons. Surface oil may affect animals that are visually more photogenic--birds, dolphins, seals--but oil on the bottom will make life difficult for the myriads of bottom-dwellers. Sea urchins and starfish are especially sensitive. http://echinoblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/spiny-skinned-canaries-in-coal-mine.html
(yeah, I know I'm posting two days later)
The difference to me is that new versions of browsers are generally advertised as a recommended update. Most users see "an update is now available", and click "OK". One of my XP machines recently showed an unwelcome IE8 as an update. And with each update, the computer gets slightly slower. Most people would expect it to be the same product. But it's not.
Actually, cell coverage is quite ubiquitous in most of Ghana. And the people most likely to afford a computer will be able to afford a cell phone. Can't speak for the other countries. But the problem is that there are multiple providers, and roaming is virtually non-existant. It prides itself on being one of the best connected countries in Africa. However, 3G is not there yet (it's being planned). But I think that would be the best choice for most wanting internet access.
BTW, the link you referred to is 404'd. But as I understand it, the reason for the migration to South Africa is more to do with business opportunities than health and lifestyle (I know, I talked with quite a few of them when I was in South Africa). The recent (last 5 years) megalomaniac leadership in Zimbabwe caused a 90% unemployment, causing much of the exodus.