Dear [my name — they got that right, amazingly],
For the last month, null has been helping protect you from identity theft by monitoring for signs of identity theft. We are pleased to inform you there were no critical events reported in the last month. In this case, no news is good news! If any key changes are reported, we will notify you via e-mail.
You may change your notification preferences at any time by visiting Member Services > Alert Preferences in your Equifax Member Center.
Please call us at null, null. You may e-mail us anytime at null. Or you may write us at null.
Thank you for allowing us to provide you continued identity theft protection.
Your null null
My "null null" indeed."
Hey, blackC0pter: How much would I have to pay you to configure 2 more of these routers (like your in-laws') for me? $200?
Totally serious, please contact me at creeble at yahoo dot com if you get this; I don't know
Hope you're enjoying your
Link to Original Source
The last paragraph of this article ( from *2002*: http://www.shirky.com/writings/domain_names.html ) says it best:
"There are no pure engineering solutions here, because this is not a pure engineering problem. Human interest in names is a deeply wired characteristic, and it creates political and legal issues because names are genuinely important. In the 4 years since its founding, ICANN has moved from being merely unaccountable to being actively anti-democratic, but as reforming or replacing ICANN becomes an urgent problem, we need to face the dilemma implicit in namespaces generally: Memorable, Global, Non-political -- pick two."
So please, let's quit with all this talk about "replacing" the DNS. Get real, kids.
Yahoo mail seems to be a bit slow and goofy lately, too. I'm wondering whether:
A) something's actually wrong with Slashdot's rss feed, or
B) the AOL buyout rumors have demoralized Yahoo! employees enough to finally completely give up on maintaining the site.
My guess is the latter. I'd say good riddance, but oddly enough I've clung to my.yahoo.com as my browser home page since about 1997."
However, an Air Force Institute of Technology study [dtic.mil] seems to indicate that simulated Iridium end-to-end latency works out, on average, to 178 ms...
You misread the report. That's modeled with 36 failed satellites.
485 miles is a lot closer than 22,236 miles.
Yes, my 9500 handset is large, with a huge phallic antenna. Yes, minutes are expensive ($1.49). But I have coverage where literally nobody else does. That's what it's for.
No, the business plan worked as designed. Motorola conceived Iridium as a way to sell a lot of equipment, for which they made a huge profit, while at the same time they had very little financial stake in Iridium actually succeeding.
That's utterly incorrect. Motorola lost about three $billion on Iridium: http://www.heavens-above.com/iridiumdemise.asp