Use the linux program called 'motion' to make your own motion-detecting video-recording security system.
I had a spare webcam and ended up using it as a motion-detecting video doorbell voicemail hehe.
...Nobody says, 'Oh man, I couldn't live if I had to switch to Sprint instead of Time Warner!'
I think customer service has actually become the commodity of value instead of the actual phone service. For the most part telephone service is the same, but the different perceptions people have of the customer service departments of these big companies seems to be one of the biggest reasons people switch now-a-days. Nobody switches because one company has better phone service than the other, some switch because one network has better coverage, but in my experience most people switch because in their opinion company X has better customer service than company Y.
"... and gives you some of the best tools (yes, better than emacs, and even better than vi) to develop with."
Can you specify which tools your referring to?
Do you mean Xcode? Because I didn't think Xcode did HTML/CSS/PHP...
I ask as a Linux developer who uses a Mac to SSH to a linux box to dev there using vim. I tried Xcode but found that it got in the way more than what I was currently using.
Not that rare.
I share his sexual preference and his opinion on the matter.
Sure, we can talk about adding a 10$ fee to internet bills, but only *after* you rescind the levy on blank media.
Canadians already pay a levy on blank CDs for the expressed purpose of compensating artists.
It is easily overlooked, but I don't think demanding the same waiver that the U.S. Government did in item B of the negotiated ToS is fair.
"B. Public purpose: Any requirement(s) set forth within the TOS that use the Company site and services be for private, personal and/or non-commercial purposes is hereby waived."
Seems a bit pretentious to demand being able to use it for commercial purposes. Other then that, those look like a decent ToS, too bad you have to be big and powerful enough to negotiate to get them.
Well its certainly a good thing you don't work in the justice system, otherwise the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' might not mean anything at all.
You certainly don't see every gun owner being accused of murder now do you. Any and all forms of sharing requires communication, but I'm not going to argue a triviality of human interaction with someone who thinks exchanges of information can take place without some form of communication.
Note that this 'arrogant' attitude is what keeps companies in business. Do you really think that the ISPs will do anything (Like expanding their network capacity) unless they think there is profit in it for them?
Note also that declaring something illegal doesn't make it disappear, it pushes it underground. When you criminalize legal you still create real criminals, it would be a sad day indeed for any country that began imprisoning people because they 'used a certain procotol' to communicate.
Yeah, BT's going the way of Napster alright. Oh wait, when Napster was shutdown, people didn't change their ways, they invented a different protocol.
Seems to be a hole in your logic there, friend.
The exact same thing can be argued of ISPs.
If ISPs created a simple caching program that acted like a proxy for BitTorrent chunks then they could offload much of the traffic from their interconnects with other ISPs onto their own networks, saving them untold amounts of money.
Note also that downloading from your neighbor in most cases in North America will yield only a small upload speed as most residential lines have pitifully small caps on upload speeds. I highly doubt you will see 500Kbps from your neighbor unless hes paying for a t1 line, in which case location is irrelevant.
BitTorrent doesn't care about ISP costs because they aren't impacted by them, nor IMO should they care without some kind of incentive. If the ISPs are going out of their way to get in my way about torrenting then I don't think that BitTorrent should go out of its way to save ISPs some cash that we all know isn't going to go back into the network but into somebodies pocket. If there was a tangeble benefit on the other hand, like if the speeds really ^did^ improve from downloading from local hosts, or if the savings was passed onto the consumer by not counting toward their bandwidth limit, then I could understand the reason, but this is not the case.
Besides all of that, seems to me like its better for the economy to have ISPs spending oodles of money on each other because I'm downloading from outside of their network, spending money keeps the economy going.
If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. -- Norm Schryer
