Maybe I am missing something, but aren't the majority of 'security' issues related to Internet access and IE?
I mean, it's not XP that's broken or needs fixing, is it?
And, how old is 'IE' in this context?
If that's their logic (or yours), forcing the purchase of the top tier knowing you MAY not want the other channels so they can subsidize FuelTV with the revenue from everyone else who doesn't watch it then that's just stupid.
I'd pay a premium on the lower tier just to get FuelTV.
This is my rant. On Verizon and Time Warner if you want the FuelTV channel which is where the MMA fights are covered live, you can only get it by buying the most expensive package. It's their Super duper deluxe with a bazillion channels I don't care about. But it's the only one where you can get Fuel.
from the faint-of-heart-attack dept.
Benz145 writes "The famous Sony VAIO UX UMPC may have been cancelled a few years back by Sony, but the community at Micro PC Talk won't let it die. Modder Anh has carefully removed the relatively slow 1.33Ghz Core Solo CPU and installed a much faster Intel Core 2 Duo U7700 (a process which involves reballing the entire CPU). On top of this, he managed to install an incredibly small 4-port USB hub into the unit which allowed for the further instillation of a Huawei E172 modem for 3G data/voice/SMS, a GPS receiver, and a Pinnacle HD TV receiver. All of this was done without modifying the device's tiny external case. Great high-res pictures of the motherboard with the modded hardware can be seen through the link."
An anonymous reader writes "It appears that Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones and her lawyer were so upset by a comment on the site TheDirty.com that they missed the 'y' at the end of the name. Instead, they sued the owner of TheDirt.com, whose owner didn't respond to the lawsuit. The end result was a judge awarding $11 million, in part because of the failure to respond. Now, both the owners of TheDirty.com and TheDirt.com are complaining that they're being wrongfully written about in the press — one for not having had any content about Sarah Jones but being told it needs to pay $11 million, and the other for having the content and having the press say it lost a lawsuit, even though no lawsuit was ever actually filed against it."