No doubt, you consistently contribute. I wrote what I did long (well half hour or so) before you posted.

There was a lot of rubbish up in here for a long while. There still is. It may well be that I'm merely just getting old, impatient, and nostalgic.

Ahh the GNAA.

Almost every message above this one (that I have read at this time) is a prime example of what people hate about nerds (and by extension much of OSS forums/support).

They built MF'ing graphs and detailed analyses of the issue. It is obvious that *something* is seriously broken.
From the comments it is apparent that few clicked through to the article ( "I can't reproduce it, sucks to be you" or "stupid n00b ought to know better" or "Thunderbird? Meh.") and those that may have just decided "too long, did not read".

It is goddamned Digg.com with a different color scheme.

If a conversation of the issue is to be found... it will be buried under a mountain of hubris.

The judge seemed clear to me that the previous court's award for the continued use of the software was correct. But that the DMCA did not in itself entitle them to further damages.

They choose to do it that way, and were very careful in the creation of that calculation. Even going as far as removing the utility to observe the actual signal strength.

Their calculation wasn't wrong. The error was in getting caught fudging their numbers.

Talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Because it's easier than getting Apple to port iTunes to Linux?

Considering that except for a few you could count on your hands... Musicians are basically universally broke or getting by.

Show me a musician with a nice car and I'll show you a producer that also plays an instrument.

Because at this point Apple's computers and OS are _by far_ the most conservative in appearance compared to other major players.

how much I paid for the features, it damn well better be in there.

The real issue at hand is that neither the camera or management software have a system to remove/obfiscate that data and some apparently deliberately hide it from you.

I'm sure it will be fine. It's not like you can setup shop with a sniffer in a busy coffee shop and expect to get any traffic.

Well, MS and AOL committed to the gub'mint back in the 90's to cooperate and make their networks play nice with each others.

It's basically taken being made irrelevant to get XMPP support in AIM. A decade later neither AOL or Microsoft talk to each other but their users have found ways to talk around them.

Google's "chat" applications are a complete mess but at least you can talk to them with a non-google client. But what the hell is their deal, they support AIM, but not 3rd party XMPP servers?!
Not that it would matter much, their contact management system leaves much to be desired and Google won't be going anywhere on this front until they fix it.

Your Google profile (the one that already exists) is only fully visible to people who are logged into their google account and are in the contact group you assigned as having full access. Probably good enough for most.

At this point though, the press release looks a lot more like integration of existing properties...
Contact list upgrades that link Picasa data, and "status updates" (perhaps including photo updates and whatnot). Maybe they'll add personal Google Groups (basically Facebook's wall).

Which if you really get down to it... is Facebook with and Adwords instead of app spam (which I would prefer any day).

Personally, I think that Google's properties are far away better than most, but they have never integrated on any useful level. Hopefully this will change that.

also made your PC sound like a vacuum cleaner.

Many people with severe nut allergies can suffer serious allergic reactions on contact with nuts, even things that come in contact with nuts. Your skin is quite happy to absorb many things that get on it.

The issue isn't who (near as I can tell) as much as it is the commonality of e-mail originating from servers not identified in the e-mail.

Blocking mail like that was a topic of discussion in the 90's but by that time the number of mail servers that no longer resolved to the domains they serviced were large enough that it was useless anymore.

I may not have all my facts straight, but that's my understanding.