eHarmony.com
Worst Websites list is eHarmony.com. The site claims to be the `#1 trusted online dating site for singles'. However, Time.com seems to differ. According to it, after making users answer some 436 compatibility survey questions and taking its premium charges ($21 to $60 a month), the site many a times delivers terrible recommendations -- or worse, even rejects users as unmatchable.
eHarmony.com's advice to users to continue with it for several months to improve their odds of finding a soul mate too looks self-serving, considering that the longer a user stays with the site, the more he pays.
Evite.com
Evite.com, a popular online invitation and social planning website. Time.com writes that the site is crying for an overhaul. In today's time when UGC (user-generated content) rules the roost, Evite's fill-in-the-blanks approach appears clumsy and dated. The ads on the site too are said to be intrusive, and navigation a drag.
The site has also been rather slow in adopting some of the media-sharing tools that have become almost a standard way of the Web. Incidentally, many of these features are said to be in development.
Meez.com
The virtual hangout Meez.com too makes it to the Worst Websites list. It may be a trend to tack poems, photos, icons, logos etc onto e-mail messages, however, the 3D animations and other digital doodads created with the help of Meez and other sites of its ilk - Blingee, Iconator - are just plain annoying, writes Time.
Plus, these also end up clogging the recipient's inbox with unnecessary bits. Though the Meez.com insists that the app is not a spyware or an adware, however, it still slows down one's computer.
MySpace.com
This name will surely surprise most Netizens. For, MySpace is not only one of the most popular social networking sites, but also happened to be the no. 1 social networking site till sometime back.
However, lately the MySpace community seems to have become infested with marketers and other opportunists who create false profiles and spam other users, all under the guise of “making friends.”
According to Time.com, though MySpace has always been known to carry loads of profiles of fictional characters, created to help market a movie or promote some brand, the recent `bait-and-switch tactics' have turned the things a bit sad.
Source : indiatimes
Monday, November 30, 2009
Mobile Number Portability charges in India
Mobile Number Portability (MNP), which allows users to retain their number even if they switch operators, will be introduced in two phases, the telecoms regulator said, first in the metro cities and the so-called Category A telecom zones and in other areas by March 20.
The regulator also notified certain charges associated with MNP and said switching charges for users must not exceed Rs 19. However, operators are free to levy any amount less than or equal to this charge.
The regulator also notified certain charges associated with MNP and said switching charges for users must not exceed Rs 19. However, operators are free to levy any amount less than or equal to this charge.
Mobile Number Portability Features
Mobile Number Portability Features
- The subscriber who wishes to port his mobile number should approach the Recipient operator (the operator to whom the subscriber wants to port his number). The Subscriber may be required to pay porting charges, if any, to the Recipient Operator.
- A subscriber holding a mobile number is eligible to make a porting request only after 90 days of the date of activation of his mobile connection. If a number is already ported once, the number can again be ported only after 90 days from the date of the previous porting.
- MNP facility shall be available only within a given licensed service area.
- The subscriber making the porting request is required to have cleared all the bills issued prior to the date of porting request. He shall give an undertaking that he has already paid all billed dues to the Donor Operator as on the date of the request for porting and that he shall pay dues to the Donor Operator pertaining to the mobile number till its eventual porting and that he understands and agrees that in event of non-payment of any such dues to the Donor Operator, the ported mobile number shall be liable to be disconnected by the Recipient Operator.
- A subscriber may withdraw his porting request within 24 hours of its submission to the Recipient Operator. However, the porting charges shall not be refundable.
- The regulation envisage a maximum time period of 4 days for the completion of porting process in all licensed service areas except in the case of J&K, Assam and North East licensed service areas where the maximum time allowed is 12 days. However, efforts will be made to further reduce the porting period.
- Access Providers are required to implement All Call Query method.
- The Originating operator shall be responsible to route the call to correct terminating network.
Orange Livebox displays its code free
Relatively quietly, Orange posted the site Livebox open source software when the operator releases the list of licensed software free or open source used by the modem router for Internet access. More mystery, like his comrades, the Livebox uses elements and essentially free under GPLv2.
That site gives this view by focusing on the Livebox version 1, 1.2 and 2. If necessary, it is possible to have access to source code elements listed. It remains strange that inequality seems to appear between these versions, which begs questions about the completeness of certain lists. Sagem has perhaps not played the game as much as Thomson (who bought Invetel).
For Sagem Livebox labeled 1, the list of open source software is on the fingers of one hand and a little more for the Livebox 2, unlike the case of Thomson (Livebox 1). It becomes suspicious when, for the Livebox 1.2, Sagem and Thomson are put in one basket, and this time the Linux kernel (for example) is shown for both. It is probably too early to draw real conclusions, since the page on the Livebox 1.2 is still marked in construction. The riddle should eventually clear up a priori.
Via the Neuf Box 4 Open Source Software, you can access the source code for the Neuf Box 4. For Free, the question has always been more controversial. Free position has always been that "when a product that uses a soft GPL is sold, the seller must provide the sources of soft GPL. Free does not sell the Freebox, it is owned by Free, c 'is a termination of its network, the sources need not be provided.
That site gives this view by focusing on the Livebox version 1, 1.2 and 2. If necessary, it is possible to have access to source code elements listed. It remains strange that inequality seems to appear between these versions, which begs questions about the completeness of certain lists. Sagem has perhaps not played the game as much as Thomson (who bought Invetel).
For Sagem Livebox labeled 1, the list of open source software is on the fingers of one hand and a little more for the Livebox 2, unlike the case of Thomson (Livebox 1). It becomes suspicious when, for the Livebox 1.2, Sagem and Thomson are put in one basket, and this time the Linux kernel (for example) is shown for both. It is probably too early to draw real conclusions, since the page on the Livebox 1.2 is still marked in construction. The riddle should eventually clear up a priori.
Via the Neuf Box 4 Open Source Software, you can access the source code for the Neuf Box 4. For Free, the question has always been more controversial. Free position has always been that "when a product that uses a soft GPL is sold, the seller must provide the sources of soft GPL. Free does not sell the Freebox, it is owned by Free, c 'is a termination of its network, the sources need not be provided.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)