The only site I'll ever need...

[Yeti]

My apologies. I got fed up with the situation and got drunk yesterday. I just got on with Frontier last week and I hadn't switched all the devices right away. Basically, I was initially wanting to get in the router to make sure there wasn't a cap on the amount of items allowed on the network. On Thursday, I had used my Xbox and PS3 in my room, with no issues. On Friday, I was in the living room, using my roommate's PS3 for Hulu (which I just got on the network), and I went to the bedroom and tried getting on Hulu with both devices, which weren't getting online. My initial assumption was the cap on things connected to the network, but I tried connecting my xbox/ps3 to the comcast network that I haven't cancelled quite yet and that wasn't working. So, honestly, I'm unsure of what actually went wrong. The PS3 was indicating a DNS Server issue, which I may have found a fix for, but the xbox hasn't been clear.

But yea, I'm worried about reverting the router since it might be set up a certain way to allow the internet. I haven't wanted to mess with it since, but I'll probably try some fixes tomorrow night (including whatever I might be able to do in the router).

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

My apologies. I got fed up with the situation and got drunk yesterday. I just got on with Frontier last week and I hadn't switched all the devices right away. Basically, I was initially wanting to get in the router to make sure there wasn't a cap on the amount of items allowed on the network. On Thursday, I had used my Xbox and PS3 in my room, with no issues. On Friday, I was in the living room, using my roommate's PS3 for Hulu (which I just got on the network), and I went to the bedroom and tried getting on Hulu with both devices, which weren't getting online. My initial assumption was the cap on things connected to the network, but I tried connecting my xbox/ps3 to the comcast network that I haven't cancelled quite yet and that wasn't working. So, honestly, I'm unsure of what actually went wrong. The PS3 was indicating a DNS Server issue, which I may have found a fix for, but the xbox hasn't been clear.

But yea, I'm worried about reverting the router since it might be set up a certain way to allow the internet. I haven't wanted to mess with it since, but I'll probably try some fixes tomorrow night (including whatever I might be able to do in the router).

Keep us posted, Gomer.

[Wheezer]

Basically, I was initially wanting to get in the router to make sure there wasn't a cap on the amount of items allowed on the network.

Sweet Jesus, I could use some grass. Yeti, you're worried about the subnet mask? The box does NAT and DHCP; there's no discernible reason why it would care how many addresses it hands out. Have you rented a static CIDR block?

[Richard Chuggar]

My apologies. I got fed up with the situation and got drunk yesterday. I just got on with Frontier last week and I hadn't switched all the devices right away. Basically, I was initially wanting to get in the router to make sure there wasn't a cap on the amount of items allowed on the network. On Thursday, I had used my Xbox and PS3 in my room, with no issues. On Friday, I was in the living room, using my roommate's PS3 for Hulu (which I just got on the network), and I went to the bedroom and tried getting on Hulu with both devices, which weren't getting online. My initial assumption was the cap on things connected to the network, but I tried connecting my xbox/ps3 to the comcast network that I haven't cancelled quite yet and that wasn't working. So, honestly, I'm unsure of what actually went wrong. The PS3 was indicating a DNS Server issue, which I may have found a fix for, but the xbox hasn't been clear.

But yea, I'm worried about reverting the router since it might be set up a certain way to allow the internet. I haven't wanted to mess with it since, but I'll probably try some fixes tomorrow night (including whatever I might be able to do in the router).

You could try growing up and not having 2 video game systems in your room

[Wheezer]

My apologies. I got fed up with the situation and got drunk yesterday. I just got on with Frontier last week and I hadn't switched all the devices right away. Basically, I was initially wanting to get in the router to make sure there wasn't a cap on the amount of items allowed on the network. On Thursday, I had used my Xbox and PS3 in my room, with no issues. On Friday, I was in the living room, using my roommate's PS3 for Hulu (which I just got on the network), and I went to the bedroom and tried getting on Hulu with both devices, which weren't getting online. My initial assumption was the cap on things connected to the network, but I tried connecting my xbox/ps3 to the comcast network that I haven't cancelled quite yet and that wasn't working. So, honestly, I'm unsure of what actually went wrong. The PS3 was indicating a DNS Server issue, which I may have found a fix for, but the xbox hasn't been clear.

But yea, I'm worried about reverting the router since it might be set up a certain way to allow the internet. I haven't wanted to mess with it since, but I'll probably try some fixes tomorrow night (including whatever I might be able to do in the router).

You could try growing up and not having 2 video game systems in your room

The irony, it burns.

[Yeti]

My apologies. I got fed up with the situation and got drunk yesterday. I just got on with Frontier last week and I hadn't switched all the devices right away. Basically, I was initially wanting to get in the router to make sure there wasn't a cap on the amount of items allowed on the network. On Thursday, I had used my Xbox and PS3 in my room, with no issues. On Friday, I was in the living room, using my roommate's PS3 for Hulu (which I just got on the network), and I went to the bedroom and tried getting on Hulu with both devices, which weren't getting online. My initial assumption was the cap on things connected to the network, but I tried connecting my xbox/ps3 to the comcast network that I haven't cancelled quite yet and that wasn't working. So, honestly, I'm unsure of what actually went wrong. The PS3 was indicating a DNS Server issue, which I may have found a fix for, but the xbox hasn't been clear.

But yea, I'm worried about reverting the router since it might be set up a certain way to allow the internet. I haven't wanted to mess with it since, but I'll probably try some fixes tomorrow night (including whatever I might be able to do in the router).

You could try growing up and not having 2 video game systems in your room

Want me to move the Xbox to the living room so I don't have 2 in my room?

[Wheezer]

Paging Gilstew: Can anybody decipher what the calendar entry here means?

[thehawk]

Paging Gilstew: Can anybody decipher what the calendar entry here means?

Looks like the quack in Britian is trying to sue the journalists who exposed him for lible in Texas after losing in the UK (he got it backwards apparently).  The Texas courts ruled for the journalists, on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, and it appears the good doctor is appealing on the basis that the journalists did certain actions that would allow them to be served in Texas.  Each side has put in their briefs, and they await oral argument, I think.

[Wheezer]

Paging Gilstew: Can anybody decipher what the calendar entry here means?

Looks like the quack in Britian is trying to sue the journalists who exposed him for lible in Texas after losing in the UK (he got it backwards apparently).  The Texas courts ruled for the journalists, on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, and it appears the good doctor is appealing on the basis that the journalists did certain actions that would allow them to be served in Texas.  Each side has put in their briefs, and they await oral argument, I think.

Yah, it's been quite goofy. I assume that since both parties requested oral argument, it's going to happen (although Wakefield apparently did not request findings of fact and conclusions of law from the trial court, so this should thus turn purely on law, which is to say, Wakefield appears to have conceded that BMJ et al. didn't even know he was in Texas). What I was specifically wondering about is what one should expect to happen on April 3. Just setting a date for the oral argument? Or could the whole thing be tossed?

(It is widely speculated that Wakefield filed in Texas because he knew he didn't have a shot but could rally his dwindling troops [no, Paypal will not process a $50,000 "donation"]. He's walked away from a libel suit before. Of course, in the UK the loser pays. Everyone on the sidelines here would love to see the anti-SLAPP reached if the appeal succeeds, although that's a bit much to expect from the defendants.)

[CBStew]

Paging Gilstew: Can anybody decipher what the calendar entry here means?

Looks like the quack in Britian is trying to sue the journalists who exposed him for lible in Texas after losing in the UK (he got it backwards apparently).  The Texas courts ruled for the journalists, on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, and it appears the good doctor is appealing on the basis that the journalists did certain actions that would allow them to be served in Texas.  Each side has put in their briefs, and they await oral argument, I think.

Yah, it's been quite goofy. I assume that since both parties requested oral argument, it's going to happen (although Wakefield apparently did not request findings of fact and conclusions of law from the trial court, so this should thus turn purely on law, which is to say, Wakefield appears to have conceded that BMJ et al. didn't even know he was in Texas). What I was specifically wondering about is what one should expect to happen on April 3. Just setting a date for the oral argument? Or could the whole thing be tossed?

(It is widely speculated that Wakefield filed in Texas because he knew he didn't have a shot but could rally his dwindling troops [no, Paypal will not process a $50,000 "donation"]. He's walked away from a libel suit before. Of course, in the UK the loser pays. Everyone on the sidelines here would love to see the anti-SLAPP reached if the appeal succeeds, although that's a bit much to expect from the defendants.)

Both sides have submitted briefs.  this is apparently a jurisdiction where you must affirmatively request to orally argue your case before the court.  Both sides have done that.  (In California the appellant gets to submit a reply brief after the respondent files its response.  If that is also the case in Texas I don't see that has happened yet.  so there may still be a written brief coming in before the case is heard by the court.)

[CBStew]

Paging Gilstew: Can anybody decipher what the calendar entry here means?

Looks like the quack in Britian is trying to sue the journalists who exposed him for lible in Texas after losing in the UK (he got it backwards apparently).  The Texas courts ruled for the journalists, on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, and it appears the good doctor is appealing on the basis that the journalists did certain actions that would allow them to be served in Texas.  Each side has put in their briefs, and they await oral argument, I think.

Yah, it's been quite goofy. I assume that since both parties requested oral argument, it's going to happen (although Wakefield apparently did not request findings of fact and conclusions of law from the trial court, so this should thus turn purely on law, which is to say, Wakefield appears to have conceded that BMJ et al. didn't even know he was in Texas). What I was specifically wondering about is what one should expect to happen on April 3. Just setting a date for the oral argument? Or could the whole thing be tossed?

(It is widely speculated that Wakefield filed in Texas because he knew he didn't have a shot but could rally his dwindling troops [no, Paypal will not process a $50,000 "donation"]. He's walked away from a libel suit before. Of course, in the UK the loser pays. Everyone on the sidelines here would love to see the anti-SLAPP reached if the appeal succeeds, although that's a bit much to expect from the defendants.)

Both sides have submitted briefs.  this is apparently a jurisdiction where you must affirmatively request to orally argue your case before the court.  Both sides have done that.  (In California the appellant gets to submit a reply brief after the respondent files its response.  If that is also the case in Texas I don't see that has happened yet.  so there may still be a written brief coming in before the case is heard by the court.)

Oh yeah.  The April 3 "at issue".  Those words pertain to the finality of the preliminaries and whether the case is ready for decision (or possibly ready for oral argument).  In California that simply means that all parties have been served with the complaint in the trial court and answers have been filed or defaults taken as to those parties who have been served but haven't answered in a timely fashion.  I can only guess that in this case that is the deadline set by the court for everything to be filed and ready for the court to proceed.

[Wheezer]

Paging Gilstew: Can anybody decipher what the calendar entry here means?

Looks like the quack in Britian is trying to sue the journalists who exposed him for lible in Texas after losing in the UK (he got it backwards apparently).  The Texas courts ruled for the journalists, on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, and it appears the good doctor is appealing on the basis that the journalists did certain actions that would allow them to be served in Texas.  Each side has put in their briefs, and they await oral argument, I think.

Yah, it's been quite goofy. I assume that since both parties requested oral argument, it's going to happen (although Wakefield apparently did not request findings of fact and conclusions of law from the trial court, so this should thus turn purely on law, which is to say, Wakefield appears to have conceded that BMJ et al. didn't even know he was in Texas). What I was specifically wondering about is what one should expect to happen on April 3. Just setting a date for the oral argument? Or could the whole thing be tossed?

(It is widely speculated that Wakefield filed in Texas because he knew he didn't have a shot but could rally his dwindling troops [no, Paypal will not process a $50,000 "donation"]. He's walked away from a libel suit before. Of course, in the UK the loser pays. Everyone on the sidelines here would love to see the anti-SLAPP reached if the appeal succeeds, although that's a bit much to expect from the defendants.)

Both sides have submitted briefs.  this is apparently a jurisdiction where you must affirmatively request to orally argue your case before the court.  Both sides have done that.  (In California the appellant gets to submit a reply brief after the respondent files its response.  If that is also the case in Texas I don't see that has happened yet.  so there may still be a written brief coming in before the case is heard by the court.)

Oh yeah.  The April 3 "at issue".  Those words pertain to the finality of the preliminaries and whether the case is ready for decision (or possibly ready for oral argument).  In California that simply means that all parties have been served with the complaint in the trial court and answers have been filed or defaults taken as to those parties who have been served but haven't answered in a timely fashion.  I can only guess that in this case that is the deadline set by the court for everything to be filed and ready for the court to proceed.

Fun fact: In Texas, the court reporter owns his or her portion of the transcript. This appears to have led to some delay in this one. I guess Texas appellate rule 38.6(c) gives appellant Wakefield until the 24th to file a reply brief.

(There's also an amusing backstory on Wakefield's "foreign counsel," who they flew in for the hearing last year but wisely did not allow to speak, but that's getting far afield.)

But so, basically, nothing dramatic is likely to happen.

[PenFoe]

Anybody know anything about speakers?

Due to configuration of the new living space, the tower speakers we currently have aren't going to work.

We have built-in shelves that are 18" high, so I'd like to get two speakers that will fit in there.

Will be used for music and TV.  Need to be decent, but I certainly don't have a discerning enough ear that I'll know the difference between good and great.

Can I just get something like this?

These are about 3 times the price, are they much better?

Thanks in advance.

[flannj]

Anybody know anything about speakers?

Due to configuration of the new living space, the tower speakers we currently have aren't going to work.

We have built-in shelves that are 18" high, so I'd like to get two speakers that will fit in there.

Will be used for music and TV.  Need to be decent, but I certainly don't have a discerning enough ear that I'll know the difference between good and great.

Can I just get something like this?

These are about 3 times the price, are they much better?

Thanks in advance.

You do get what you pay for Pen and there will be a noticable difference.
What is your budget?
If you could swing it I would take a look at these.
Klipsch lowest price bookshelf but they make a quality product.

[PenFoe]

Anybody know anything about speakers?

Due to configuration of the new living space, the tower speakers we currently have aren't going to work.

We have built-in shelves that are 18" high, so I'd like to get two speakers that will fit in there.

Will be used for music and TV.  Need to be decent, but I certainly don't have a discerning enough ear that I'll know the difference between good and great.

Can I just get something like this?

These are about 3 times the price, are they much better?

Thanks in advance.

You do get what you pay for Pen and there will be a noticable difference.
What is your budget?
If you could swing it I would take a look at these.
Klipsch lowest price bookshelf but they make a quality product.

I was hoping to spend about $200/pair.

Thanks - I 'll take a look at these.