puerto-rica « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Telephone Validation Made Simple

serviceobjects2001 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:38:21 +0000

If you are looking to validate a telephone number look no further!

There are several things to consider when trying to validate a telephone number, and in this blog we have broken down the process for you step-by-step. There are many ways to validate a telephone number, and many variables within the number to validate:

Is the telephone number valid?
Is the telephone number a landline, wireless, or VoIP?
Is the telephone number disconnected or not valid (e.g. area code 999 does not exist)?

Service Objects offers the following telephone validation options:

DOTS Phone Append

A multi-database Web service designed to provide the most accurate lookup of landline telephone numbers available
Updated daily
72% match rate for consumers, 63% match rate for businesses
Coverage for the US and Canada

DOTS Phone Exchange

Point-of-entry validation
Instantly recognizes if a telephone number is valid and acceptable by verifying the first seven digits of the number
Returns line type (landline, wireless, or VoIP)
Telephone data compiled from over 2,600 US and Canadian telephone service providers
Returns telephone service provider information (carrier, city, state, latitude, longitude)

DOTS GeoPhone

Reverse-lookup of residential, business, and government telephone numbers
Comprised of daily feeds from over 2,600 telephone companies across the US, Canada, and Puerto Rico
Over 190 million telephone listings
Dynamic access to a variety of public, private, and proprietary telephone data
Determines contact name and address
Determines telephone type (business or residential)
Determines line type (landline, wireless, or VoIP)

DOTS GeoPhone Wireless

Reverse-lookup of wireless telephone numbers
Contains over 100 million consumer wireless telephone numbers
Determines contact name and address
Determines line type (landline, wireless, or VoIP)
Returns telephone service provider information (carrier, city, state, latitude, longitude)

DOTS GeoPhone Plus

Combines 3 of our powerful DOTS telephone validation services (DOTS GeoPhone, DOTS GeoPhone Wireless, and DOTS Phone Append)
Compares a 10-digit telephone number to our database powerhouse of over 300 million records
Determines contact name and address
Determines telephone type (business, residential, Government)
Determines line type (landline, wireless, VoIP, or toll free)
Returns telephone service provider information (carrier, city, state, latitude, longitude)

I hope that I have helped in answering your telephone validation questions.

Thanks,

Ryan M.

Ben Sharpa Collaborations

dplanet001 — Thu, 21 May 2009 08:54:26 +0000

Sorry we’ve been quiet for a while, but you know that just means we’re working hard, right?

After his massively successful tour of France last month, Ben Sharpa came down to Cape Town this week for some meetings. He also got in the studio for some major international collaborations.

These collabs have been a long time coming so we’re really excited. With our very own super-producer, Hipe, on production you already know the tracks are banging!

The first collaboration is with Puerto Rican Hip Hop artist, Siete Nueve. On working with Sharpa he said, “It’s real good to connect PR to the Motherland. I’m a protector of our Afro-Caribbean culture and it’s very important to create a bridge to hip-hop as it is universal.”

The second collaborator is probably more well know on the African continent, Nigeria’s most deadly emcee, Mode9.

Keep it locked for more info about these tracks.

Check out Ben Sharpa on Myspace
Check out Siete Nueve on Myspace
Check out Mode9 on Myspace

That’s how we rrrrrrrrrrrroll!!

Rio Grande Games Puerto Rico

lostseson — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 12:53:48 +0000

IN THE GREAT ANTILLES YOU PLAY PROSPECTOR OR GOVERNOR OR SETTLER OR TRADER PLAYERS TRY HAVE THE GREATEST PROSPERITY AND HIGHEST REPUTATION IF YOU LOVE SETTLERS OF CATAN OR CARCASSONE BOARD GAMES YOU SHOULD LOVE THIS 3 TO 5 PLAYERS 12 AND UP 90 MIN.CHOCKING HAZARD – CONTAINS SMALL PARTS – NOT FOR CHILDREN UNDER 3

Rio Grande Games Puerto Rico is available at Amazon for $37.49. To Order click here
Amazon Product Pages contain a lot of other details on this product as Customer Reviews, Sales Ranking, Special Offers, Alternate products that customers are going for and much more.Want to read these details? click here

Want to get some other Format / Binding / Version? You can search for them from here

Other Products of Interest

Top 100 Cities: Tourist Destination vs. Livability Rank

foxhugh — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:03:53 +0000

The following study is an attempt to objectively explore the truism:

“Nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there”

The operational version of this truism would be that tourist cities and livable cities are different cities. The Twilight Zone explored this concept at a surreal level in the Episode, “A Nice Place to Visit” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Nice_Place_to_Visit)

The truism has been named the Visit/Live Theory for the purposes of this study. Two lists that rank cities were compared. The first list ranks cities according the number of tourists that arrived in a city.

The list and a description of the list can be found at:

http://www.euromonitor.com/Top_150_City_Destinations_London_Leads_the_Way

The second list ranks cities according to livability. Mercer Human Resources looked at 39 quality of life issues including political stability, currency-exchange regulations, political and media censorship, school quality, housing and the environment.

The Mercer list and a description of the list can be found at:

http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/livable_cities_worldwide/

Table 1 shows all the cities on both lists in alphabetical order. In addition, the difference in rank was calculated for each city when this was possible. If a city was on only one top 100 list then the difference in rank could not be calculated. The tourist destination study looked at 150 cities, but for the purposes of comparison, only the top 100 tourist destinations were used in this study. Many cities were only on one list and not on the other list. The number of cities on both lists was counted. The number of cities only on one list was also counted. If the number of cities on both lists was greater than the number of cities not on both lists then this would suggest the truism is not true.

Table 1: Alphabetical List of All Cities

	Cities	Country	Tourist Rank	Livability Rank	Rank Difference
1	Abu Dhabi	UAE	52	88	36
2	Adelaide	Australia	NR	30	N/A
3	Agra	India	99	NR	N/A
4	Amsterdam	Netherlands	18	13	5
5	Antwerp	Netherlands	90	NR	99
6	Athens	Greece	NR	78	N/A
7	Atlanta	USA	NR	66	N/A
8	Auckland	New Zealand	NR	5	N/A
9	Bahrain	Bahrain	12	NR	18
10	Bangkok	Thailand	2	NR	90
11	Barcelona	Spain	10	41	12
12	Beijing	China	22	NR	N/A
13	Benidorm	Spain	33	NR	N/A
14	Berlin	Germany	34	16	18
15	Bern	Germany	NR	9	N/A
16	Birmingham	United Kingdom	81	55	26
17	Boston	USA	68	36	32
18	Bratislava	Slovakia	NR	99	N/A
19	Brisbane	Australia	NR	32	N/A
20	Bruges	Belgium	89	NR	N/A
21	Brussels	Belgium	NR	14	N/A
22	Buenos Aires	Argentina	NR	79	N/A
23	Budapest	Hungary	36	74	38
24	Cairo	Egypt	45	NR	N/A
25	Calgary	Canada	NR	24	N/A
26	Cancun	Mexico	26	NR	N/A
27	Cape Town	South Africa	57	85	28
28	Chennai	India	97	NR	N/A
29	Chicago	USA	64	44	20
30	Chongquing	China	100	NR	N/A
31	Cleveland	USA	NR	59	N/A
32	Copenhagen	Sweden	54	11	43
33	Dalian	China	87	NR	N/A
34	Detroit	USA	NR	64	N/A
35	Dubai	UAE	7	80	73
36	Dublin	Ireland	11	27	16
37	Dusseldorf	Germany	NR	5	N/A
38	Edinburgh	United Kingdom	56	NR	N/A
39	Florence	Italy	46	NR	N/A
40	Frankfurt	Germany	NR	7	N/A
41	Geneva	Switzerland	98	2	96
42	Glasgow	United Kingdom	82	55	27
43	Granada	Spain	95	NR	N/A
44	Guangzhou	China	32	NR	N/A
45	Guilin	China	65	NR	N/A
46	Hamburg	Germany	83	24	59
47	Hangzhou	China	49	NR	N/A
48	Helsinki	Finland	77	30	47
49	Hong Kong	China	5	70	65
50	Honolulu	USA	NR	27	N/A
51	Houston	USA	NR	68	N/A
52	Istanbul	Turkey	16	NR	N/A
53	Johannesburg	South Africa	NR	90	N/A
54	Katsuyama	Japan	NR	73	N/A
55	Kobe	Japan	NR	40	N/A
56	Krakow	Poland	69	NR	N/A
57	Kuala Lumpur	Malaysia	15	75	60
58	Kunming	China	94	NR	N/A
59	La Havana	Cuba	70	NR	N/A
60	Las Vegas	USA	48	NR	N/A
61	Leipzig	Germany	NR	67	N/A
62	Lexington	USA	NR	51	N/A
63	Limassol	Cyprus	NR	NR	N/A
64	Lisbon	Portugal	47	47	0
65	Liverpool	United Kingdom	91	NR	N/A
66	Ljubljana	Slovenia	NR	80	N/A
67	London	United Kingdom	1	39	38
68	Los Angeles	USA	31	55	24
69	Luxembourg	Luxembourg	NR	18	N/A
70	Lyon	France	84	36	48
71	Macau	China	27	NR	N/A
72	Madrid	Spain	17	42	25
73	Manchester	United Kingdom	73	NR	N/A
74	Marrakesh	Morocco	50	NR	N/A
75	Mecca	Saudi Arabia	19	NR	N/A
76	Melbourne	Australia	72	17	55
77	Mexico City	Mexico	30	NR	N/A
78	Miami	USA	39	62	23
79	Milan	Italy	42	49	7
80	Minneapolis	USA	NR	60	N/A
81	Monterrey	Mexico	NR	94	N/A
82	Montevideo	Uruguay	NR	76	N/A
83	Montreal	Canada	85	22	63
84	Moscow	Russia	21	NR	N/A
85	Mumbai	India	86	NR	N/A
86	Munich	Germany	40	8	32
87	Nagoya	Japan	NR	54	N/A
88	Nanjing	China	76	NR	N/A
89	New Delhi	India	92	NR	N/A
90	New York City	USA	6	48	42
91	Nice	France	61	NR	N/A
92	Nurnberg	Germany	NR	23	N/A
93	Oahu/Honolulu	USA	44	27	17
94	Omuta	Japan	NR	69	N/A
95	Orlando	USA	38	NR	N/A
96	Osaka	Japan	NR	42	N/A
97	Oslo	Norway	NR	26	N/A
98	Ottawa	Canada	NR	18	N/A
99	Panama City	Panama	NR	92	N/A
100	Papeete	French Polynesia	NR	97	N/A
101	Paris	France	3	33	30
102	Perth	Australia	NR	21	N/A
103	Pittsburg	USA	NR	52	N/A
104	Portland	USA	NR	46	N/A
105	Port Elizabeth	South Africa	NR	97	N/A
106	Port Louis	Mauritius	NR	77	N/A
107	Prague	Czech Republic	20	72	52
108	Qingdao	China	79	NR	N/A
109	Riga	Latvia	NR	92	N/A
110	Rio De Janeiro	Brazil	35	NR	N/A
111	Rome	Italy	8	61	53
113	St. Louis	USA	NR	64	N/A
114	San Juan	Puerto Rico	NR	71	N/A
115	Salvador de Bahia	Brazil	71	NR	N/A
116	Salzburg	Austria	74	NR	N/A
117	San Diego	USA	88	NR	N/A
118	San Francisco	USA	37	29	8
119	Santiago	Chile	NR	83	N/A
120	São Paulo	Brazil	62	NR	N/A
121	Seattle	USA	NR	49	N/A
122	Seoul	South Korea	9	87	78
123	Seville	Spain	60	NR	N/A
124	Shanghai	China	13	100	87
125	Shenzen	China	41	NR	N/A
126	Singapore	Singapore	4	34	N/A
127	St. Petersburg	Russia	25	NR	N/A
128	Stockholm	Sweden	66	20	46
129	Suzhou	China	59	NR	N/A
130	Sydney	Australia	43	9	34
131	Taipei	China	24	81	57
132	Tallinn	Estonia	67	89	22
133	Tianjin	China	75	NR	N/A
134	Tokyo	Japan	51	35	16
135	Toronto	Canada	14	15	1
136	Tsukuba	Japan	NR	55	N/A
137	Tunis	Italy	NR	95	N/A
138	Valencia	Spain	93	NR	N/A
139	Vancouver	Canada	NR	3	N/A
140	Varadero	Cuba	53	NR	N/A
141	Venice	Italy	28	NR	N/A
142	Victoria	Seychelles	NR	95	N/A
143	Vienna	Austria	23	3	20
144	Vilnius	Lithuania	NR	82	N/A
145	Warsaw	Poland	29	85	56
146	Washington DC	USA	63	44	19
147	Wellington	New Zealand	NR	12	N/A
148	Winston Salem	USA	NR	52	N/A
149	Wuxi	China	96	NR	N/A
150	Xi’an	China	78	NR	N/A
151	Xiamen	China	80	NR	N/A
152	Yokkaichi	Japan	NR	63	N/A
153	Yokohama	Japan	NR	38	N/A
154	Zhuhai	China	58	NR	N/A
155	Zurich	Switzerland	55	1	54

NR, no rank, no top 100 rank in this category

N/A, not applicable since the city was on only one of the lists

Table 2 below shows cities that were on both lists ordered from the least difference between ranks to the greatest difference between ranks.

Table 2: Comparison of Ranks

	Cities	Country	Tourist Rank	Livability Rank	Rank Difference
1	Lisbon	Portugal	47	47	0
2	Toronto	Canada	14	15	1
3	Amsterdam	Netherlands	18	13	5
4	Milan	Italy	42	49	7
5	San Francisco	USA	37	29	8
6	Dublin	Ireland	11	27	16
7	Tokyo	Japan	51	35	16
8	Oahu/Honolulu	USA	44	27	17
9	Berlin	Germany	34	16	18
10	Washington DC	USA	63	44	19
11	Chicago	USA	64	44	20
12	Vienna	Austria	23	3	20
13	Tallinn	Estonia	67	89	22
14	Miami	USA	39	62	23
15	Los Angeles	USA	31	55	24
16	Birmingham	United Kingdom	81	55	26
17	Glasgow	United Kingdom	82	55	27
18	Cape Town	South Africa	57	85	28
19	Paris	France	3	33	30
20	Boston	USA	68	36	32
21	Munich	Germany	40	8	32
22	Sydney	Australia	43	9	34
23	Abu Dhabi	UAE	52	88	36
24	Budapest	Hungary	36	74	38
25	London	United Kingdom	1	39	38
26	New York City	USA	6	48	42
27	Copenhagen	Sweden	54	11	43
28	Stockholm	Sweden	66	20	46
29	Helsinki	Finland	77	30	47
30	Lyon	France	84	36	48
31	Prague	Czech Republic	20	72	52
32	Rome	Italy	8	61	53
33	Melbourne	Australia	72	17	55
34	Warsaw	Poland	29	85	56
35	Taipei	China	24	81	57
36	Hamburg	Germany	83	24	59
37	Kuala Lumpur	Malaysia	15	75	60
38	Montreal	Canada	85	22	63
39	Hong Kong	China	5	70	65
40	Dubai	UAE	7	80	73
41	Seoul	South Korea	9	87	78
42	Shanghai	China	13	100	87
43	Geneva	Switzerland	98	2	96

Conclusion

There were a total of 155 cities on either list. 112 cities were only on one list. Only 43 cities were on both lists. Cities that are only on one list outnumber cities on both lists 2.6:1. Even for cities on both lists, the mean difference between ranks was 37.6 and quite high. These findings suggest that cities that are visited are not the same cities that are more livable. The truism that some cities are nice places to visit and different cities are nice places to live in is correct. Table 2 showed which cities had the least difference between ranks and the greatest difference between ranks.

The city with the least difference in rank was Lisbon. Lisbon had a rank of 47 on both lists. Toronto had the second least difference in rank and has the honor of having a relatively high visitor rank (14) and livability rank (15). Amsterdam showed a similar pattern to Toronto with a visitor rank of 18 and a livability rank of 13.

Geneva had the greatest difference in rank. Geneva is a great place to live (2) but doesn’t get very many tourists (98) relative to other cities. Shanghai had the second greatest difference in rank but in the opposite direction as Geneva. Shanghai is a city that many tourists visit (13) but only ranks 100 in terms of livability. A practical implication for expats is to be wary of deciding to live in cities you like to visit without taking the Visit/Live Theory into account.

Regime Change: An American Addiction

abunakhli — Mon, 26 May 2008 06:00:05 +0000

“The seizure of faraway lands by America…is a perversion of our national mission.” – President Grover Cleveland, in 1893.

It didn’t start with the U.S.’s Neocon-inspired invasion of Iraq in March, 2003. Whether knowingly or not, the morally bankrupt Bush-Cheney Gang was following an imperial script which is over 110
years old. During that period, the U.S. has “overthrown fourteen governments that displeased it for various ideological, political and economic reasons,” writes Stephen Kinzer, in his riveting book,
“Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq.”

Why did America betray its values and become itself a brutal colonizer? Well, after you blow away all the baloney about “national security and liberation,” Kinzer reveals: “The U.S. acted mainly for
`economic’ reasons–specifically, to establish, promote and defend the right of `Americans’ to do business around the world without interference.” By “Americans,” Kinzer mostly means the giant
multinational corporations.

Each of the respective countries on which the U.S. forced a regime change followed a basic kind of pattern, an M.O., if you please. Unfortunately, for our closest neighbors in Central and South America,
they felt, more than any other nations, the consistent brunt of our greedy, violent, murderous and racist reach. Destabilization and intervention were two of our tactics, which often times resulted in
horrific consequences for the targeted country and their inhabitants. Kinzer puts it this way: “Almost every American overthrow…left in its wake a bitter residue of pain and anger. Some have led to the
slaughter of innocents…The U.S. was willing to support any governing clique, `no matter how odious,’ as long as it did America’s bidding.”

Over time, Cuba, Guatemala, Puerto Rica, Panama, Chile, Grenada, Nicaragua and Honduras to our South were subjected to some type of coercive, gangster-like intervention from the U.S. bully. Sometimes, it took the form of a direct invasion by military forces, like in Panama and Grenada. In other cases, the CIA initiated covert activity to bring the targeted regime to its knees.

Source

Gabriel Rios in Vorst Nationaal

Evita — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:38:19 +0000

Gisteren voor de vijfde keer ondertussen naar Gabriel Rios gaan kijken. Deze keer was het in Vorst Nationaal te doen. Brussel dus… niet vanzelfsprekend voor mij om daar met het autootje naartoe te gaan. Gelukkig is er zoiets als GPS, en zoiets als Lies Die ook weer van de partij was!

Onze Puerto Ricaan liet even op zich wachten. Hij begon er pas aan rond een uur of negen. Terwijl op de tickets acht uur stond… en wij maar wachten op een voorprogramma

De show was heel goed. Gabriel Rios staat altijd wel voor kwaliteit en moving ritmes, niet te veel showtjes (en dan telt Gabriel zijn kontgeschud even niet mee ). Gewoon goede muziek! En daar houden wij van!
Alhoewel ik erbij moet zeggen, dat ik het iets minder vond dan in de AB in mei (yep, yep, off course was ik daar ook aanwezig!). Toen was het meer persoonlijker: meer bindtekst, minder Engels en Spaans, meer interactie met het publiek kortweg. Hij WAS toen het publiek. Toen konden we hem aanraken (Niet dat dat ons doel is, maar toch…). Hadden we een beetje meer durf gehad, had dat gisteren ook wel het geval kunnen zijn.

Na het concert zagen we plots volk richting een gang gaan. Wij mee natuurlijk. Tot we een securityman zagen die polsbandjes controlleerde. Wij keerden dan maar terug rechtsom. De man zag dat en vroeg (in het Frans) waar onze bandjes waren. Helaas hadden we er geen! Hadden we nu een beetje meer durf gehad, en onmiddellijk een Frans antwoord klaar gehad ben ik er zeker van dat we hadden binnengeraakt. Volgende keer beter! En dan voorzie ik ook een decoltée… works everytime

Toch nog even een tip voor de Ghostboy-zanger: Gabriel, ge bent perfect zoals ge bent, maar doe in het vervolg andere schoenen aan onder zo’n kostuum