My hell is that I got an account for my father paid on my credit card which was going to be transferred over to him in a few months (it was a gift... to get them off AOL). So the account name is not one I chose, the password is not one I chose. My father, in the switch from the AOL way was confused how to do stuff and didn't want to ask me (& I live in another part of the state) so he basically forgot that username/password and created a new account for himself a couple months later. Mind you, I didn't find out about this until about 4 or 5 months later (& the only paper record of the account was at my parents' house which must have been eaten by a toad or something).
Try cancelling if all you have is the credit card number under which the account is being billed. They cannot find it. They cannot terminate it. They are real annoying pricks about it and are only available during the hours I am at work and can't spend on the phone waiting for them. Their only "solution" was to cancel my credit card or get a different bank account (my credit card is actually a debit card).
The bank can't decline a payment for a monthly charge unless the charge is always on a consistant day. Earthlink gets around the possiblity of someone doing that by changing the day randomly each month.
Sadly, I pay $19.95 a month so I can keep my checking account and my debit card because I don't physically go to the bank and rely on my ATM card. If I cancel that card/account, I will have at least a month where I will not be able to do -any- electronic banking and will have to physically go to the bank (not in a convenient location for one, such as me with no car) to even get money to buy groceries.
What about someone who has carpal tunnel sysndrom (even though some experts think it's not real) or some other disability that prevents use of the mouse (like maybe even, at an extreme, a missing limb or two)? Are these people "lazy" for using something that doesn't require hands?
Sorry the comment about "definately worth a look for us lazy folks" just hit me all wrong.
I know for myself lots of mouse (for work, not playing games) usage can cramp my wrist and hand and make my fingers a bit numb. I actually did have to stave off playing the more mouse intensive games because I was afraid I was encouraging a repeatative movement ailment. I am only thankful my current job is not mouse intensive all the time.
In the comments, the concept had been raised that most schools also have pirated software installed by the students on their MS-Windows computers. I have known a few individuals who were "proud" of the fact they installed this-or-that pirated software application on a school computer (I didn't merely because I didn't have accessible computers in my K-12 schools).
So, if the schools install Linux, even that level of unknown, unwanted pirated application installations will go down. It isn't as simple a task in Linux to install an application, especially if you are not root and the application -needs- root. In addition, a lot of the software that those kids would install on a MS-Windows machince is not ported to Linux, so they wouldn't be able to install it unless they figured out first how to get the application to run under Linux and without root.
Reading the comments it seems many are reading a different press release than the official one. Several people have raised the question about this preventing the hidden camera recording of nannies, babysitters, and other caregivers to ferret out possibly abuse. Others have raised the question of whether this will affect $retail-store survelliance cameras intended for the prevention of theft. The bill specifically mentions hidden camera taping of "lewd or lacivious acts" as those which would be targetted.
Would this affect $retail-location hidden cameras in open places (not dressing rooms or bathrooms)? No. There is no intent to capture lewd or lacivious acts and someone screwing in the aisles of the store doesn't count. It would, however, make it illegal to put up a camera in a dressing room or bath room to capture someonein an undressed state when they are not intending to be seen in an expectation of privacy. It would also prevent cameras on the floor pointed up to catch a peek under women's skirts (or men's kilts) as they walked over the camera (or similarly would prevent someone from walking around with a camera in a low slung bag for the same purpose), whether or not something like that is used now.
Would this affect a hidden camera placed in one's own home for the purpose of capturing the potentially abusive activities of a nanny, babysitter, or other care-giver? No. As with the store surveliance, those video feeds are not lewd or lacivious or intended to give a sexual thrill. There is no intent to capture the individual in a candid -undressed- or sexually compromising position. However, if you put a hidden camera in the bathroom, in the bedroom of your roommate (without his/her permission), or secretly in the bedroom window of your neighbor, that wouldn't be allowed.
Would a retail store have to have a notice about the possibility you might be taped by their survellience camera? I think in California they do have to have some notice about it, I seem to remember seeing such notices. Heck, the notice alone can be enough to deter a lot of casual theft whether the cameras exist or not (I knew a retailer who set up a dummy camera prominantly in her shop and had a corosponding drop in theft... same too for someone posting a sign about hidden cameras though there were none).
In my opinion, perhaps caregivers, too, should be given notice they -may- be video taped for quality control (kinda like the recordings when you call for customer service, "this call may be recorded..."). Couldn't that make $care-giver a bit more cautious in his/her job? Saying you -may- tape someone doesn't mean you -will- or will all the time.
The real said part about this bill is the fact they tried to tie the.prn issue to it. That is a real violation of speech and its presence dilutes the video voyourism aspects. Sadly, the bill should be divided or tossed out (on the basis of violation of free speech, if naught else) because of it. That portion is entirely unenforcable. The true tragedy is that supporters of the first half will be vilified if they do not support the second part and their voice of support on the first part will be silenced.
But I can't sleep anymore without the hum of computers in the background. And the best place in the office is in the server room with the hum of several computers as the only sound. I think it is kinda like the same reason you put a clock in the basket with a puppy you just bring home, to simulate the sounds of the womb. So don't take away all the noise or I will be lost.....
-TShrew
Teaching is a noble profession. However, in the SF Bay Area & Silicon Valley, it pays only slightly more than working at McDonald's (yes, an exageration, but, sadly, not too much of one). The income of teachers in California (especially Northern CA) is sooo bad the Governer is trying to pass legislation (or has done so, I haven't kept entirely current in the last couple weeks) to give teachers a tax write-off simply for their profession. Also, the city of SF is trying to get former government housing as teacher subsidised housing. In an area where the -median- house price is nearing $500K, teaching is a completely unrewarded (financially) profession. Is it fair to ask someone who has bills & a mortgage on a house owned for years to take a HUGE pay cut after, of course, taking the requisite year(s) of additional schooling in order to satisfy the credentially process (designed to garner a better breed of teacher but instead has bred an expensive industry to train too many inadequate teachers). Someone recently said to me the average salary of teacher in the city of San Francisco (for an example) is amoung the lowest for teachers -in the nation-. The SF teachers aren't paid that much less than most districts in this area.
Teach is a nice thought, but not in the SF Bay Area / Silicon Valley.
-TShrew (completely agast at the state of education in California)
This is a scarey prospect not necessarily from the view of a tech knowledable person (or a geek/nerd), but for the growning computer functionally illiterate. Just think of the millions of consumers who think of the computer as a glorified TV. They would not have a clue this is going on (-hey, george, do you have any idea why the computer slows down at 3pm every day?-) nor would they know enough to be able to set up false packets. Heck, even more frightening is the concept that if some of these consumers knew about this sort of thing would not only welcome it but think it appropriate. Think what that might mean in the long run... legislation to mandate the individual give up their CPU cycles for the "greater good" of the many & futher legislation to make it illegal to provide bad packets or interfere with it in any way (yes... I do look for the dark aspects of the future in the extreme...).
Slashdot Mirror
My hell is that I got an account for my father paid on my credit card which was going to be transferred over to him in a few months (it was a gift... to get them off AOL). So the account name is not one I chose, the password is not one I chose. My father, in the switch from the AOL way was confused how to do stuff and didn't want to ask me (& I live in another part of the state) so he basically forgot that username/password and created a new account for himself a couple months later. Mind you, I didn't find out about this until about 4 or 5 months later (& the only paper record of the account was at my parents' house which must have been eaten by a toad or something).
Try cancelling if all you have is the credit card number under which the account is being billed. They cannot find it. They cannot terminate it. They are real annoying pricks about it and are only available during the hours I am at work and can't spend on the phone waiting for them. Their only "solution" was to cancel my credit card or get a different bank account (my credit card is actually a debit card).
The bank can't decline a payment for a monthly charge unless the charge is always on a consistant day. Earthlink gets around the possiblity of someone doing that by changing the day randomly each month.
Sadly, I pay $19.95 a month so I can keep my checking account and my debit card because I don't physically go to the bank and rely on my ATM card. If I cancel that card/account, I will have at least a month where I will not be able to do -any- electronic banking and will have to physically go to the bank (not in a convenient location for one, such as me with no car) to even get money to buy groceries.
I just needed to rant.
What about someone who has carpal tunnel sysndrom (even though some experts think it's not real) or some other disability that prevents use of the mouse (like maybe even, at an extreme, a missing limb or two)? Are these people "lazy" for using something that doesn't require hands?
Sorry the comment about "definately worth a look for us lazy folks" just hit me all wrong.
I know for myself lots of mouse (for work, not playing games) usage can cramp my wrist and hand and make my fingers a bit numb. I actually did have to stave off playing the more mouse intensive games because I was afraid I was encouraging a repeatative movement ailment. I am only thankful my current job is not mouse intensive all the time.
In the comments, the concept had been raised that most schools also have pirated software installed by the students on their MS-Windows computers. I have known a few individuals who were "proud" of the fact they installed this-or-that pirated software application on a school computer (I didn't merely because I didn't have accessible computers in my K-12 schools).
So, if the schools install Linux, even that level of unknown, unwanted pirated application installations will go down. It isn't as simple a task in Linux to install an application, especially if you are not root and the application -needs- root. In addition, a lot of the software that those kids would install on a MS-Windows machince is not ported to Linux, so they wouldn't be able to install it unless they figured out first how to get the application to run under Linux and without root.
Hmm... this might be beneficial over all.
Reading the comments it seems many are reading a different press release than the official one. Several people have raised the question about this preventing the hidden camera recording of nannies, babysitters, and other caregivers to ferret out possibly abuse. Others have raised the question of whether this will affect $retail-store survelliance cameras intended for the prevention of theft. The bill specifically mentions hidden camera taping of "lewd or lacivious acts" as those which would be targetted.
.prn issue to it. That is a real violation of speech and its presence dilutes the video voyourism aspects. Sadly, the bill should be divided or tossed out (on the basis of violation of free speech, if naught else) because of it. That portion is entirely unenforcable. The true tragedy is that supporters of the first half will be vilified if they do not support the second part and their voice of support on the first part will be silenced.
Would this affect $retail-location hidden cameras in open places (not dressing rooms or bathrooms)? No. There is no intent to capture lewd or lacivious acts and someone screwing in the aisles of the store doesn't count. It would, however, make it illegal to put up a camera in a dressing room or bath room to capture someonein an undressed state when they are not intending to be seen in an expectation of privacy. It would also prevent cameras on the floor pointed up to catch a peek under women's skirts (or men's kilts) as they walked over the camera (or similarly would prevent someone from walking around with a camera in a low slung bag for the same purpose), whether or not something like that is used now.
Would this affect a hidden camera placed in one's own home for the purpose of capturing the potentially abusive activities of a nanny, babysitter, or other care-giver? No. As with the store surveliance, those video feeds are not lewd or lacivious or intended to give a sexual thrill. There is no intent to capture the individual in a candid -undressed- or sexually compromising position. However, if you put a hidden camera in the bathroom, in the bedroom of your roommate (without his/her permission), or secretly in the bedroom window of your neighbor, that wouldn't be allowed.
Would a retail store have to have a notice about the possibility you might be taped by their survellience camera? I think in California they do have to have some notice about it, I seem to remember seeing such notices. Heck, the notice alone can be enough to deter a lot of casual theft whether the cameras exist or not (I knew a retailer who set up a dummy camera prominantly in her shop and had a corosponding drop in theft... same too for someone posting a sign about hidden cameras though there were none).
In my opinion, perhaps caregivers, too, should be given notice they -may- be video taped for quality control (kinda like the recordings when you call for customer service, "this call may be recorded..."). Couldn't that make $care-giver a bit more cautious in his/her job? Saying you -may- tape someone doesn't mean you -will- or will all the time.
The real said part about this bill is the fact they tried to tie the
But I can't sleep anymore without the hum of computers in the background. And the best place in the office is in the server room with the hum of several computers as the only sound. I think it is kinda like the same reason you put a clock in the basket with a puppy you just bring home, to simulate the sounds of the womb. So don't take away all the noise or I will be lost..... -TShrew
Teach is a nice thought, but not in the SF Bay Area / Silicon Valley.
-TShrew
(completely agast at the state of education in California)
This is a scarey prospect not necessarily from the view of a tech knowledable person (or a geek/nerd), but for the growning computer functionally illiterate. Just think of the millions of consumers who think of the computer as a glorified TV. They would not have a clue this is going on (-hey, george, do you have any idea why the computer slows down at 3pm every day?-) nor would they know enough to be able to set up false packets. Heck, even more frightening is the concept that if some of these consumers knew about this sort of thing would not only welcome it but think it appropriate. Think what that might mean in the long run... legislation to mandate the individual give up their CPU cycles for the "greater good" of the many & futher legislation to make it illegal to provide bad packets or interfere with it in any way (yes... I do look for the dark aspects of the future in the extreme...).
-TShrew