count as a big enough leak to trigger disclosure laws. If they are just selling email addresses without any other personal details they may be violating there privacy policy but probably not disclosure laws.
And Jitter Man was born, protecting truth, justice, and the American way!
And the "fix" for email gets closer
on
Is Email 'Bankrupt'?
·
· Score: 1, Informative
There's a fix for email, which is scrapping the current infrastructure completely and setting up an incompatible system with whatever security/authentication is required to keep the signal to noise higher.
It has to be backwards incompatible so it doesn't just bring along all the spam problems, and to do that enough people have to say "I'm done with email and will no longer have an email address, I'm using this instead if you want to "email" me you'll have to too".
Just like all such things a critical number has to be reached for it to happen...
Maybe, but they are extrapolating based on the data they have which is certainly one way to make a prediction. Of course we will never actually know when exactly this happened and a prediction you can't confirm or falsify is a pretty useless one...
I'd also guess they made the prediction before the "fact" - the chances they just so happened to do the calculation in the smalltime window just after the event seems rather small.
It means they didn't actually count every person in the world on that day, but instead uses birth rates, death rates, migration rates, etc to predict when it happened.
Fraudalent activity is very inconveniant for the customer - who has to get a new card and update the 47 places they have set up automatic billing to their card with. Costly if they don't notice it soon enough as well.
Fraudalent activity is costly for the business taking the transaction - the CC company does a chargeback and they are not only out the money but also out a fee.
Fraudalent activity is irrelevant to the CC company - it does generate some revenue via chargeback fees I guess so there is some incentive to not do anything about it. I can't think of any incentive for the CC company to care - it doesn't cost them anything.
"Your employer doesn't pay unemployment benefits" and "as a cost of hiring you" contradict each other, since the cost of hiring you is borne by the employer.
More likely for them all to end up in a star/black hole than a planet, or a huge gas giant than a nice habitable planet with water oceans.
It's unlikely to just happen to pass through the "disk" around a star where the planets are at near parallel angle, more likely to come from "above" so to speak and hence unlikely to hit much - of course my understanding of astronomy approaches zero.
Not to mention sterilized by close encounters with a radiation source (like say a star)...
Yes a pound of your money is worth a pound, however if you pay with cash the store has to spend X cents (where X is a very small number) on security/insurance against theft. If you pay with a credit card then the bank probably charges them a fee plus there's the risk of a charge back which amortizes to Y cents (again a very small number). If you pay with a check then there's the risk of it bouncing which again translates to some amortized cost of Z cents.
The store doesn't give a stuff how much you actually pay for the item. They care how much money they get for the item. If you want to use a credit card why should the store pay the fee the bank charges - you're the one choosing to use a card for your convenience so you should pay that fee.
You are being charged the same price for the same goods. You pay extra for the additional costs you inflict on the merchant.
What you are really arguing is that the costs inflicted on the merchant by credit card users and people who want to come into the store instead of order online should be paid for by charging the people who don't inflict those costs on the merchant as higher price. Which seems the shonky way to me.
Note: it may well be that people who pay cash inflict more costs than those who pay by credit card - in the form of security costs, insurance costs, staff costs to transport the money, etc, etc - but the argument is the same just flip the credit card/cash parts...
Different payment methods have different costs as does online and in-person transactions.
Checks and credit cards have the potential to bounce or be charged back. Cash has the potential to be stolen. Surely if something costs the supplier different amounts they can charge the customer different amounts without being branded "shonky"?
Coca Cola branded soda costs more than unbranded stuff at the supermarket because they cost the supermarket different amounts in to buy themselves. Is that shonky?
Gutnick's case was insanity I admit. Though the sort of insanity I would expect the US likes and hence wouldn't count is crookedness or corruption - just in the wrong domain (defamation not copyright law).
Generally the trial is held in the jurisdiction of the offense. Said person was in Australia when committing the crime not the US.
The Australian court system isn't crooked and corrupt, so what's the problem with having the trial in Australia under Australian law? Surely dragging someone to the other side of the world away from their friends and family to a place they have never been to potentially spend time in prison for an action they did in their home country is cruel and unusual?
Just to be clear, you think that if someone in the US mails a death threat to someone else in Mexico, then they should be tried in Mexico under Mexican law rather than in the US under US law? Assuming such a threat is against the law in both countries.
So if you send, say a cartoon picture of Mohammad, to someone who happens to be in Iran when they view the email. You should be extradited to Iran to face charges of insulting Islam since your action was a crime under Iranian law, and did harm to individuals that are protected by Iranian law?
1. The data is corrupted (totals are different) 2. There's a known data corruption issue in the engine caused by concurrent activity
A reasonable conclusion is that the programmers were idiots and wrote an non-thread safe application with multiple threads. Another conclusion would be they intentionally attempted to fix the election. Incompetence before dishonest is the usual way to approach those things...
Christianity is premised on Christ dieing for the sins of mankind. Which requires Adam/Eve to have sinned and that to have introduced death into the world. That life on other planets would have been cursed with death due to sins on Earth light years away seems a little harsh (even for the harshness that is God - all life on Earth was cursed because two people sinned). This is really only problematic for sentient life since no one cares about being unfair to the other variety.
However, religion has survived numerous other discoveries that would seem incompatible with it in the past and will do so again without any difficulties.
Video: GeForce4, ATI Radeon 8500 or greater (ATI Radeon 9200 and 9250 PCI, NVIDIA Geforce 4 MX cards not supported.). Windows Vista - NVIDIA GeForce 6100 or ATI Radeon 9500 or greater. Labtop versions of these chipsets may work but are not supported.
Which seems straight forward enough; your graphics card needs to have Radeon written on it with a number 8500+ except for 9200 and 9250. Or GeForce written on it with a number 4+ except for ones with "4 MX" on them.
Of course if you don't know what the damn models and numbers are it'll be confusing, but on my two machines one says in the Display Control Panel:
GeForce 7600 GT Intel 82852/82855 GM/GME
I'd take a punt that the first will work (7 is greater than 4) and the second won't - since it doesn't say Radeon or GeForce. The last sentence (with the typo fixed) would imply to me it's unlikely to work on a laptop built today let alone a year ago.
Also if you think you need a new video card every 6 months, why would you think a year old laptop would have enough video grunt for a new game?
Maybe you could try reading the post I replied to, and then point to me where in:
This is cool stuff and all......but could someone explain what the significance of this is? Does this tell us anything interesting about the universe? Or is this just a "let's see if it can be done" kind of thing?
is the question about why it's a dime sized mirror?
"Seeing quantum mechanics in action" seems a reasonable answer to "does this tell us anything interesting about the universe?".
I'm terribly sorry I didn't ask your completely unrelated question to you satisfaction. My mind reading skills are a bit below par I guess.
But TFA does make one critical point - if planes are fragile enough for consumer devices to interfere with them, this isn't about passenger convenience - this is a major security problem. Plane electronics do need to be properly shielded, or it's a matter of time before someone begins deliberately attempting to exploit the vulnerability. The debate about whether cell phones should be allowed in flight in general is less interesting to me, personally.
That's the cut to the chase point yes. If cell phones are such a problem then they should not be allowed in carry-on. You can't expect a terrorist hoping to crash the plane to turn their phone off when asked after all - and it's trivially easy to hide the fact that the phone is on. It's also trivial to carry a bag of 50 such phones without arousing any suspicion (50 people can go through security with one each and transfer them to the passenger). It can't be too hard to modify a cell phone to output obscene amounts of RF without it being obvious (other than by measuring the power output or noticing that all the TVs in a block radius buzz a little) - they sometimes ask you turn laptops on, never seen them ask for a cell phone though. Of course you could modify your laptop too as well, so I guess that's moot (I've also never seen them rummage through the laptop bag and get you to plug in all the usb/pcmcia devices in the pockets).
The fact that they don't let you carry a bottle of soda through security but do let you carry a cell phone seems to indicate it isn't a real problem. Or that security is a retarded farce. Sadly that second option is just as, of not more, likely.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me guess, ring finger twice a long as your index finger?
Wow you're so tough.
Of course you could try thinking about what they mean by temperature and by pain. They are using both terms differently than you are.
count as a big enough leak to trigger disclosure laws. If they are just selling email addresses without any other personal details they may be violating there privacy policy but probably not disclosure laws.
And Jitter Man was born, protecting truth, justice, and the American way!
There's a fix for email, which is scrapping the current infrastructure completely and setting up an incompatible system with whatever security/authentication is required to keep the signal to noise higher.
It has to be backwards incompatible so it doesn't just bring along all the spam problems, and to do that enough people have to say "I'm done with email and will no longer have an email address, I'm using this instead if you want to "email" me you'll have to too".
Just like all such things a critical number has to be reached for it to happen...
Maybe, but they are extrapolating based on the data they have which is certainly one way to make a prediction. Of course we will never actually know when exactly this happened and a prediction you can't confirm or falsify is a pretty useless one...
I'd also guess they made the prediction before the "fact" - the chances they just so happened to do the calculation in the smalltime window just after the event seems rather small.
It means they didn't actually count every person in the world on that day, but instead uses birth rates, death rates, migration rates, etc to predict when it happened.
Fraudalent activity is very inconveniant for the customer - who has to get a new card and update the 47 places they have set up automatic billing to their card with. Costly if they don't notice it soon enough as well.
Fraudalent activity is costly for the business taking the transaction - the CC company does a chargeback and they are not only out the money but also out a fee.
Fraudalent activity is irrelevant to the CC company - it does generate some revenue via chargeback fees I guess so there is some incentive to not do anything about it. I can't think of any incentive for the CC company to care - it doesn't cost them anything.
"Your employer doesn't pay unemployment benefits" and "as a cost of hiring you" contradict each other, since the cost of hiring you is borne by the employer.
More likely for them all to end up in a star/black hole than a planet, or a huge gas giant than a nice habitable planet with water oceans.
It's unlikely to just happen to pass through the "disk" around a star where the planets are at near parallel angle, more likely to come from "above" so to speak and hence unlikely to hit much - of course my understanding of astronomy approaches zero.
Not to mention sterilized by close encounters with a radiation source (like say a star)...
Yes a pound of your money is worth a pound, however if you pay with cash the store has to spend X cents (where X is a very small number) on security /insurance against theft. If you pay with a credit card then the bank probably charges them a fee plus there's the risk of a charge back which amortizes to Y cents (again a very small number). If you pay with a check then there's the risk of it bouncing which again translates to some amortized cost of Z cents.
The store doesn't give a stuff how much you actually pay for the item. They care how much money they get for the item. If you want to use a credit card why should the store pay the fee the bank charges - you're the one choosing to use a card for your convenience so you should pay that fee.
You are being charged the same price for the same goods. You pay extra for the additional costs you inflict on the merchant.
What you are really arguing is that the costs inflicted on the merchant by credit card users and people who want to come into the store instead of order online should be paid for by charging the people who don't inflict those costs on the merchant as higher price. Which seems the shonky way to me.
Note: it may well be that people who pay cash inflict more costs than those who pay by credit card - in the form of security costs, insurance costs, staff costs to transport the money, etc, etc - but the argument is the same just flip the credit card/cash parts...
How is charging different prices shonky?
Different payment methods have different costs as does online and in-person transactions.
Checks and credit cards have the potential to bounce or be charged back. Cash has the potential to be stolen. Surely if something costs the supplier different amounts they can charge the customer different amounts without being branded "shonky"?
Coca Cola branded soda costs more than unbranded stuff at the supermarket because they cost the supermarket different amounts in to buy themselves. Is that shonky?
Gutnick's case was insanity I admit. Though the sort of insanity I would expect the US likes and hence wouldn't count is crookedness or corruption - just in the wrong domain (defamation not copyright law).
They should see if the ACLU will help them in their case...
Way to miss the point.
So Germany and sending a not about the holocaust not happening.
of course now you'll bring up the "illegal in US as well" part, so see my other post with Mexico and death threats...
Generally the trial is held in the jurisdiction of the offense. Said person was in Australia when committing the crime not the US.
The Australian court system isn't crooked and corrupt, so what's the problem with having the trial in Australia under Australian law? Surely dragging someone to the other side of the world away from their friends and family to a place they have never been to potentially spend time in prison for an action they did in their home country is cruel and unusual?
Just to be clear, you think that if someone in the US mails a death threat to someone else in Mexico, then they should be tried in Mexico under Mexican law rather than in the US under US law? Assuming such a threat is against the law in both countries.
So if you send, say a cartoon picture of Mohammad, to someone who happens to be in Iran when they view the email. You should be extradited to Iran to face charges of insulting Islam since your action was a crime under Iranian law, and did harm to individuals that are protected by Iranian law?
1. The data is corrupted (totals are different)
2. There's a known data corruption issue in the engine caused by concurrent activity
A reasonable conclusion is that the programmers were idiots and wrote an non-thread safe application with multiple threads. Another conclusion would be they intentionally attempted to fix the election. Incompetence before dishonest is the usual way to approach those things...
Christianity is premised on Christ dieing for the sins of mankind. Which requires Adam/Eve to have sinned and that to have introduced death into the world. That life on other planets would have been cursed with death due to sins on Earth light years away seems a little harsh (even for the harshness that is God - all life on Earth was cursed because two people sinned). This is really only problematic for sentient life since no one cares about being unfair to the other variety.
However, religion has survived numerous other discoveries that would seem incompatible with it in the past and will do so again without any difficulties.
Which seems straight forward enough; your graphics card needs to have Radeon written on it with a number 8500+ except for 9200 and 9250. Or GeForce written on it with a number 4+ except for ones with "4 MX" on them.
Of course if you don't know what the damn models and numbers are it'll be confusing, but on my two machines one says in the Display Control Panel:
GeForce 7600 GT
Intel 82852/82855 GM/GME
I'd take a punt that the first will work (7 is greater than 4) and the second won't - since it doesn't say Radeon or GeForce. The last sentence (with the typo fixed) would imply to me it's unlikely to work on a laptop built today let alone a year ago.
Also if you think you need a new video card every 6 months, why would you think a year old laptop would have enough video grunt for a new game?
Whereas I was replying to what I was replying to, not the entire chain of posts.
The answer to your question is in the fourth last sentence of the article, far to far down for slashdot.
is the question about why it's a dime sized mirror?
"Seeing quantum mechanics in action" seems a reasonable answer to "does this tell us anything interesting about the universe?".
I'm terribly sorry I didn't ask your completely unrelated question to you satisfaction. My mind reading skills are a bit below par I guess.
You could try reading the first sentence of the article.
it's a daggerfall sequel. They're still striving to meet that bug count standard.
That's the cut to the chase point yes. If cell phones are such a problem then they should not be allowed in carry-on. You can't expect a terrorist hoping to crash the plane to turn their phone off when asked after all - and it's trivially easy to hide the fact that the phone is on. It's also trivial to carry a bag of 50 such phones without arousing any suspicion (50 people can go through security with one each and transfer them to the passenger). It can't be too hard to modify a cell phone to output obscene amounts of RF without it being obvious (other than by measuring the power output or noticing that all the TVs in a block radius buzz a little) - they sometimes ask you turn laptops on, never seen them ask for a cell phone though. Of course you could modify your laptop too as well, so I guess that's moot (I've also never seen them rummage through the laptop bag and get you to plug in all the usb/pcmcia devices in the pockets).
The fact that they don't let you carry a bottle of soda through security but do let you carry a cell phone seems to indicate it isn't a real problem. Or that security is a retarded farce. Sadly that second option is just as, of not more, likely.