That's like pulling your battery out of your laptop and throwing it away. Yes, the device will still . . . do stuff. It just doesn't do everything it's supposed to.
Oh, and that extra functionality you're cutting out? It's one of the primary purposes of paying more money for a smaller, slower device.
The people that want tv and movies streaming via their computer are still in the minority.
It's getting there... but the user base is not in place yet for a company to fully commit to it.
I'm sorry, but it is complete bull. It's completely about making money. Maybe a decade ago it was hard to get things into an ondemand service, but now with iTunes and Hulu and Netflix all competing to get TV shows and movies up ASAP, the only thing delaying them is not a technical issue, but suppliers unwilling to cut into their current market on TV.
This doesn't sound right. I mean, people might not sue because damages are so much lower, but I feel like going out there and downloading a copy of a file you know is probably not an official download source doesn't sound legal at all.
I haven't done much research on prepaid plans, but when I had T-Mobile's prepaid, I was paying $10 per YEAR to keep my phone number. It's still a dime a minute in or out, and ten cents a minute if you're refilling in $100 increment. It doesn't seem like Net10 is that competitive based on what you're telling me...
Unless that's really obfuscated and built into the code, that sounds like something that would not be hard to remove from the code for less than $10k. Considering how quickly people are cracking copy-protection for free for games and other software, it seems like this scheme would be defeated very quickly.
A large chicken salad SHOULD fail this healthy test. There's nothing blatantly unhealthy in a chicken salad, such as bacon, but it's lacking in multiple areas. The nutrients in grains are very important, and so are some healthy fats (which the chicken MAY provide). You can get calcium from various sources besides dairy, but unless you add cheese (which has some bad animal fats), you probably aren't getting enough for a growing kid.
Because I am posting anon, this will likely not get modded insightful as much as your obvious bashing, but food for your thought.
It's probably not getting modded insightful because you're not really answering his question. Rather, you are seeing his question as some sort of a challenge that is therefore "bashing" something, when it should be a completely legitimate question anyone who considers him/herself a "believer" should have asked him/herself.
Addressing your points: 1. The test of obedience was to not eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, not the Tree of Life. 2. The question is, if Adam and Eve didn't know what was right and what was wrong, how would they know obeying was right? There are various answers to this. 3. It seems pretty clear that Adam and Eve were kicked out so they wouldn't eat from the Tree of Life. This was his second question. Also worth answering with more than, "Maybe He had a plan."
And you would understand why if you would just take a few minutes to read a specific passage in a particular psychology textbook, but you're more interested in portraying other people as lazy and sarcastic.
Understanding any topic, including the Bible, is hardly as clear-cut as you make it out to be, and if you actually believe it to be that simple, then you need to pay a little more the interesting and funny discussion that's going on instead of interjecting your snide remarks.
You don't physically control the systems that hold your wedding photographs, the photos you're getting developed at Walgreen's, the medical information at every hospital or doctor you've visited, or the credit card information from every Target, Macy's, and Safeway you've made purchases at. It doesn't mean you don't deserve to have some expectation of privacy and discretion for that data. You should always be able to say, "okay, stop using this data except as far as compliance with the law goes."
How about, "if your CRL isn't available, our browser rejects your cert and people can't get to sites that you sign?" Who is going to pay for certs at the same CA next year if your CA goes offline that it interferes with their customer base?
The monetary incentive is already there. Google is removing that incentive.
The passphrase itself can reveal information, like "imurderedjohndoe". If they don't need it, and they have no reason to ask for it, I think it gets to be a grey legal area where can be a search, or you could invoke 5th Amendment rights, etc. And yes, I think the fact that it can be used for other accounts, or could reveal if you or another person share account passwords or something like that matters. There's probably more to it. IANAL either.
Not saying I agree with the actions of the judge, but I don't think your points are valid.
The judge is not asking the woman to commit a crime. The judge is demanding information that the woman supposedly has, and (if it's true) if she refuses to cooperate, she would be basically refusing to testify. Contempt of court in of itself does not violate the 4th amendment, and refusing to disclose information CAN be comtempt.
The real issue in this case is that the judge isn't being reasonable in assuming that the woman did not, in fact, forget her password. I'm sure the every one in the court room has done so at some point.
Why do you think Facebook is not required? What makes email any more required? Much of the internet and media you consume assumes you have facebook, and it's only getting more prevalent every day.
Additionally, the majority of people who use Facebook do so without understanding the ridiculous intricacies of the privacy and security issues that plague it. Facebook's privacy policy has way gone beyond the point where the average person's common sense will protect them, so it does become a problem that needs to be legislated.
Facebook is still not compatible with anything else online, and it's huge, so in many ways it is a monopoly. Otherwise, you might as well say nothing is a monopoly as long as you still have smoke signals and the pony express.
Slashdot Mirror
That's like pulling your battery out of your laptop and throwing it away. Yes, the device will still . . . do stuff. It just doesn't do everything it's supposed to.
Oh, and that extra functionality you're cutting out? It's one of the primary purposes of paying more money for a smaller, slower device.
Nono. Paddles we like.
The people that want tv and movies streaming via their computer are still in the minority.
It's getting there... but the user base is not in place yet for a company to fully commit to it.
I'm sorry, but it is complete bull. It's completely about making money. Maybe a decade ago it was hard to get things into an ondemand service, but now with iTunes and Hulu and Netflix all competing to get TV shows and movies up ASAP, the only thing delaying them is not a technical issue, but suppliers unwilling to cut into their current market on TV.
It's still legal to download files
This doesn't sound right. I mean, people might not sue because damages are so much lower, but I feel like going out there and downloading a copy of a file you know is probably not an official download source doesn't sound legal at all.
Can anyone confirm/deny this claim?
I haven't done much research on prepaid plans, but when I had T-Mobile's prepaid, I was paying $10 per YEAR to keep my phone number. It's still a dime a minute in or out, and ten cents a minute if you're refilling in $100 increment. It doesn't seem like Net10 is that competitive based on what you're telling me...
Unless that's really obfuscated and built into the code, that sounds like something that would not be hard to remove from the code for less than $10k. Considering how quickly people are cracking copy-protection for free for games and other software, it seems like this scheme would be defeated very quickly.
For you, I'm willing to settle for single player mode too. ;)
Then let me know next time you have sex and I'll come over with my video camera.
*You probably aren't getting enough in a chicken salad for a growing kid.
A large chicken salad SHOULD fail this healthy test. There's nothing blatantly unhealthy in a chicken salad, such as bacon, but it's lacking in multiple areas. The nutrients in grains are very important, and so are some healthy fats (which the chicken MAY provide). You can get calcium from various sources besides dairy, but unless you add cheese (which has some bad animal fats), you probably aren't getting enough for a growing kid.
My car doesn't breathe...
Because I am posting anon, this will likely not get modded insightful as much as your obvious bashing, but food for your thought.
It's probably not getting modded insightful because you're not really answering his question. Rather, you are seeing his question as some sort of a challenge that is therefore "bashing" something, when it should be a completely legitimate question anyone who considers him/herself a "believer" should have asked him/herself.
Addressing your points:
1. The test of obedience was to not eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, not the Tree of Life.
2. The question is, if Adam and Eve didn't know what was right and what was wrong, how would they know obeying was right? There are various answers to this.
3. It seems pretty clear that Adam and Eve were kicked out so they wouldn't eat from the Tree of Life. This was his second question. Also worth answering with more than, "Maybe He had a plan."
So how many apple trees do you think you've killed?
And you would understand why if you would just take a few minutes to read a specific passage in a particular psychology textbook, but you're more interested in portraying other people as lazy and sarcastic.
Understanding any topic, including the Bible, is hardly as clear-cut as you make it out to be, and if you actually believe it to be that simple, then you need to pay a little more the interesting and funny discussion that's going on instead of interjecting your snide remarks.
What the devil are you going on about?
Like in Prypiat!
I seriously doubt Zuckerburg is relying at all on Social Security for retirement.
You don't physically control the systems that hold your wedding photographs, the photos you're getting developed at Walgreen's, the medical information at every hospital or doctor you've visited, or the credit card information from every Target, Macy's, and Safeway you've made purchases at. It doesn't mean you don't deserve to have some expectation of privacy and discretion for that data. You should always be able to say, "okay, stop using this data except as far as compliance with the law goes."
How about, "if your CRL isn't available, our browser rejects your cert and people can't get to sites that you sign?" Who is going to pay for certs at the same CA next year if your CA goes offline that it interferes with their customer base?
The monetary incentive is already there. Google is removing that incentive.
The passphrase itself can reveal information, like "imurderedjohndoe". If they don't need it, and they have no reason to ask for it, I think it gets to be a grey legal area where can be a search, or you could invoke 5th Amendment rights, etc. And yes, I think the fact that it can be used for other accounts, or could reveal if you or another person share account passwords or something like that matters. There's probably more to it. IANAL either.
Not saying I agree with the actions of the judge, but I don't think your points are valid.
The judge is not asking the woman to commit a crime. The judge is demanding information that the woman supposedly has, and (if it's true) if she refuses to cooperate, she would be basically refusing to testify. Contempt of court in of itself does not violate the 4th amendment, and refusing to disclose information CAN be comtempt.
The real issue in this case is that the judge isn't being reasonable in assuming that the woman did not, in fact, forget her password. I'm sure the every one in the court room has done so at some point.
Why do you think Facebook is not required? What makes email any more required? Much of the internet and media you consume assumes you have facebook, and it's only getting more prevalent every day.
Additionally, the majority of people who use Facebook do so without understanding the ridiculous intricacies of the privacy and security issues that plague it. Facebook's privacy policy has way gone beyond the point where the average person's common sense will protect them, so it does become a problem that needs to be legislated.
You're saying the same thing he is saying...that the naysayers are exagerating when they say a roof of this material can only run a watch.
That's okay. Any yahoo can install an OS, but I've yet to meet a yahoo that doesn't consider him/herself a geek who will try.
Facebook is still not compatible with anything else online, and it's huge, so in many ways it is a monopoly. Otherwise, you might as well say nothing is a monopoly as long as you still have smoke signals and the pony express.