I like this idea, but the legal complexities are an issue. Even in the United States, laws differ from state to state, but the iPhone is sold worldwide...
I'm confused. You're the second person who has replied the same thing. Because it *could* be used for something illegal, they don't include the feature? Or is it because the phone even having the ability to record the call is illegal? I know that my sprint motorola slvr L7 was capable of recording voice calls - but it was limited to user's choice of recording for 1 minute or 10 minutes.
So... is Apple just claiming that they won't support it because of these reasons? Is sprint/motorola doing something illegal? Besides, I thought it was *my* obligation to follow the local ordinances, not for Apple to restrict my ability to use the phone in this manner?
I don't really need video recording, but I am a bit miffed that I have no way to record voice calls. There are apps that let you use the device like a voice recorder - but that is only for things like lectures, not for phone conversations.
This is rich. I shouldn't be so sensitive about the existence of supernatural souls and being the creation of an Old Man in the sky (which you argue by appeal to common practice/common belief)
I argue by the nature of the fact that this is a common plot device, so I'm not sure why it is so significant that it would come up and be viewed as "preachy" in a show like Terminator. I'm not understanding why Sarah's (primarily, but Agent Ellison's as well) introspection is preachy. I wasn't making a judgment call about your sensitivity, but rather observing that it appears heightened.
and yet you dismiss the work of peer-reviewed scientific journals as fantasy
This is exactly my point. There is legitimate room for debate about if, how much, and why. But subscribers of man-made global warming hypothesis have a tendency to be loud-mouthed and obnoxious about it, excoriating anyone - even your legitimate peer-reviewed scientists - who would dare question. No data or discussion to the contrary is permitted. "The debate is over" I believe is the exact phrase used by multiple high-profile followers. The whole point of peer-review is to open up debate and dialog. In the 70s the sky was falling because of global cooling. But that gets ignored because it isn't, to borrow the word, convenient. The hubris that is required for folks who can't tell me accurately if it is going to rain this weekend or not to claim they have the answer with absolute certainty is stunning. There are thousands, millions of variables that go into the climate. But holy mother of, are you brain damaged? if you want to argue or question the conclusions. I have a tendency to look at people (not you) with suspicion who are screaming at me, calling me names, telling me I'm stupid for not climbing aboard and waving the flag for the cause of the day.
I think I was pretty clear that I don't know if we're directly causing global warming, and I'm willing to listen to arguments from both sides. I object to having it shoved down my throat by some clown producing 24. I object to the government, in the name of Global Warming, taking my tax dollars and jamming wrenches into the economy and our food supply on unsustainable technologies like corn ethanol, while simultaneously banning sugar ethanol imports from Brazil and keeping "clean" technologies like nuclear bound so tightly in red tape no one wants to deal with it.
That is why I'm a heretic. Because I don't toe the line. Again the point of this tangent was that you raised the topic of preaching, yet we're constantly being preached, yelled at, we're-all-gonna-burn, about global warming - in this case by none other than a fictional show about terrorists.
I don't know about you, but Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles has a very preachy vibe
This is pretty normal exploration of humanity and the soul. Not entirely sure why you seem so sensitive to it. You'll find this "preachy vibe" through out many, many classical texts. BSG is another sci-fi show that deals with the Man vs. Supernatural question - in a very obvious, much more in-your-face way than Terminator. The plotline is inexplicibly tied to their wrestling with questions about the supernatural (gods of Cobol?) - from both the human and cylon perspective. The search for and answers about the supernatural is part of the human condition. Believe it or not, very few folks have decided that the soul doesn't exist and is therefore not worth considering.
On the other hand, if you want to start a discussion about "preachy"... The little bumper this week with "President" Taylor telling us that while 24 the show is fiction, the very real threat is "global climate change"? This is the second time this season they've done something like this. That doesn't have *anything* to do with the show at all. Maybe the planet is warming, maybe it isn't. I'm getting really fucking sick of the highly selective presentation and "Al Gore declared the debate over, so DON'T QUESTION IT" mentality of the global warming alarmists. They're about to ruin a perfectly good show by trying to ram this shit down my throat. I stopped watching NBC in part because of the green-week shit - which is basically a giant series of infomericals for their parent company GE disguised as content. (Nevermind they have crap for programming.) There was even an ep of BSG (SCIFI chan, owned by NBC/Universal - during "green week") which did a not-real-clever ep about a guy who was trying to combat global warming. Funny how the relationships and GE's interest is never disclosed.
The point is, maybe "global warming" is an issue, I don't know. Yeah yeah I'm a heretic. (Too bad you can't burn me at the stake, because that would increase CO2.) The only thing I want "President" Taylor to do is let Jack Bauer go kick terrorist ass. That's why I watch. Not to be preached at about a completely irrelevant issue.
The most bizarre thing I can't understand about this is that a show like 24 tends to appeal to the type of folks who would be those crazy global warming deniers, so why would they bother risking pissing them off like that? Unless they're trying to tank the ratings and kill the show...
You know what sucks imho, is that the Norton suite used to be the swiss army knife of utilities until Symantec got ahold of them. I was able to diagnose, repair, or recover data from many systems back in the day using Norton Utilities.
Re:LinkedIn is basically for business
on
Linked In Or Out?
·
· Score: 1
If you look at that carefully, it says that the "license" will automatically expire... but it doesn't say WHEN. The when is given in the first part: you have granted them "perpetual" license. Maybe ending after forever is better than not ending at all... I don't know.
Just to play devil's advocate for a second, could this simply be for them to CYA so you can't come back later and bitch that your information is on a backup tape somewhere, so they don't have to go through every tape where your information might be and purge it?
And that would require appointed judges rather than elected dribbling nutcases. Do you think that will change any time soon?
I don't see any difference between judges who are appointed and those elected, really. An idiot judge who doesn't drop kick stupid shit is an idiot regardless. If I had a choice, I'd want fewer appointed judges so we could throw them out on their ass when they start acting like we somehow owe unruly, obnoxious kids (and parents for that matter) something because the kid is too dumb to follow a reasonable instruction to put the damn phone away. You seem to be suggesting that electing the judges is a bad idea, but forgetting that the people doing the appointing were elected in the first place? It seems better to give us the option, instead of burying it behind the idiots who are already in office. At least if we vote a judge in, we can vote them out. Most of the time the only way to get rid of an appointment is through a recall-type process, or a new administration - which apparently if you're the wrong administration means trouble
Regardless of the judges, I think when most of us "old" people were kids (in the 80s), it wouldn't have taken the cops. It would have taken much less - say, threatening to mail the phone home to our parents - and pray the school didn't follow through because my parents at least would have kicked my sorry ass for mouthing back to a teacher, made me apologize, and who knows what else. Nevermind anything to do with the phone. It was very, very simple: you don't act like that, especially to an adult.
I'm with you here. The internets are pretty limited once you're out on the road. I think Pandora is great, but it doesn't stream live anyways - so no live content (news, talk, etc) there. For all intents and purposes it downloads and mp3 and plays it, downloading the next one while you're listening.
XM gives me access to a variety of programming without having to pay $7.00/mo to multiple individual websites so I can listen to their shows on the internet - which again isn't available nearly as much outside population centers. It also gives me several news options, a variety of music, etc all without having to screw around with finding a website on my iPhone while doing 75mph down the freeway.
I'm considering cutting the XM just because of budget stuff, but I'm actually considering cutting the CATV first, because the stuff that I watch on TV that isn't broadcast happens to be simulcast on XM. Just need to find a reliable, inexpensive way to timeshift XM.
Rather than citing privacy, WCBVTV is running the story under the headline 'City's Move To Nix Security Cams May Cost Thousands.'
If you watch the news, any news, most of the folks in "journalism" are liberal and want bigger, more intrusive government. They can play the stupid games claiming they're "main stream" but it is BS and we all know it. The government is the best path, because the masses are stupid and can't be trusted. So why would you expect them to tilt their headline any other way? Removing the cameras is an anti-government/less-government move. Liberal* is not the same as Libertarian, which is what I think the submitter is expecting from the dinosaur media.
While I think/. tends to lean left from the way the summaries are spun to the multiple negative responses I got from a comment a couple of weeks ago saying I didn't want federal gov't to run healthcare - I still get the impression that a lot us in the/. crowd are probably as much libertarian as anything else.
-Horatio
* Liberal, Progressive, Modern, or whatever they're calling themselves these days. I can't keep up.
Canada's military power is to be feared. They have a frigate as well. I keep waiting for it to show up on Lake Erie and start shelling Cedar Point because they don't have cool theme parks like we yanks do.
OT, but yeah, I see the same kind of random nonsense. On the homepage, I'm logged in. When I clicky to a story's comments sometimes I'm not. But I go back to the homepage and I am again. Clicky to another story, and I'm still logged in. No idea why.
Several folks below have pointed out that the cable providers can do whatever the hell they want, and that what I saw is probably not the same thing, because I wasn't using an OTA signal. However, IIRC, the restriction still applied in some cases to broadcast channels for shows like House, etc.
>The infamous Broadcast Flag--the only element of DRM to have ever loomed over broadcast television--is dead and buried. Besides, none of the DTV converters currently available have any DRM-compliance built in.
You must be using a meaning for 'dead and buried' that I'm not aware of.
As much as I think they're greatest thing since sliced bread, I've dumped both of my TiVos within the last few months because the damn cablecards never worked right with TWC, and TiVo doesn't work properly with what I switched to which was U-verse. (For one, the U-verse DVR puts itself into standby mode after some amount of "inactivity" - so my S2 was mostly recording "press [OK] to watch TV")
However, the broadcast flag was alive and well as far as I could see. Maybe what I'm thinking of was something different. This was a little red (!) that would come up with probably 80-85% of the programs that wouldn't let me transfer the shows to the PC, or transfer them to another TiVo. The error message specifically said something to the effect of "the content provider has restricted the use of this content." It didn't happen when I first had the S3, but over time, more and more channels/shows started having it appear - both cable and broadcast channels.
Obviously, TiVo blamed the cable provider, and TWC had absolutely no clue wtf I was talking about - or blamed it on the upstream provider - depending on who you got.
My current provider is BCBS, and they're terrible. I had insurance through the university I worked for, and while it wasn't great, it was better than this BS. I *think* a lot of that has to do with the fact that it was a very large university, with a very large hospital system itself - so they kind of had a clue.
I'm with you on airlines though, but I think the problem is less the unions, and more they CEO's who ask for bailouts and pocket it. It alwasy strikes me as odd when people blame the workers, and not the people running the ship.
You've got a good point. Both are fault, I'd say. Pilots in general are severely underpaid for what they do and the responsibility they have. No, flying a plane isn't rocket science, but if you F it up good enough you're going to kill a couple of hundred people at least. That should be worth something. However, it seems relevant to point out that the only modern airline to ever turn a profit is Southwest - IIRC the only unionized folks are some of the ground people - machinists, etc. I think SWA recently had their first quarter where they were in the red. They're doing something right - probably several things. I'll also point out that I've never once had a problem with SWA that couldn't be worked out. The people have always treated me very well, and I can't recall any of them ever being nasty even when things got a little bit crazy.
We looked at this situation a little bit in an aviation survey course, and talked about why the legacy (Delta, United, etc) carriers have such a hard time - and it is basically because they still haven't figured out how to operate in a market where the price isn't controlled by the government. Their pay structure favors, as you mentioned, executives and middle managers and they've been unable to wrench themselves from the old business models.
...not going to happen, under this or any administration I fear.
That is all I want, is for the gov't to get out of the damn way. Gov't run health care? No thanks. I hate the DMV enough to have an idea of what that will be like. Gov't run airlines? No thanks. The antiquated ATC system (thanks to the unions as well for this one) is annoying enough already. Gov't run energy? No thanks. I like my lights on, not freezing to death while those clowns debate in committee what energy bracket I'm in to determine how much I'm allowed to heat my home. We've already seen the disaster that is ethanol with the food price spikes - we're the first nation in the history of earth to actually burn our own food supply - at the behest of the government. Brilliant!
The gov't is great at playing by their own rules - while us "non-elites" foot the bill for every cock-a-mamey scheme they come up with. The huge bailout hasn't worked, so they're just going to print more money! A guy who skipped paying some $30,000 in taxes is up to run the treasury! I could go on, but I actually have a job... for the moment at least.
Has anyone else noticed that pretty much every piece of nasty coming down the pipe uses JavaScript?
No, we haven't, because we don't have your confirmation bias.
Exactly. Has anyone else noticed that pretty much every DUI coming down the road uses a car? A hammer used to pound in nails, or pound someone in the head. Javascript is a tool like any other. Doesn't mean we're running around figuring cars and hammers are a bad idea because they're abused in a few cases by stupid/bad people. Should we find better ways to secure abuse of JS? Sure, I have no problem with that.
ActiveX is another issue. The browser was SUPPOSED to be platform independent. ActiveX, like so much other BS coming out of Redmond, broke that. While it could be argued that flash support lags behind for *nix platforms - Flash isn't bundled with the browser, by the people who make the browser, who push PHBs to make their devs build ActiveX controls instead of real sites. AFAIK, there is no ActiveX for anything *except* windows machines - unlike Java, Flash, Javascript, etc.
Now, given that, the one ActiveX control I've seen that I do like, and *do* understand is one on HP's site for installing printer drivers. It makes sense in that situation - but it isn't required for the HP site to function - there are several other vectors to obtain drivers.
Twice as expensive for general aviation aircraft* as compared to what? Commercial a/c, or consumer-grade land-based devices?
Nearly everything for aviation is more expensive than a land-bound counterpart. I think some of it is markup, but I think that more of it is the much, much lower tolerance for failure. (It is required by the CFRs that, for example, the engine oil is changed when the mfg says to change it, otherwise the a/c is no longer legal (airworthy) to be flown.) Equipment failure in flight can create an immediate, life-threatening situation - depending on what fails. Aviation ELTs also have to be engineered to survive a variety of conditions from severe impacts (otherwise what would be the point?), fire, extreme temperatures, submersion, etc.
From what I can tell, most of us are holding off on purchasing the 406's until the price comes down - which it will as purchase volume increases. But it will still never be as cheap as something you'd take hiking.
(*Apologies if I'm stating the obvious, it seems like maybe you are already familiar with the industry - most folks don't know what "GA" means.)
I buy things because they're useful. I consider energy usage as measured in efficiency when purchasing a vehicle or even a PSU - because it costs me less money to operate the device.
I heard a PSA on the radio a couple of days ago about unplugging your cellphone charger when you're not using it - the implication being that it uses just as much electricity when you're not charging your phone as when you are. I just checked real quick. Two cell phone chargers (Motorola usb wall charger and iPhone USB wall adapter) - both use 0 when plugged in with no phone attached. The motorola charger is using 3 watts to charge the phone.
I call bullshit, and this is exactly why I'm so tired of "green" this or "eco-friendly" that - because I don't believe any of it. The hyperbole drowns out any meaningful facts. We're being asked to do stupid, completely inconsequential things that have zero or near zero measurable impact. My full-size tower / gaming rig uses a little under 200W powered up (idle), and 4 whole watts when on standby - not hibernating - standby. Obviously 4 > 0, but give me a break with the malarky about how the little LED is killing the planet.
Obviously, we don't want to let facts get in the way of our millions of green (dollars) of marketing "green" products. (I won't even get into the really interesting link between "Green Week" on TV and the owner/parent company of said TV channels who just happens to produce and sell "green" products...)
Conservation is great, I have no problem with taking good care of the planet. But enough with the BS marketing, and the BS from the gov't -- including what kind of lightbulbs I'm allowed to buy. Oh, you didn't realize that Congress has outlawed most incandescent lightbulbs? Yeah, it seemed to kind of be one of those things they just did because they can. I'm stocking up. Instead of any meaningful changes to our energy policy, like more nuclear power, this is the kind of BS the "green" movement decides we should have.
So if I understand the logic correctly here: I can set up a lemonade stand in the front of my house and give away free lemonade. I can collect information by passively observing the people who pick up one of these free lemonades (sex, race, vehicle, age, direction on the street they came from, etc). To keep with what you've said, I have a sign nearby that says "Free lemonade sponsored by Jack's Shrimp Shack" because my friend Jack kindly underwrote some of my costs. Then at some point I decide that my experiment is over and I pack up my lemonade stand and go home. Maybe it was too hot outside and I was bored. Someone has a court case against me because I stopped handing out something that was free, but not free, because I was collecting information and had a poster advertising a business?
I'm not arguing with you as much as trying to understand how far your premise can be taken. Trust me, I would be royally pissed off if gmail suddenly went away without notice. What you're saying, however, is that I might have some kind of recourse here to sue them? What is that thing people are always posting here about
1. Set up free gmail accounts (the more the better) 2. Wait for google to shut off the gmail beta 3. ??? 4. Sue Google 5. Profit!
I have no love for TWC, I dropped them a few months ago over continuing issues with their cablecard support. I'm not saying that TWC is at fault in this case, but this is the third specific time I can think of in the last few years where TWC has threatened to or has cut off access to programming over a dispute with a content provider. It seems like each time a content provider is twisting TWC's arm to charge more for content already provided, or to provide additional channels at additional cost to the customer.
One was over the ONN (Ohio News Network) channel, a brainchild of WBNS(?). TWC actually sent their customers OTA antennas and switch boxes with instructions on how to hook it up to continue getting the local CBS affiliate when the time came for TWC to stop carrying it - because WBNS reportedly told TWC they had to drop the local CBS channel if they wouldn't also carry ONN.
The other was over Ohio State Univ football games and the "Big Ten" network. This one seems to me to be the fault of the content provider. Basically, instead of having the OSU games on local channels, or even on pay-cable (ESPN, etc), the Big Ten decided that they wanted the games to only be on their own channel. The result was that for TWC customers last season most of the games were not available - home or otherwise. TWC finally caved and added BTN, but wow the channel is a complete waste of time. The commentators they have are more annoying than the broadcast guys - which is saying something. I used to enjoy them, but I stopped watching the games. Nice job Big Ten jackasses.
This is exactly what I do. When a bank or CC issuer calls (usually to verify a purchase) I call the number listed on the back of the card, not the number left in the message.
That's what pisses me off. Both Sprint and AT&T have both told me that there is nothing I can do about unsolicited text messages (except to add texting specifically), that I will be charged for them. Sprint, at least, has a bit buried on their website which most of the reps don't know about where you can block specific numbers - but last I checked it was limited to 50 numbers - no way to block all text messages. Alternatively, like you, we can call every month and argue with the clowns.
This was an idea that I appreciated when I was testing out a TomTom - the ability to submit and fetch community-based feedback about road closures, detours, etc. For a variety of reasons I ended up choosing a Garmin for my nav needs, but I do wish they would implement some of the community based features.
Aye, I've noticed that I can sometimes reproduce similar behavior by doing just that. It also sometimes happens if I unplug a USB device after closing the lid. Othertimes, it just happens without any apparent precipitating action from me. It isn't very often.
Beyond that, like someone else mentioned, I rarely have to wait very long (esp on my home WLAN, others are slower), if at all, for the wireless link to come up.
Slashdot Mirror
I like this idea, but the legal complexities are an issue. Even in the United States, laws differ from state to state, but the iPhone is sold worldwide...
I'm confused. You're the second person who has replied the same thing. Because it *could* be used for something illegal, they don't include the feature? Or is it because the phone even having the ability to record the call is illegal? I know that my sprint motorola slvr L7 was capable of recording voice calls - but it was limited to user's choice of recording for 1 minute or 10 minutes. So ... is Apple just claiming that they won't support it because of these reasons? Is sprint/motorola doing something illegal? Besides, I thought it was *my* obligation to follow the local ordinances, not for Apple to restrict my ability to use the phone in this manner?
I don't really need video recording, but I am a bit miffed that I have no way to record voice calls. There are apps that let you use the device like a voice recorder - but that is only for things like lectures, not for phone conversations.
This is rich. I shouldn't be so sensitive about the existence of supernatural souls and being the creation of an Old Man in the sky (which you argue by appeal to common practice/common belief)
I argue by the nature of the fact that this is a common plot device, so I'm not sure why it is so significant that it would come up and be viewed as "preachy" in a show like Terminator. I'm not understanding why Sarah's (primarily, but Agent Ellison's as well) introspection is preachy. I wasn't making a judgment call about your sensitivity, but rather observing that it appears heightened.
and yet you dismiss the work of peer-reviewed scientific journals as fantasy
This is exactly my point. There is legitimate room for debate about if, how much, and why. But subscribers of man-made global warming hypothesis have a tendency to be loud-mouthed and obnoxious about it, excoriating anyone - even your legitimate peer-reviewed scientists - who would dare question. No data or discussion to the contrary is permitted. "The debate is over" I believe is the exact phrase used by multiple high-profile followers. The whole point of peer-review is to open up debate and dialog. In the 70s the sky was falling because of global cooling. But that gets ignored because it isn't, to borrow the word, convenient. The hubris that is required for folks who can't tell me accurately if it is going to rain this weekend or not to claim they have the answer with absolute certainty is stunning. There are thousands, millions of variables that go into the climate. But holy mother of, are you brain damaged? if you want to argue or question the conclusions. I have a tendency to look at people (not you) with suspicion who are screaming at me, calling me names, telling me I'm stupid for not climbing aboard and waving the flag for the cause of the day.
I think I was pretty clear that I don't know if we're directly causing global warming, and I'm willing to listen to arguments from both sides. I object to having it shoved down my throat by some clown producing 24. I object to the government, in the name of Global Warming, taking my tax dollars and jamming wrenches into the economy and our food supply on unsustainable technologies like corn ethanol, while simultaneously banning sugar ethanol imports from Brazil and keeping "clean" technologies like nuclear bound so tightly in red tape no one wants to deal with it.
That is why I'm a heretic. Because I don't toe the line. Again the point of this tangent was that you raised the topic of preaching, yet we're constantly being preached, yelled at, we're-all-gonna-burn, about global warming - in this case by none other than a fictional show about terrorists.
I don't know about you, but Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles has a very preachy vibe
This is pretty normal exploration of humanity and the soul. Not entirely sure why you seem so sensitive to it. You'll find this "preachy vibe" through out many, many classical texts. BSG is another sci-fi show that deals with the Man vs. Supernatural question - in a very obvious, much more in-your-face way than Terminator. The plotline is inexplicibly tied to their wrestling with questions about the supernatural (gods of Cobol?) - from both the human and cylon perspective. The search for and answers about the supernatural is part of the human condition. Believe it or not, very few folks have decided that the soul doesn't exist and is therefore not worth considering.
... The little bumper this week with "President" Taylor telling us that while 24 the show is fiction, the very real threat is "global climate change"? This is the second time this season they've done something like this. That doesn't have *anything* to do with the show at all. Maybe the planet is warming, maybe it isn't. I'm getting really fucking sick of the highly selective presentation and "Al Gore declared the debate over, so DON'T QUESTION IT" mentality of the global warming alarmists. They're about to ruin a perfectly good show by trying to ram this shit down my throat. I stopped watching NBC in part because of the green-week shit - which is basically a giant series of infomericals for their parent company GE disguised as content. (Nevermind they have crap for programming.) There was even an ep of BSG (SCIFI chan, owned by NBC/Universal - during "green week") which did a not-real-clever ep about a guy who was trying to combat global warming. Funny how the relationships and GE's interest is never disclosed.
On the other hand, if you want to start a discussion about "preachy"
The point is, maybe "global warming" is an issue, I don't know. Yeah yeah I'm a heretic. (Too bad you can't burn me at the stake, because that would increase CO2.) The only thing I want "President" Taylor to do is let Jack Bauer go kick terrorist ass. That's why I watch. Not to be preached at about a completely irrelevant issue. The most bizarre thing I can't understand about this is that a show like 24 tends to appeal to the type of folks who would be those crazy global warming deniers, so why would they bother risking pissing them off like that? Unless they're trying to tank the ratings and kill the show...
You know what sucks imho, is that the Norton suite used to be the swiss army knife of utilities until Symantec got ahold of them. I was able to diagnose, repair, or recover data from many systems back in the day using Norton Utilities.
If you look at that carefully, it says that the "license" will automatically expire... but it doesn't say WHEN. The when is given in the first part: you have granted them "perpetual" license. Maybe ending after forever is better than not ending at all... I don't know.
Just to play devil's advocate for a second, could this simply be for them to CYA so you can't come back later and bitch that your information is on a backup tape somewhere, so they don't have to go through every tape where your information might be and purge it?
And that would require appointed judges rather than elected dribbling nutcases. Do you think that will change any time soon?
I don't see any difference between judges who are appointed and those elected, really. An idiot judge who doesn't drop kick stupid shit is an idiot regardless. If I had a choice, I'd want fewer appointed judges so we could throw them out on their ass when they start acting like we somehow owe unruly, obnoxious kids (and parents for that matter) something because the kid is too dumb to follow a reasonable instruction to put the damn phone away. You seem to be suggesting that electing the judges is a bad idea, but forgetting that the people doing the appointing were elected in the first place? It seems better to give us the option, instead of burying it behind the idiots who are already in office. At least if we vote a judge in, we can vote them out. Most of the time the only way to get rid of an appointment is through a recall-type process, or a new administration - which apparently if you're the wrong administration means trouble
Regardless of the judges, I think when most of us "old" people were kids (in the 80s), it wouldn't have taken the cops. It would have taken much less - say, threatening to mail the phone home to our parents - and pray the school didn't follow through because my parents at least would have kicked my sorry ass for mouthing back to a teacher, made me apologize, and who knows what else. Nevermind anything to do with the phone. It was very, very simple: you don't act like that, especially to an adult.
I'm with you here. The internets are pretty limited once you're out on the road. I think Pandora is great, but it doesn't stream live anyways - so no live content (news, talk, etc) there. For all intents and purposes it downloads and mp3 and plays it, downloading the next one while you're listening.
XM gives me access to a variety of programming without having to pay $7.00/mo to multiple individual websites so I can listen to their shows on the internet - which again isn't available nearly as much outside population centers. It also gives me several news options, a variety of music, etc all without having to screw around with finding a website on my iPhone while doing 75mph down the freeway.
I'm considering cutting the XM just because of budget stuff, but I'm actually considering cutting the CATV first, because the stuff that I watch on TV that isn't broadcast happens to be simulcast on XM. Just need to find a reliable, inexpensive way to timeshift XM.
Rather than citing privacy, WCBVTV is running the story under the headline 'City's Move To Nix Security Cams May Cost Thousands.'
If you watch the news, any news, most of the folks in "journalism" are liberal and want bigger, more intrusive government. They can play the stupid games claiming they're "main stream" but it is BS and we all know it. The government is the best path, because the masses are stupid and can't be trusted. So why would you expect them to tilt their headline any other way? Removing the cameras is an anti-government/less-government move. Liberal* is not the same as Libertarian, which is what I think the submitter is expecting from the dinosaur media.
While I think /. tends to lean left from the way the summaries are spun to the multiple negative responses I got from a comment a couple of weeks ago saying I didn't want federal gov't to run healthcare - I still get the impression that a lot us in the /. crowd are probably as much libertarian as anything else.
-Horatio
* Liberal, Progressive, Modern, or whatever they're calling themselves these days. I can't keep up.
Canada's military power is to be feared. They have a frigate as well. I keep waiting for it to show up on Lake Erie and start shelling Cedar Point because they don't have cool theme parks like we yanks do.
Grr, the /. system shows me logged in, but decided to post that AC anyways. Apologies. Wasn't trying to hide.
OT, but yeah, I see the same kind of random nonsense. On the homepage, I'm logged in. When I clicky to a story's comments sometimes I'm not. But I go back to the homepage and I am again. Clicky to another story, and I'm still logged in. No idea why.
Several folks below have pointed out that the cable providers can do whatever the hell they want, and that what I saw is probably not the same thing, because I wasn't using an OTA signal. However, IIRC, the restriction still applied in some cases to broadcast channels for shows like House, etc.
>The infamous Broadcast Flag--the only element of DRM to have ever loomed over broadcast television--is dead and buried. Besides, none of the DTV converters currently available have any DRM-compliance built in.
You must be using a meaning for 'dead and buried' that I'm not aware of.
As much as I think they're greatest thing since sliced bread, I've dumped both of my TiVos within the last few months because the damn cablecards never worked right with TWC, and TiVo doesn't work properly with what I switched to which was U-verse. (For one, the U-verse DVR puts itself into standby mode after some amount of "inactivity" - so my S2 was mostly recording "press [OK] to watch TV")
However, the broadcast flag was alive and well as far as I could see. Maybe what I'm thinking of was something different. This was a little red (!) that would come up with probably 80-85% of the programs that wouldn't let me transfer the shows to the PC, or transfer them to another TiVo. The error message specifically said something to the effect of "the content provider has restricted the use of this content." It didn't happen when I first had the S3, but over time, more and more channels/shows started having it appear - both cable and broadcast channels.
Obviously, TiVo blamed the cable provider, and TWC had absolutely no clue wtf I was talking about - or blamed it on the upstream provider - depending on who you got.
My current provider is BCBS, and they're terrible. I had insurance through the university I worked for, and while it wasn't great, it was better than this BS. I *think* a lot of that has to do with the fact that it was a very large university, with a very large hospital system itself - so they kind of had a clue.
I'm with you on airlines though, but I think the problem is less the unions, and more they CEO's who ask for bailouts and pocket it. It alwasy strikes me as odd when people blame the workers, and not the people running the ship.
You've got a good point. Both are fault, I'd say. Pilots in general are severely underpaid for what they do and the responsibility they have. No, flying a plane isn't rocket science, but if you F it up good enough you're going to kill a couple of hundred people at least. That should be worth something. However, it seems relevant to point out that the only modern airline to ever turn a profit is Southwest - IIRC the only unionized folks are some of the ground people - machinists, etc. I think SWA recently had their first quarter where they were in the red. They're doing something right - probably several things. I'll also point out that I've never once had a problem with SWA that couldn't be worked out. The people have always treated me very well, and I can't recall any of them ever being nasty even when things got a little bit crazy.
We looked at this situation a little bit in an aviation survey course, and talked about why the legacy (Delta, United, etc) carriers have such a hard time - and it is basically because they still haven't figured out how to operate in a market where the price isn't controlled by the government. Their pay structure favors, as you mentioned, executives and middle managers and they've been unable to wrench themselves from the old business models.
...not going to happen, under this or any administration I fear.
That is all I want, is for the gov't to get out of the damn way. Gov't run health care? No thanks. I hate the DMV enough to have an idea of what that will be like. Gov't run airlines? No thanks. The antiquated ATC system (thanks to the unions as well for this one) is annoying enough already. Gov't run energy? No thanks. I like my lights on, not freezing to death while those clowns debate in committee what energy bracket I'm in to determine how much I'm allowed to heat my home. We've already seen the disaster that is ethanol with the food price spikes - we're the first nation in the history of earth to actually burn our own food supply - at the behest of the government. Brilliant!
The gov't is great at playing by their own rules - while us "non-elites" foot the bill for every cock-a-mamey scheme they come up with. The huge bailout hasn't worked, so they're just going to print more money! A guy who skipped paying some $30,000 in taxes is up to run the treasury! I could go on, but I actually have a job ... for the moment at least.
Has anyone else noticed that pretty much every piece of nasty coming down the pipe uses JavaScript?
No, we haven't, because we don't have your confirmation bias.
Exactly. Has anyone else noticed that pretty much every DUI coming down the road uses a car? A hammer used to pound in nails, or pound someone in the head. Javascript is a tool like any other. Doesn't mean we're running around figuring cars and hammers are a bad idea because they're abused in a few cases by stupid/bad people. Should we find better ways to secure abuse of JS? Sure, I have no problem with that.
ActiveX is another issue. The browser was SUPPOSED to be platform independent. ActiveX, like so much other BS coming out of Redmond, broke that. While it could be argued that flash support lags behind for *nix platforms - Flash isn't bundled with the browser, by the people who make the browser, who push PHBs to make their devs build ActiveX controls instead of real sites. AFAIK, there is no ActiveX for anything *except* windows machines - unlike Java, Flash, Javascript, etc.
Now, given that, the one ActiveX control I've seen that I do like, and *do* understand is one on HP's site for installing printer drivers. It makes sense in that situation - but it isn't required for the HP site to function - there are several other vectors to obtain drivers.
Twice as expensive for general aviation aircraft* as compared to what? Commercial a/c, or consumer-grade land-based devices?
Nearly everything for aviation is more expensive than a land-bound counterpart. I think some of it is markup, but I think that more of it is the much, much lower tolerance for failure. (It is required by the CFRs that, for example, the engine oil is changed when the mfg says to change it, otherwise the a/c is no longer legal (airworthy) to be flown.) Equipment failure in flight can create an immediate, life-threatening situation - depending on what fails. Aviation ELTs also have to be engineered to survive a variety of conditions from severe impacts (otherwise what would be the point?), fire, extreme temperatures, submersion, etc.
From what I can tell, most of us are holding off on purchasing the 406's until the price comes down - which it will as purchase volume increases. But it will still never be as cheap as something you'd take hiking.
(*Apologies if I'm stating the obvious, it seems like maybe you are already familiar with the industry - most folks don't know what "GA" means.)
I buy things because they're useful. I consider energy usage as measured in efficiency when purchasing a vehicle or even a PSU - because it costs me less money to operate the device.
I heard a PSA on the radio a couple of days ago about unplugging your cellphone charger when you're not using it - the implication being that it uses just as much electricity when you're not charging your phone as when you are. I just checked real quick. Two cell phone chargers (Motorola usb wall charger and iPhone USB wall adapter) - both use 0 when plugged in with no phone attached. The motorola charger is using 3 watts to charge the phone.
I call bullshit, and this is exactly why I'm so tired of "green" this or "eco-friendly" that - because I don't believe any of it. The hyperbole drowns out any meaningful facts. We're being asked to do stupid, completely inconsequential things that have zero or near zero measurable impact. My full-size tower / gaming rig uses a little under 200W powered up (idle), and 4 whole watts when on standby - not hibernating - standby. Obviously 4 > 0, but give me a break with the malarky about how the little LED is killing the planet.
Obviously, we don't want to let facts get in the way of our millions of green (dollars) of marketing "green" products. (I won't even get into the really interesting link between "Green Week" on TV and the owner/parent company of said TV channels who just happens to produce and sell "green" products...)
Conservation is great, I have no problem with taking good care of the planet. But enough with the BS marketing, and the BS from the gov't -- including what kind of lightbulbs I'm allowed to buy. Oh, you didn't realize that Congress has outlawed most incandescent lightbulbs? Yeah, it seemed to kind of be one of those things they just did because they can. I'm stocking up. Instead of any meaningful changes to our energy policy, like more nuclear power, this is the kind of BS the "green" movement decides we should have.
Sorry, /rant.
So if I understand the logic correctly here: I can set up a lemonade stand in the front of my house and give away free lemonade. I can collect information by passively observing the people who pick up one of these free lemonades (sex, race, vehicle, age, direction on the street they came from, etc). To keep with what you've said, I have a sign nearby that says "Free lemonade sponsored by Jack's Shrimp Shack" because my friend Jack kindly underwrote some of my costs. Then at some point I decide that my experiment is over and I pack up my lemonade stand and go home. Maybe it was too hot outside and I was bored. Someone has a court case against me because I stopped handing out something that was free, but not free, because I was collecting information and had a poster advertising a business?
I'm not arguing with you as much as trying to understand how far your premise can be taken. Trust me, I would be royally pissed off if gmail suddenly went away without notice. What you're saying, however, is that I might have some kind of recourse here to sue them? What is that thing people are always posting here about
1. Set up free gmail accounts (the more the better)
2. Wait for google to shut off the gmail beta
3. ???
4. Sue Google
5. Profit!
I have no love for TWC, I dropped them a few months ago over continuing issues with their cablecard support. I'm not saying that TWC is at fault in this case, but this is the third specific time I can think of in the last few years where TWC has threatened to or has cut off access to programming over a dispute with a content provider. It seems like each time a content provider is twisting TWC's arm to charge more for content already provided, or to provide additional channels at additional cost to the customer.
One was over the ONN (Ohio News Network) channel, a brainchild of WBNS(?). TWC actually sent their customers OTA antennas and switch boxes with instructions on how to hook it up to continue getting the local CBS affiliate when the time came for TWC to stop carrying it - because WBNS reportedly told TWC they had to drop the local CBS channel if they wouldn't also carry ONN.
The other was over Ohio State Univ football games and the "Big Ten" network. This one seems to me to be the fault of the content provider. Basically, instead of having the OSU games on local channels, or even on pay-cable (ESPN, etc), the Big Ten decided that they wanted the games to only be on their own channel. The result was that for TWC customers last season most of the games were not available - home or otherwise. TWC finally caved and added BTN, but wow the channel is a complete waste of time. The commentators they have are more annoying than the broadcast guys - which is saying something. I used to enjoy them, but I stopped watching the games. Nice job Big Ten jackasses.
This is exactly what I do. When a bank or CC issuer calls (usually to verify a purchase) I call the number listed on the back of the card, not the number left in the message.
That's what pisses me off. Both Sprint and AT&T have both told me that there is nothing I can do about unsolicited text messages (except to add texting specifically), that I will be charged for them. Sprint, at least, has a bit buried on their website which most of the reps don't know about where you can block specific numbers - but last I checked it was limited to 50 numbers - no way to block all text messages. Alternatively, like you, we can call every month and argue with the clowns.
This was an idea that I appreciated when I was testing out a TomTom - the ability to submit and fetch community-based feedback about road closures, detours, etc. For a variety of reasons I ended up choosing a Garmin for my nav needs, but I do wish they would implement some of the community based features.
Aye, I've noticed that I can sometimes reproduce similar behavior by doing just that. It also sometimes happens if I unplug a USB device after closing the lid. Othertimes, it just happens without any apparent precipitating action from me. It isn't very often.
Beyond that, like someone else mentioned, I rarely have to wait very long (esp on my home WLAN, others are slower), if at all, for the wireless link to come up.