In my limited experience, the expiration month has always remained the same, while the expiration year has always incremented by the same amount. So I would imagine it would be trivial to guess the new expiration date.
even credit card numbers have a shorter lifespan than that
I think you are confusing the physical card with the numbers on them. The card gets replaced every 2-5 years, but I've never had a number change except when alerted that my number may have been compromised.
Now the security number on the back of the card, that does change whenever a new card is issued. But given that there are places online that will happily charge your card without asking for that number, I fail to see how that number helps at all.
USING CAPSLOCK DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY MAKE YOU RIGHT.
Being public servants does not give us the right to stalk them when off-duty, any more than being employed gives your employer the right to stalk you once you clock out.
I'm not saying the woman was _only_ doing off-duty stalking, but how is posting their home address, along with pictures and map coordinates, anything less than off-duty stalking.
Do you believe that your boss has the right to track your every move once you clock out for the day? No? Then why do you think we have the right to do the same to off-duty police officers?
While the woman from TFA may not have exclusively done off-duty stalking, how is digging up and posting where an officer lives (complete with pictures and map coordinates) anything more than off-duty stalking of said officer?
Um, you do realize that cops are not on-duty 24/7, right? Or do you also believe that your boss has a right to track your every move and action once you clock out for the day?
The rapture actually happened in 2005, it's just that no one was worthy of being taken at that time so we didn't realize there was anything out of the ordinary.
I take it then that you are against other people smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods, red meat, white meat, fish, or even simply living (just to name a few things), even if it does not affect you in any way?
If someone wants to volunteer themselves to be a guinea pig, I say let them.
then stared at the screen wondering "How the hell do I close this thing?"
There are enough things to loathe about the new GUI without needing to make shit up. Don't get me wrong, I abhor the ribbon as much as anyone else, but nothing has changed with regards to closing a document. That little [x] in the upper-right still does that.
Because A) It restricts you to an -expensive- platform, x86 Mac OS X B) I believe you need to pay Apple I think like $99 to get it on the app store
You could always charge just a little, you know, so you come out financially neutral. Oh wait, that's what these guys are doing, and that's apparently bad.
Again, you completely miss the point. You are basically saying "I'm innocent so have nothing to fear from the RIAA" which implies that you believe that the RIAA only goes after the guilty, and thatjustisn'ttrue.
I'll grant you that pumping your food full of hormones is a bad thing, but I fail to understand why everyone always brings up the antibiotics as well. Wouldn't you rather eat a healthy cow instead of a sick cow? What am I missing that makes antibiotics bad in livestock?
That's not how monopolies work. If Wal-Mart had an *actual* monopoly, they *could* raise their prices because no one else would be there to undercut them.
In your analogy, it would be like the villain throwing a dead hero back his sword.
Wouldn't it be more like the villain turning about and gloating about how they are all that, completely oblivious to the child/sibling/friend/unrelated-person to the dead hero coming in and taking advantage of the villain's inattention?
your talking about a functioning child there, while i'm talking about less then a dozen cells in a test tube.
I cannot answer for Darkness404, but at least for me, from what you said here...
the point is, we should be given the freedom to get to the point where we need to answer such moral questions like "when is an cloned organ donor human?" for ourselfs, and not have that taken away by the moralist right.
With the word donor in there I took that to mean that you were talking about a fully functioning human body, not simply an individual organ grown in a lab.
Except they didn't so much as turn off the feature as they did alter the existing book files to disable text-to-speech. At least I thought that's how it worked since text-to-speech is now on a book-by-book basis.
That being said, the Kindle receives software updates automatically, right? So they certainly _could_ remotely disable a feature completely. And I have no doubt that given the right incentive, they would.
While you are right that (at least as near as I can tell) no one has been sued for ripping a CD to their iPod, daveime is still right in saying that the RIAA doesnot consider such actions to be covered under Fair Use.
Just so we're all clear, to you, something can only be called religion if it involves the belief in an invisible sky daddy?
And the question 'why' is meaningless.
You're probably right about this, and I'll even go so far as to say that for some (most?) things there may not be an answer beyond "well, that's just how the universe functions." But to simply spout off that answer and move on, without even _thinking_ about it, is really no different than saying "because the invisible sky daddy said so."
You seem to be confusing faith in an invisible sky daddy with faith in others. Yes, you _can_ re-test anything that someone tells you if it is based in science, but until you do, or personally witness someone else doing it, you have faith that what they said is correct.
In other words, you're advocating the belief that there are two baskets, one marked religion and one marked science, and that over time as humanity has become more aware of the universe, things have been removed from the religion basket and placed into the science basket? You're just as bad as the biblical literalists if that's the way that you think.
Religion doesn't always equate to the belief in an invisible sky daddy, sometimes it's just philosophy by another name. Science can only answer the how, it cannot answer the why.
Slashdot Mirror
That was a typo, it was supposed to be a question.
In my limited experience, the expiration month has always remained the same, while the expiration year has always incremented by the same amount. So I would imagine it would be trivial to guess the new expiration date.
even credit card numbers have a shorter lifespan than that
I think you are confusing the physical card with the numbers on them. The card gets replaced every 2-5 years, but I've never had a number change except when alerted that my number may have been compromised.
Now the security number on the back of the card, that does change whenever a new card is issued. But given that there are places online that will happily charge your card without asking for that number, I fail to see how that number helps at all.
USING CAPSLOCK DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY MAKE YOU RIGHT.
Being public servants does not give us the right to stalk them when off-duty, any more than being employed gives your employer the right to stalk you once you clock out.
I'm not saying the woman was _only_ doing off-duty stalking, but how is posting their home address, along with pictures and map coordinates, anything less than off-duty stalking.
Do you believe that your boss has the right to track your every move once you clock out for the day? No? Then why do you think we have the right to do the same to off-duty police officers?
While the woman from TFA may not have exclusively done off-duty stalking, how is digging up and posting where an officer lives (complete with pictures and map coordinates) anything more than off-duty stalking of said officer?
Um, you do realize that cops are not on-duty 24/7, right? Or do you also believe that your boss has a right to track your every move and action once you clock out for the day?
The rapture actually happened in 2005, it's just that no one was worthy of being taken at that time so we didn't realize there was anything out of the ordinary.
Wood chips soaked in dihydrogen monoxide? Doesn't that kinda make the wood chips unable to hold a flame? Or do I misunderstand the cooking process?
Peoples' well-being comes before animals'.
I take it then that you are against other people smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods, red meat, white meat, fish, or even simply living (just to name a few things), even if it does not affect you in any way?
If someone wants to volunteer themselves to be a guinea pig, I say let them.
then stared at the screen wondering "How the hell do I close this thing?"
There are enough things to loathe about the new GUI without needing to make shit up. Don't get me wrong, I abhor the ribbon as much as anyone else, but nothing has changed with regards to closing a document. That little [x] in the upper-right still does that.
Because A) It restricts you to an -expensive- platform, x86 Mac OS X B) I believe you need to pay Apple I think like $99 to get it on the app store
You could always charge just a little, you know, so you come out financially neutral. Oh wait, that's what these guys are doing, and that's apparently bad.
such that I need not fear RIAA.
Again, you completely miss the point. You are basically saying "I'm innocent so have nothing to fear from the RIAA" which implies that you believe that the RIAA only goes after the guilty, and that just isn't true.
I'll grant you that pumping your food full of hormones is a bad thing, but I fail to understand why everyone always brings up the antibiotics as well. Wouldn't you rather eat a healthy cow instead of a sick cow? What am I missing that makes antibiotics bad in livestock?
That's not how monopolies work. If Wal-Mart had an *actual* monopoly, they *could* raise their prices because no one else would be there to undercut them. In your analogy, it would be like the villain throwing a dead hero back his sword.
Wouldn't it be more like the villain turning about and gloating about how they are all that, completely oblivious to the child/sibling/friend/unrelated-person to the dead hero coming in and taking advantage of the villain's inattention?
In the words of Bart Simpson, "I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows."
On a side note, I'm surprised no one made this Simpsons comment yet.
your talking about a functioning child there, while i'm talking about less then a dozen cells in a test tube.
I cannot answer for Darkness404, but at least for me, from what you said here...
the point is, we should be given the freedom to get to the point where we need to answer such moral questions like "when is an cloned organ donor human?" for ourselfs, and not have that taken away by the moralist right.
With the word donor in there I took that to mean that you were talking about a fully functioning human body, not simply an individual organ grown in a lab.
Cows are a ridiculous example, since they've long made the evolutionary choice of serving as human's food.
Um, are you sure that we didn't make that choice for them?
(Yes, I am a carnivore and love my bloody slabs of dead cow.)
Who said you only put the speaker on one blade? And even if you did, who said you couldn't do something to even out the weight on the other blades?
Except they didn't so much as turn off the feature as they did alter the existing book files to disable text-to-speech. At least I thought that's how it worked since text-to-speech is now on a book-by-book basis.
That being said, the Kindle receives software updates automatically, right? So they certainly _could_ remotely disable a feature completely. And I have no doubt that given the right incentive, they would.
There are only two baskets if you believe that at the very least, religion must consist of a belief in a God of the gaps, which it doesn't have to.
While you are right that (at least as near as I can tell) no one has been sued for ripping a CD to their iPod, daveime is still right in saying that the RIAA does not consider such actions to be covered under Fair Use.
And the question 'why' is meaningless.
You're probably right about this, and I'll even go so far as to say that for some (most?) things there may not be an answer beyond "well, that's just how the universe functions." But to simply spout off that answer and move on, without even _thinking_ about it, is really no different than saying "because the invisible sky daddy said so."
You seem to be confusing faith in an invisible sky daddy with faith in others. Yes, you _can_ re-test anything that someone tells you if it is based in science, but until you do, or personally witness someone else doing it, you have faith that what they said is correct.
In other words, you're advocating the belief that there are two baskets, one marked religion and one marked science, and that over time as humanity has become more aware of the universe, things have been removed from the religion basket and placed into the science basket? You're just as bad as the biblical literalists if that's the way that you think.
Religion doesn't always equate to the belief in an invisible sky daddy, sometimes it's just philosophy by another name. Science can only answer the how, it cannot answer the why.