However, recent claims that it is more dangerous than drink-driving are wrong and will not help to educate motorists about the dangers of inattentive driving
If I'm on the phone while I'm driving, I'm driving first. You'll never see me drift out of my lane, fail to use turn signals, or neglect to look around. If I see people walking around, have poor visibility, or find myself in any remotely risky situation (i.e. not a wide-open straight road) - I ignore the person talking or hang up. You can always ask them to repeat themselves or call back later. I've never been in an accident or come close to causing one.
Drunk driving on the other hand, is completely unacceptable. I would never try it. You can ignore the person on the phone or hang up. You can't turn off drunkenness.
And what happens when you're 1 inch from passing somebody @ 80mph (a barrier on one side and them on the other) and they suddenly come into your lane? You're better off accelerating, especially since braking at full force may cause the person behind you to slam into you; the person behind you may not have left ample braking space.
Why limit yourself? Really, why the hell would you limit your choices in a potentially lethal situation?
Exactly. Here's an example. Suppose you find yourself passing a truck @ 80mph (remember, faster = less time next to the truck) and you're 99% past it when it starts coming into your lane. This is not so far-fetched since truckers working long-hours are more prone to sleeping / being less alert. You're better off accelerating than braking.
Keep in mind the following situation. You have some assclown tailing three feet behind you, the truck was going slow when you started passing it but the truck accelerated more than you expected (perhaps it's now traveling downhill). Are you going to slow down until the truck is moving faster than you and passes you with that dumbass about to hit your read end? I certainly wouldn't - that would mean spending more time next to the truck and making the situation more dangerous for everyone behind you who has to unexpectedly slow down.
You may be correct. It's also possible the BIOS checks for the original hard drive's UUID before reinstalling, although I'm quite far into speculation-land at this point...
From the FAQ: Computrace Agent Hardware & Operating System Requirements: ...
Microsoft Windows 95, 98, ME, NT and the 32-bit versions of Windows 2000, XP, Windows Server 2003 and all 32 and 64 bit editions of Windows Vista ...
Mac OS X version 10.2
Looks like you're right. As to how it works, here's my guess:
When booting up, BIOS ensures program is properly installed on hard drive
If program is missing, BIOS reinstalls program + rootkit to cloak its presence
BIOS can only reinstall program + rootkit on OS's for which they have been compiled/configured
they wouldn't pursue action against individual downloaders if it wasn't somehow in their interests.
I agree, and I believe that's exactly the problem here. IMHO the RIAA abuses the legal system, but I'm not aware of any compelling reason for them not to abuse it (e.g. heavy fines). Sure, it's bad for the RIAA's image, but does the average person really know who the members are? Plus, there's nothing stopping the members from tossing out the RIAA and creating another name to hide behind.
Speaking of choices, I recently had a free phone upgrade. I could get any phone under $60 for free. There were a few $60 phones and one $45 phone. It turns out the $45 phone had FAR better features (2 megapixel vs 640x480, better interface, more comfortable buttons, double battery life).
I suspect most people would simply choose the most expensive phone they can get for free. Perhaps Verizon adjusted the prices to fool people into choosing cheaper phones.
If you can't use the phone as a usb mass storage device because the carrier is worried about you copying ringtones yourself, obviously getting the pics off will be hard.
The first time I bought a camera phone the salesperson recommended a $30 USB transfer cable, which was obviously a rip-off. I will transfer my pictures with an SD card, thank you.
After taking some pictures I plug in my card reader and my files show up... DSCF001.jpg, DSCF002.jpg, etc. Weird, the thumbnails aren't working. To make a long story short, the usb cable comes with [windows-only] software to decrypt your photos. You have no idea how pissed off I was.
Slashdot Mirror
That may be the case with certain events, but not in general. I think earthquakes release built-up tension, which takes time to build up again.
However, recent claims that it is more dangerous than drink-driving are wrong and will not help to educate motorists about the dangers of inattentive driving
If I'm on the phone while I'm driving, I'm driving first. You'll never see me drift out of my lane, fail to use turn signals, or neglect to look around. If I see people walking around, have poor visibility, or find myself in any remotely risky situation (i.e. not a wide-open straight road) - I ignore the person talking or hang up. You can always ask them to repeat themselves or call back later. I've never been in an accident or come close to causing one.
Drunk driving on the other hand, is completely unacceptable. I would never try it. You can ignore the person on the phone or hang up. You can't turn off drunkenness.
And what happens when you're 1 inch from passing somebody @ 80mph (a barrier on one side and them on the other) and they suddenly come into your lane? You're better off accelerating, especially since braking at full force may cause the person behind you to slam into you; the person behind you may not have left ample braking space.
Why limit yourself? Really, why the hell would you limit your choices in a potentially lethal situation?
Exactly. Here's an example. Suppose you find yourself passing a truck @ 80mph (remember, faster = less time next to the truck) and you're 99% past it when it starts coming into your lane. This is not so far-fetched since truckers working long-hours are more prone to sleeping / being less alert. You're better off accelerating than braking.
Keep in mind the following situation. You have some assclown tailing three feet behind you, the truck was going slow when you started passing it but the truck accelerated more than you expected (perhaps it's now traveling downhill). Are you going to slow down until the truck is moving faster than you and passes you with that dumbass about to hit your read end? I certainly wouldn't - that would mean spending more time next to the truck and making the situation more dangerous for everyone behind you who has to unexpectedly slow down.
You may be correct. It's also possible the BIOS checks for the original hard drive's UUID before reinstalling, although I'm quite far into speculation-land at this point...
Computrace Agent Hardware & Operating System Requirements:
Microsoft Windows 95, 98, ME, NT and the 32-bit versions of Windows 2000, XP, Windows Server 2003 and all 32 and 64 bit editions of Windows Vista
Mac OS X version 10.2
Looks like you're right. As to how it works, here's my guess:
they wouldn't pursue action against individual downloaders if it wasn't somehow in their interests.
I agree, and I believe that's exactly the problem here. IMHO the RIAA abuses the legal system, but I'm not aware of any compelling reason for them not to abuse it (e.g. heavy fines). Sure, it's bad for the RIAA's image, but does the average person really know who the members are? Plus, there's nothing stopping the members from tossing out the RIAA and creating another name to hide behind.
They would have bought the CD or whatever
[citation needed]
Speaking of choices, I recently had a free phone upgrade. I could get any phone under $60 for free. There were a few $60 phones and one $45 phone. It turns out the $45 phone had FAR better features (2 megapixel vs 640x480, better interface, more comfortable buttons, double battery life).
I suspect most people would simply choose the most expensive phone they can get for free. Perhaps Verizon adjusted the prices to fool people into choosing cheaper phones.
If you can't use the phone as a usb mass storage device because the carrier is worried about you copying ringtones yourself, obviously getting the pics off will be hard.
The first time I bought a camera phone the salesperson recommended a $30 USB transfer cable, which was obviously a rip-off. I will transfer my pictures with an SD card, thank you.
After taking some pictures I plug in my card reader and my files show up... DSCF001.jpg, DSCF002.jpg, etc. Weird, the thumbnails aren't working. To make a long story short, the usb cable comes with [windows-only] software to decrypt your photos. You have no idea how pissed off I was.