Yes, people get very attached to their hobbies. I personally find it shocking the number of people who spend half the year watching other people chase a black rubber disk around.
I don't understand the thrill, but that doesn't matter. Similarly it doesn't matter that anyone thinks I wasted my evening yesterday melting people's faces in AV. Nobody really got hurt and I enjoyed it and that's all that matters.
I find it shocking the number of people that spend half their work-life on slashdot...
Using my dad's 286 when I was very young and having an elementary school with a progressive approach to computer use (and the funds to buy a lot of computers) I can say my ability to spell has not been deteriorated at all. However, my handwriting is awful, hard to read, and I've never been comfortable with the process.
I feel I might be one of the early generations of people who has always felt that handwriting was inefficient and cumbersome from a very young age. I can't imagine how kids that are typing at a young age feel now.
Do you think they actually delete your SSN anyway? I can see two things happening: 1) customer service tells you "yes, we can do that" and doesn't do anything or 2) somebody makes a note to change your SSN to XXX and then enters it in a system that keeps a change log that stores SSN to XXX. Unless they have a system for specifying different rules for SSN's, I think all customer information change would probably show up at least in a change log.
Of course, I imagine most cust serv reps just tell you what you want to hear while you are on the phone with them.
Not that I am in any way involved in gun rights issues, but I always find it puzzling when people say "think of the children" when dealing with gun laws.
Those that intend to break the law (killing someone, bring down cell networks, [fill in the blank]) don't care if it is legal or not to (own a properly licensed gun, jailbreak their iPhone, [use some other regulated too]).
My thoughts exactly. I left verizon recently when they charged me roaming when:
1) My handset was set to not roam
2) They say the calls were made from the largest city in my "home" area
3) I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that I, with my phone in hand, was 60 miles away from that city
And they claimed I made several voicemail calls 1 minute apart starting at exactly midnight. All in all it was only 6 bucks, but it was 6 dollars I shouldn't have needed to pay. Of course, "the system" said I did it, so it was true beyond any shadow of a doubt. Being 2 weeks from my end of contract and having the manager tell me that I must be mistaken because the system isn't wrong, I happily paid them their six dollars and they lost a customer for life.
This isn't ruling that the people themselves are innocent, but that the sites that facilitate the sharing of information should be considered innocent until proven otherwise.
I don't think this would be a problem, as there are always going to be link-sites out there. IANAL but it seems like this ruling is more or less defending the PB approach (search for links) and wouldn't apply to the old Napster approach (hosting).
This might not hold up very long if applied to people that are themselves sharing and hosting content, but the trials here are mainly dealing with the BT sites.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, people get very attached to their hobbies. I personally find it shocking the number of people who spend half the year watching other people chase a black rubber disk around.
I don't understand the thrill, but that doesn't matter. Similarly it doesn't matter that anyone thinks I wasted my evening yesterday melting people's faces in AV. Nobody really got hurt and I enjoyed it and that's all that matters.
I find it shocking the number of people that spend half their work-life on slashdot...
Using my dad's 286 when I was very young and having an elementary school with a progressive approach to computer use (and the funds to buy a lot of computers) I can say my ability to spell has not been deteriorated at all. However, my handwriting is awful, hard to read, and I've never been comfortable with the process. I feel I might be one of the early generations of people who has always felt that handwriting was inefficient and cumbersome from a very young age. I can't imagine how kids that are typing at a young age feel now.
Do you think they actually delete your SSN anyway? I can see two things happening: 1) customer service tells you "yes, we can do that" and doesn't do anything or 2) somebody makes a note to change your SSN to XXX and then enters it in a system that keeps a change log that stores SSN to XXX. Unless they have a system for specifying different rules for SSN's, I think all customer information change would probably show up at least in a change log. Of course, I imagine most cust serv reps just tell you what you want to hear while you are on the phone with them.
Not that I am in any way involved in gun rights issues, but I always find it puzzling when people say "think of the children" when dealing with gun laws. Those that intend to break the law (killing someone, bring down cell networks, [fill in the blank]) don't care if it is legal or not to (own a properly licensed gun, jailbreak their iPhone, [use some other regulated too]).
My thoughts exactly. I left verizon recently when they charged me roaming when: 1) My handset was set to not roam 2) They say the calls were made from the largest city in my "home" area 3) I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that I, with my phone in hand, was 60 miles away from that city And they claimed I made several voicemail calls 1 minute apart starting at exactly midnight. All in all it was only 6 bucks, but it was 6 dollars I shouldn't have needed to pay. Of course, "the system" said I did it, so it was true beyond any shadow of a doubt. Being 2 weeks from my end of contract and having the manager tell me that I must be mistaken because the system isn't wrong, I happily paid them their six dollars and they lost a customer for life.
This isn't ruling that the people themselves are innocent, but that the sites that facilitate the sharing of information should be considered innocent until proven otherwise. I don't think this would be a problem, as there are always going to be link-sites out there. IANAL but it seems like this ruling is more or less defending the PB approach (search for links) and wouldn't apply to the old Napster approach (hosting). This might not hold up very long if applied to people that are themselves sharing and hosting content, but the trials here are mainly dealing with the BT sites.