Apparently, they weren't as effective against carbon monoxide as was claimed. They were probably still better than nothing at all, but the product was pulled off the market and the company is out of business:
.... to PCs on broadband connections, is it any surprise that the countries with the widest deployment of consumer broadband will be the source of most spam?
Unlike a lot of other people, I had been happy with what started as Southwestern Bell, then Cingular. I avoided AT&T when they were the only "alternative" in my area (before Sprint and Verizon), even declining a free AT&T cell-phone when offered by my employer.
I withheld judgment when Cingular adopted the AT&T name, hoping that it was just a name. But, they to have adopted the "old" AT&T's attitude as well. My contract still has about 6 months left on it, but I'll be considering alternatives when it's up.
Honestly your best bet is probably to purchase a used GSM phone from eBay.
No need to purchase a used one. You can buy new ones for under $100 on eBay. I bought a Motorola Razr V3, new in the box, with quite a few accessories, for $85 plus shipping.
I was making a trip to Brazil, where I wanted to buy a SIM and pre-purchase about 2 hours of talk-time so that I'd have a local phone to call (and be called by) my client without paying $3.00/minute for international roaming.
Cingular/AT&T refused to remove the subsidy lock on my current cell phone, because my contract was still in effect). So, now I have a new phone and no reason to buy another one from AT&T anytime soon.
If anyone from AT&T is out there reading this, you lost the chance to sign me for a new 2-year contract.. I had no intention of taking my unlocked phone to another GSM provider, but now you've pissed off a customer that you've had for 15 years.
This is precisely because the proper metric for the determination of the energy content of a fuel payload is the mass of the fuel rather than the volume of the fuel.
No, it's because the weight of the fuel is a significant factor in calculating the gross weight and the center of gravity of the aircraft.
No matter how hard one works, one won't get ahead the well-connected guy.
Connections help. But, everyone has connections: your friends, the people you went to school with, or the people you have worked with. In my experience, the last ones have been the most important, but they don't do you any good unless you have a good reputation among them.
No one is going to recommend you for a job (or even refer you for an interview) if you haven't earned their respect at some point in the past. And, a bad connection is worse than no connection at all: it will get you black-balled before you ever had a chance. If you have always sat around and whined about how the deck is stacked against you and used that as an excuse for slacking off, then it has indeed been a self-fulfilling prophecy.
One who keeps denying it is in a state of delusion.
The only delusion here is your inability to look in a mirror and see your real problem.
Reality 101: the big filthy rich will keep insuring that you, the little guy, will **NEVER** be able to get richer. Stop dreaming about "hard work", it's all about connections.
As long as you project that attitude, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Take that chip off your shoulder, stop spending every last time on overpriced coffee, CD's and various other toys, and you'll discover that you can get rich(*) in an average working lifetime.
I've done it, by spending substantially less than I earned, paying off my credit cards every month, buying cars with cash, and not taking out a second mortage on my house to go on vacation.
(*) My definition of "rich" is the ability to maintain an acceptable standard of living on the income generated by assets. Your definition may be different than mine -- and that's probably part of your problem.
And purleease, when I fly long-haul I like to take a big bottle of water to stop me dehydrating. A effing bottle of HO for chrissake. Whaddy think I'm gonna do with it, split out the hydrogen and ignite it? Yet I can buy a bottle of whisky at the duty free.
It only took a month or so of this stupidity for TSA to realize how dumb it was. But of course, they can't completely roll it back -- that would be admitting they were wrong.
The "compromise" is really profitable for the airport vendors: you can buy a bottle of water (or anything else you want to drink) once you are inside the secured area. In many airports, there are vending machines stocked with bottled water for just this reason. They aren't cheap ($2.00 apiece), but it beats the choices once you are on the plane.
Another alternative: take an empty bottle past security and fill it at a water fountain inside the secured area. Yes, really. Just show the empty bottle at the checkpoint, so you don't hold things up when they see the bottle in your bag and have to search it.
Yes, many NCAA institutions are public research universities that are essentially quasi-governmental entities. I even considered raising this point in my post.
Then you should have said so. While there are other mitigating factors, there's no question that a government entity is a party to this particular dispute.
1. It's not a federal entity. (But to play devil's advocate to my own position, many public, and even private, universities receive a good amount of federal funding.)
It doesn't matter if it's a federal entity. The 14th Amendment was expressly intended to extend the first eight amendments to state and local governments, even if the Supreme Court carefully parsed the words to avoid doing so. But, the Court subsequently incorporated "freedom of the press" against the states in Near v. Minnesota 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
You make other good points, which I'll let others address. But, you were extraordinarily sloppy with this one.
First off for WPA to be useful they have to put a non default password on the router, that's not an easy job and will push up the price of the routers quite substantially.
And then there's all the support calls from people who can't access their router because they couldn't find the password/lost the bit of paper with it written on etc...
It can't be that hard, because at least one manufacturer has figured it out.
I have an ActionTec router, provided to me with my Verizon FIOS service. WiFi was pre-enabled, but with a random SSID and random WEP password. Both of them (plus the MAC address) were printed on a sticker affixed to the bottom of the router.
I can change any of them, but they will return to the defaults on the sticker if I do a hard-reset. Of course, I would have preferred that they had pre-configured it with WPA instead of WEP, but this is a step in the right direction.
While Frank is a policy wonk, and usually tries to find reasonable solutions to real problems unlike many of his colleagues, I can't help but wonder who is paying for this.
I agree that he isn't likely to be "taking one for the team" because he thinks it's the right thing to do.
But, there's a larger issue here: The US has repeatedly lost to Antigua in the WTO, who has ruled that the US law against online gambling (while exempting other gambling within the US) is illegal under the WTO treaty.
The US has responded by saying "we will renegotiate the treaty". Needless to say, this hasn't gone over well with other members of the WTO.
Antigua has threatened to retaliate, but their options are limited. One proposal is for Antigua to sell US-copywrited material (i.e. music) online, without paying the royalties.
I did exactly this for a new server recently. The only thing I would add is to use RAID 6 instead of RAID 5. That way, you can tolerate 2 drive failures, giving you time to reconstruct the array after the first one fails.
I have 6 320 GB disks. The/boot partition is RAID 1, mirrored across all 6 (yes, 6) devices, and grub is configured so that I can boot from any one of them. The rest of the partitions are RAID 6, with identical allocations on each disk.
There's a RAID HOWTO for Linux: it tells you everything you need to know about setting it up.
Actually, I believe there are laws about creditors harassing people, you should only have to notify them, and provide proof that you are not the individual they are looking for, if they continue, you can take legal action against them.
The GP didn't say explicitly, but the problem is that the laws protecting delinquent debtors from harassment by creditors only protects the delinquent debtor. They don't address the situation in which someone is mistaken as the delinquent debtor.
However, most states have laws against harassment. Depending on the wording of the law relevant to your situation, a simple statement about the mistake and a demand to cease further communication about the matter should be sufficient.
I share the same name as a debtor, his calls come to my house. I have a 3" thick file on him. The government can do nothing to protect me, and there are no laws on the books to stop them from harassing me.
Yes, there is. You just have to dig a little deeper.
I had a similar problem: my name was the same as a guy that was married to a delinquent debtor, and I would get calls from collection agencies trying to find her. When I made the mistake of talking to one of them to try to correct their error, they copped an attitude and it went downhill from there.
If you ask, they must identify themselves and provide a snail-mail address. I wrote a letter reiterating that I was not the person they wanted or related in any way to her. I cited the relevant penal code in my state and their state, and stated flatly that any further attempts to contact me would be considered harassment and I would file charges with the appropriate law enforcement agency.
I sent the letter registered, return-receipt requested, and I sent copies to the Attorney General in both states.
Pete Townsend claimed he was doing research into child pornography when he got ensnared by the law.
I think the GP is questioning whether you were "doing research" or "shopping".
On the MMO that I play occasionally, a new player admitted to buying game currency on the cash market. One of my friends told him that he was "buying from terrorists", and that the 9/11 attacks were funded by "gold farming". The poor guy was really upset until the rest of us couldn't stand it anymore and let him in on the joke.
The best you could do is short shares of SCOX, but you will have to find a brokerage that has SCOX shares that you can short.
About 17% of the "floating" shares (i.e. ones that are being traded and aren't held by insiders or institutions) are already shorted. And at average daily trading volumes, the shorted shares represent about 38 days worth of trading.
What about E/GPRS? That would encompass a lot more coverage area than the ill-fated WiMAX.
Does anyone bother to RTFA?
This model's embedded chips let users access cellular, Wi-Fi, or WiMax wireless broadband networks. (Intel is expected to release embeddable chips that access all these networks in late 2007, early 2008.)
Embedded cellular connectivity could change the way laptops are sold. In the U.S., cellular network technology varies by carrier. So PC manufacturers might have to start selling special adapter cards, such as the Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards used by some carriers in Europe. Or the laptops may need to be marketed through the service provider for whose network they are designed.
The Constitution does not merely prohibit the Federal (or states) government from certain infringements. It specifies rights the Federal government must protect from infringement by anyone, including states and other people.
Most of the Bill of Rights is written this way, at the insistence of the anti-federalists that believed it was necessary to enumerate at least some rights. The federalists didn't think the Bill of Rights was necessary -- not because they thought the rights weren't important, but because they couldn't conceive that the federal government would infringe on them. They were also concerned that an enumeration of any rights would elevate those above all others. As it turned out, I think they were both right.
That doesn't mean that the federal government cannot enact laws that limit the ability of private parties to suppress freedom of speech. However, Congress relies on the Commerce Clause power to enact such laws.
The mistake you have made is to assert that the Constitution compels Congress to enact laws to protect a right from infringement by private parties. Congress can and has chosen to do so. But, they do so because the voters have demanded they do so.
The Constitution does not constrain only the government. This kind of thinking comes from the basic fallacy that "the Constitution gives us certain rights". No: we have certain rights, and we people create the government to protect those rights as described in the Constitution.
This is partially correct. The Bill of Rights does not create rights: it only prohibits the federal government from infringing on those rights. The Supreme Court stated this explicitly in US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
The 14th Amendment was intended to extend that prohibition to the state governments, but the Supreme Court disagreed and has only incorporated some provisions of the first 8 amendments against the states, on a case-by-case basis. Any Constitutional law text will itemize which ones have been incorporated, and which ones have not. Freedom of speech is among the ones that have.
But, even though the Constitutional prohibition is still only effective against governments, that doesn't mean that everyone else is free to suppress it. We depend on other provisions of law to protect freedom of speech among everyone else. As the parent explains reasonably well, other issues such as private property rights and contract law must also be considered.
And as O/A have discovered (again), "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from consequences".
Slashdot Mirror
I used to keep one of these in my carry-on bag. It was about the size of a can of Coke.
But, they were recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06144. html
Apparently, they weren't as effective against carbon monoxide as was claimed. They were probably still better than nothing at all, but the product was pulled off the market and the company is out of business:
http://www.evacsafety.com/
I found another smoke hood for sale here (ironically, from the same place I bought the last one):
http://www.aeromedix.com/product-exec/parent_id/1/ category_id/12/product_id/1074/nm/Safe_Escape_Smok e_Hood
But, I don't know if it's small enough to easily pack in my carry-on bag. The images only depict the hood on people that are wearing it.
.... to PCs on broadband connections, is it any surprise that the countries with the widest deployment of consumer broadband will be the source of most spam?
I withheld judgment when Cingular adopted the AT&T name, hoping that it was just a name. But, they to have adopted the "old" AT&T's attitude as well. My contract still has about 6 months left on it, but I'll be considering alternatives when it's up.
No need to purchase a used one. You can buy new ones for under $100 on eBay. I bought a Motorola Razr V3, new in the box, with quite a few accessories, for $85 plus shipping.
I was making a trip to Brazil, where I wanted to buy a SIM and pre-purchase about 2 hours of talk-time so that I'd have a local phone to call (and be called by) my client without paying $3.00/minute for international roaming.
Cingular/AT&T refused to remove the subsidy lock on my current cell phone, because my contract was still in effect). So, now I have a new phone and no reason to buy another one from AT&T anytime soon.
If anyone from AT&T is out there reading this, you lost the chance to sign me for a new 2-year contract.. I had no intention of taking my unlocked phone to another GSM provider, but now you've pissed off a customer that you've had for 15 years.
No, it's because the weight of the fuel is a significant factor in calculating the gross weight and the center of gravity of the aircraft.
That's worked real well for you, hasn't it?
Connections help. But, everyone has connections: your friends, the people you went to school with, or the people you have worked with. In my experience, the last ones have been the most important, but they don't do you any good unless you have a good reputation among them.
No one is going to recommend you for a job (or even refer you for an interview) if you haven't earned their respect at some point in the past. And, a bad connection is worse than no connection at all: it will get you black-balled before you ever had a chance. If you have always sat around and whined about how the deck is stacked against you and used that as an excuse for slacking off, then it has indeed been a self-fulfilling prophecy.
One who keeps denying it is in a state of delusion.
The only delusion here is your inability to look in a mirror and see your real problem.
As long as you project that attitude, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Take that chip off your shoulder, stop spending every last time on overpriced coffee, CD's and various other toys, and you'll discover that you can get rich(*) in an average working lifetime.
I've done it, by spending substantially less than I earned, paying off my credit cards every month, buying cars with cash, and not taking out a second mortage on my house to go on vacation.
(*) My definition of "rich" is the ability to maintain an acceptable standard of living on the income generated by assets. Your definition may be different than mine -- and that's probably part of your problem.
http://omgrawr.net/quote/4387
It only took a month or so of this stupidity for TSA to realize how dumb it was. But of course, they can't completely roll it back -- that would be admitting they were wrong.
The "compromise" is really profitable for the airport vendors: you can buy a bottle of water (or anything else you want to drink) once you are inside the secured area. In many airports, there are vending machines stocked with bottled water for just this reason. They aren't cheap ($2.00 apiece), but it beats the choices once you are on the plane.
Another alternative: take an empty bottle past security and fill it at a water fountain inside the secured area. Yes, really. Just show the empty bottle at the checkpoint, so you don't hold things up when they see the bottle in your bag and have to search it.
Then you should have said so. While there are other mitigating factors, there's no question that a government entity is a party to this particular dispute.
1. It's not a federal entity. (But to play devil's advocate to my own position, many public, and even private, universities receive a good amount of federal funding.)
It doesn't matter if it's a federal entity. The 14th Amendment was expressly intended to extend the first eight amendments to state and local governments, even if the Supreme Court carefully parsed the words to avoid doing so. But, the Court subsequently incorporated "freedom of the press" against the states in Near v. Minnesota 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
You make other good points, which I'll let others address. But, you were extraordinarily sloppy with this one.
No, it's not the NCAA. It's the University of Louisville:
The University of Louisville is a state supported research university located in Kentucky's largest metropolitan area.
The Sopranos premiered in January, 1999.
Analyze This! was released in March, 1999.
Given production lead times, it's hard to say which one "ripped" the other, if at all.
And then there's all the support calls from people who can't access their router because they couldn't find the password/lost the bit of paper with it written on etc...
It can't be that hard, because at least one manufacturer has figured it out.
I have an ActionTec router, provided to me with my Verizon FIOS service. WiFi was pre-enabled, but with a random SSID and random WEP password. Both of them (plus the MAC address) were printed on a sticker affixed to the bottom of the router.
I can change any of them, but they will return to the defaults on the sticker if I do a hard-reset. Of course, I would have preferred that they had pre-configured it with WPA instead of WEP, but this is a step in the right direction.
I agree that he isn't likely to be "taking one for the team" because he thinks it's the right thing to do.
But, there's a larger issue here: The US has repeatedly lost to Antigua in the WTO, who has ruled that the US law against online gambling (while exempting other gambling within the US) is illegal under the WTO treaty.
The US has responded by saying "we will renegotiate the treaty". Needless to say, this hasn't gone over well with other members of the WTO.
Antigua has threatened to retaliate, but their options are limited. One proposal is for Antigua to sell US-copywrited material (i.e. music) online, without paying the royalties.
I have 6 320 GB disks. The /boot partition is RAID 1, mirrored across all 6 (yes, 6) devices, and grub is configured so that I can boot from any one of them. The rest of the partitions are RAID 6, with identical allocations on each disk.
There's a RAID HOWTO for Linux: it tells you everything you need to know about setting it up.
It makes a good disaster story, but analysis shows that only significant danger is to anyone that happened to be on the elevator at the time.
The GP didn't say explicitly, but the problem is that the laws protecting delinquent debtors from harassment by creditors only protects the delinquent debtor. They don't address the situation in which someone is mistaken as the delinquent debtor.
However, most states have laws against harassment. Depending on the wording of the law relevant to your situation, a simple statement about the mistake and a demand to cease further communication about the matter should be sufficient.
Yes, there is. You just have to dig a little deeper.
I had a similar problem: my name was the same as a guy that was married to a delinquent debtor, and I would get calls from collection agencies trying to find her. When I made the mistake of talking to one of them to try to correct their error, they copped an attitude and it went downhill from there.
If you ask, they must identify themselves and provide a snail-mail address. I wrote a letter reiterating that I was not the person they wanted or related in any way to her. I cited the relevant penal code in my state and their state, and stated flatly that any further attempts to contact me would be considered harassment and I would file charges with the appropriate law enforcement agency.
I sent the letter registered, return-receipt requested, and I sent copies to the Attorney General in both states.
I never heard from them again.
I think the GP is questioning whether you were "doing research" or "shopping".
On the MMO that I play occasionally, a new player admitted to buying game currency on the cash market. One of my friends told him that he was "buying from terrorists", and that the 9/11 attacks were funded by "gold farming". The poor guy was really upset until the rest of us couldn't stand it anymore and let him in on the joke.
No one is writing options on SCOX, and never has.
The best you could do is short shares of SCOX, but you will have to find a brokerage that has SCOX shares that you can short.
About 17% of the "floating" shares (i.e. ones that are being traded and aren't held by insiders or institutions) are already shorted. And at average daily trading volumes, the shorted shares represent about 38 days worth of trading.
Does anyone bother to RTFA?
This model's embedded chips let users access cellular, Wi-Fi, or WiMax wireless broadband networks. (Intel is expected to release embeddable chips that access all these networks in late 2007, early 2008.)
Embedded cellular connectivity could change the way laptops are sold. In the U.S., cellular network technology varies by carrier. So PC manufacturers might have to start selling special adapter cards, such as the Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards used by some carriers in Europe. Or the laptops may need to be marketed through the service provider for whose network they are designed.
If you were to RTFA, you'd discover that the screen on the outside isn't actually on the laptop. It's on the folio case that wraps around the laptop.
The case also functions as the battery charger, although the contact is wireless.
This part: The Constitution does not constrain only the government.
And again, in your most recent posting:
The Constitution does not merely prohibit the Federal (or states) government from certain infringements. It specifies rights the Federal government must protect from infringement by anyone, including states and other people.
The First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [Emphasis added]
Most of the Bill of Rights is written this way, at the insistence of the anti-federalists that believed it was necessary to enumerate at least some rights. The federalists didn't think the Bill of Rights was necessary -- not because they thought the rights weren't important, but because they couldn't conceive that the federal government would infringe on them. They were also concerned that an enumeration of any rights would elevate those above all others. As it turned out, I think they were both right.
The Constitution (as amended) only prevents the federal and state governments from infringing on freedom of speech. It doesn't say that the government must step in and preventing anyone else from infringing on freedom of speech. Furthermore, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted as limiting only the powers of government bodies.
That doesn't mean that the federal government cannot enact laws that limit the ability of private parties to suppress freedom of speech. However, Congress relies on the Commerce Clause power to enact such laws. The mistake you have made is to assert that the Constitution compels Congress to enact laws to protect a right from infringement by private parties. Congress can and has chosen to do so. But, they do so because the voters have demanded they do so.
This is partially correct. The Bill of Rights does not create rights: it only prohibits the federal government from infringing on those rights. The Supreme Court stated this explicitly in US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
The 14th Amendment was intended to extend that prohibition to the state governments, but the Supreme Court disagreed and has only incorporated some provisions of the first 8 amendments against the states, on a case-by-case basis. Any Constitutional law text will itemize which ones have been incorporated, and which ones have not. Freedom of speech is among the ones that have.
But, even though the Constitutional prohibition is still only effective against governments, that doesn't mean that everyone else is free to suppress it. We depend on other provisions of law to protect freedom of speech among everyone else. As the parent explains reasonably well, other issues such as private property rights and contract law must also be considered.
And as O/A have discovered (again), "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from consequences".