If by 'safe' you mean doesn't put out a harmful amount of RF, I would guess the jury's out on that one
No, RF is well understood. If it's non-ionizing, it's not harmful.
Well, sure, if it only eminates non-ionizing RF.
So, do we know, conclusively, that these smart meters do not output ionizing radiation? Have independent groups been allowed to study the devices, or have their specs been kept under tight wraps like the TSA's terahertz scanners?
Not trying to be arch or anything, just pointing out that our government hasn't been the most trustworthy of late, and these questions need to be asked.
If you live in Florida, then paste it up, shiny-side-out, on your windows. Looks weird, but saved me a few degrees on my (south-facing) computer room window.
If you live in the midwest, that's a sure sign you be cookin' up some meth...
If by 'safe' you mean doesn't put out a harmful amount of RF, I would guess the jury's out on that one, and probably will be for quite some time, especially considering what other government agencies (TSA) have gotten away with up to this point when it comes to hiding device emission data from the public.
If by 'safe' you mean 'cannot be hacked,' I would say no right off the bat, as anything that transmits information wirelessly is inherently unsafe due to the nature of RF signal propagation.
If by 'safe' you mean that it won't spontaneously combust and take half your home with it in the subsequent atomic blast, then I would say yea, probably not a lot of risk on that one.
Why? You can secretly love the movie, but pretend it "sucks" (what defines sucks, btw?) and take it back. Free rental isn't a good business model for anyone.
You can't watch a movie, then go back to the ticket counter for a refund because you didn't like it. You CAN, however, if the sound cut out half way through, or the audience unduly interfered with your ability to watch the movie. You can't get your money back for a football game that sucked. Entertainment follows completely different rules when it comes to consume r ights. Was the game played in its entirety, without undue distraction or delays? Then what's the problem? Oh, your team didn't win (you didn't like the book, you hated the movie, you don't like the singers voice)? That's a shame. You still got the product that was promised as part of the contract between you and the content provider when you purchased the "ticket".
Taxpayers: Sure, you can have your pipeline... if you want to pay for it yourself.
Oil Companies: Fuck that, without your money paying for it, that shit's too expensive! We'll just buy more trucks to run on existing infrastructure. People: Look, gas is down to $2.75 a gallon!
FTFY.
Oddly, I can find no real evidence that the oil companies want anything from the taxpayers other than to get the permits approved allow them to build the pipeline.
Think subsidies, tax abatements, right-of-way waivers... lots of ways to get at taxpayer monies indirectly.
I've always though the tactic of enabling multiplayer (and nowadays even some single player) via a code that's become prevalent in just about every console game over the last year or two really stank of a complete breach of the precedent of the right to sell your content on second hand.
Assuming you mean online multiplayer, the developer/publisher provides the service that allows the multiplayer to happen. It's underhanded, true, but also understandable, as (usage of) the service is licensed separately to the game itself.
Except that owners of the game are locked to the developer/publisher servers, making the ability to connect to them compulsory to using the product to its fullest.
If these publishers gave game purchasers the option to set up and connect to private servers, you might have a legit argument there.
Taxpayers: Sure, you can have your pipeline... if you want to pay for it yourself.
Oil Companies: Fuck that, without your money paying for it, that shit's too expensive! We'll just buy more trucks to run on existing infrastructure.
People: Look, gas is down to $2.75 a gallon!
On the other hand, it’s worth mentioning that a decent 12.5W/channel isn’t necessarily something to sneeze at. Just because some receivers have 7 or more channels and behemoth claimed power ratings, with efficient speakers just a few watts can fill any less-than-cavernous room with decent sound, especially if it won’t be pushing giant bass drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
If by 'safe' you mean doesn't put out a harmful amount of RF, I would guess the jury's out on that one
No, RF is well understood. If it's non-ionizing, it's not harmful.
Well, sure, if it only eminates non-ionizing RF.
So, do we know, conclusively, that these smart meters do not output ionizing radiation? Have independent groups been allowed to study the devices, or have their specs been kept under tight wraps like the TSA's terahertz scanners?
Not trying to be arch or anything, just pointing out that our government hasn't been the most trustworthy of late, and these questions need to be asked.
If you live in Florida, then paste it up, shiny-side-out, on your windows. Looks weird, but saved me a few degrees on my (south-facing) computer room window.
If you live in the midwest, that's a sure sign you be cookin' up some meth...
How are we defining 'safe' in this instance?
If by 'safe' you mean doesn't put out a harmful amount of RF, I would guess the jury's out on that one, and probably will be for quite some time, especially considering what other government agencies (TSA) have gotten away with up to this point when it comes to hiding device emission data from the public.
If by 'safe' you mean 'cannot be hacked,' I would say no right off the bat, as anything that transmits information wirelessly is inherently unsafe due to the nature of RF signal propagation.
If by 'safe' you mean that it won't spontaneously combust and take half your home with it in the subsequent atomic blast, then I would say yea, probably not a lot of risk on that one.
Also... First Post.
I was thinking he'd be good in an alien invasion.
Nah; gotta be either Morgan Freeman or Bill Paxton
Otherwise, we are screwed, man.
Why? You can secretly love the movie, but pretend it "sucks" (what defines sucks, btw?) and take it back. Free rental isn't a good business model for anyone.
You can't watch a movie, then go back to the ticket counter for a refund because you didn't like it. You CAN, however, if the sound cut out half way through, or the audience unduly interfered with your ability to watch the movie. You can't get your money back for a football game that sucked. Entertainment follows completely different rules when it comes to consume r ights. Was the game played in its entirety, without undue distraction or delays? Then what's the problem? Oh, your team didn't win (you didn't like the book, you hated the movie, you don't like the singers voice)? That's a shame. You still got the product that was promised as part of the contract between you and the content provider when you purchased the "ticket".
Strawman: One-time event tickets != durable goods.
I've made a separate Bliz account for each of their recent products and sold the account when I'm done with it.
Clever :)
Oddly, I can find no real evidence that the oil companies want anything from the taxpayers other than to get the permits approved allow them to build the pipeline.
Think subsidies, tax abatements, right-of-way waivers... lots of ways to get at taxpayer monies indirectly.
Oh, wait - Valve. Yea, they do that.
For some reason I keep thinking you're talking console games...
I've always though the tactic of enabling multiplayer (and nowadays even some single player) via a code that's become prevalent in just about every console game over the last year or two really stank of a complete breach of the precedent of the right to sell your content on second hand.
Assuming you mean online multiplayer, the developer/publisher provides the service that allows the multiplayer to happen. It's underhanded, true, but also understandable, as (usage of) the service is licensed separately to the game itself.
Except that owners of the game are locked to the developer/publisher servers, making the ability to connect to them compulsory to using the product to its fullest.
If these publishers gave game purchasers the option to set up and connect to private servers, you might have a legit argument there.
... It'll give you dia-fucking-betes.
...I want Facebook to die.
Where's that damn like button when you need it?
What I really want is a "Deslike button".
WTF is 'deslike?'
That makes so little sense I can't even think of a way to make fun of it...
Perhaps you meant a dislike button?
We will, someday
Oops, forgot a page break.
Taxpayers: Sure, you can have your pipeline... if you want to pay for it yourself.
Oil Companies: Fuck that, without your money paying for it, that shit's too expensive! We'll just buy more trucks to run on existing infrastructure. People: Look, gas is down to $2.75 a gallon!
FTFY.
How come all the oil and gas companies keep expanding like this and all the solar companies keep going bankrupt?
Well, that's what those tree-huggers get for relying on government subsidies.
Oh, wait...
natch.
"I just wish they would make an exception for pharmaceuticals, because getting the fruits of someone else's labors for nothing is a moral issue."
There, fixed that for you.
Meanwhile, here in Reality, pharmaceutical companies are doing just that, and jackasses are jumping blindly off the cliff to defend them...
On the other hand, it’s worth mentioning that a decent 12.5W/channel isn’t necessarily something to sneeze at. Just because some receivers have 7 or more channels and behemoth claimed power ratings, with efficient speakers just a few watts can fill any less-than-cavernous room with decent sound, especially if it won’t be pushing giant bass drivers.
Living Room: 22' x 24' x 14'
All your BASS are belong to us...
Content distributors move toward bandwidth-devouring "cloud" services.
If ever one needed evidence that modern capitalism is an exercise in bleeding consumers dry, here ya go.
You're probably right, but FTR, I wasn't necessarily talking about online gambling...
No; prohibition, by definition, is a total ban.
Restriction != prohibition.
That sort of shit happens when society lets marketing weasels take control of the vernacular.
Wow, a Blackberry fanboi?? I thought they were extinct!!!
Quick, someone call the Smithsonian before this specimen gets away!
Wrong. If you where correct, the corporate decisions would go when the CEO left.
Also, when the corporation committed a crime, the CEO would go to prison.