There NfP status might not allow 3rd party access to the account.
Then how are they able to deposit to the account to begin with? Even if you don't give them explicit permission to withdraw from the account, they still have the right to "correct" an erroneous deposit, which has the same result.
No, I'm not. The first time PP tries to withdraw money for a reason both parties do not agree is fair, an overdraft fee is incurred, and you shut down the account. At that point, you know you can't trust PP with your donations, and you stop using them. Until that actually happens, you continue to use them to collect donations. The overdraft fee is the risk of doing business with PayPal, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than putting the entire balance in the account at risk.
1.b) This should have to go without saying, but be sure sure the secondary account is never linked as an overdraft protection account to the first account.
1) Open a secondary account. 2) Wash the checking account down to the minimum balance daily, and the rest to the secondary account. Depending on the daily balance, the bank will do this automatically either for free or a small fee, or you can take 2 minutes a day and do it yourself. 3) Grant them the stupid permission on the checking account.
My Droid X can function as a WiFi hotspot, with corresponding service from Verizon. Are they possibly referring to this feature? Otherwise, it seems unlikely that Verizon would be subsidizing the cost of the tablets much for a one-month contract. Also, given that you sync this with a PC, it seems unlikely that a jail-breaking solution is too far off.
It's been 18 years since I last read it, but this Lacy & Cox are in a vaguely similar situation to the characters Peter Keating and Howard Roark, in which Roark the proud, capable individualist is sued for incompetence and fraud relating to one of his projects, and Keating the unoriginal, snivelling conformist straw-man testifies as an expert for the prosecution.
Oh, and Roark rapes his boss' daughter, and she develops Stockholm syndrome. I didn't read the TFA, but I assume that somehow plays in.
I hereby declare that the MSRP of my app is $1,000,000 per download. Amazon thinks it should be $1.99. Since $200,000 > $1.39, they pay me $200,000 per.
Consumer Reports responded in kind that AT&T could shove it's speed tests, considering they were measuring customer satisfaction, and apparently customers could give a good goddamn about how AT&T performed on its own, unverifiable tests when their customer service is horrifying.
There is nothing "wiki" about wikileaks in any way whatsoever.
Given the large volume of documents he has to deal with, I'd say he's as wiki about it as he can be - if by 'wiki' you mean 'fast,' which is the literal translation.
If, however, you mean he doesn't allow users to edit content in a collaborative, possibly vandalous way, then yes, I'd agree to that. Bear in mind that you're applying Wikipedia standards, which are pretty much unique to Wikipedia and its derivatives.
Personally, I think he made good use of the prefix 'wiki' - Wikileaks does allows for rapid dissemination of information, and it evokes the contributions of users, which is more-or-less Wikileaks lifeblood.
The question is whether it use less energy than mining, refining, manufacturing natural resources into compete LED based solutions, and then deploying and running them.
A good point, but according to TFA this effect only happens when the particles are exposed to (high-energy) blue or ultraviolet light. So, really, it's whether or not mining gold, turning it into nano-particles, infusing the leaves with them and then bombarding the surface of the leaves with high-energy light over the expected life of LED uses less energy than the LED solution.
My guess is no, unless the UV in daylight is sufficient to keep the leaves glowing from dusk to dawn. But then again, what do you do in winter?
And despite the popular claim of the opposite, you can prove a negative, generally by proving a different paradoxical positive, but still...
Uh...also no. You prove the negative (not-A) is true by assuming the positive (A) for the sake of argument, and demonstrating that it leads you to a nonsensical end (not-B) based on stipulated condition (A implies B). If (B || not-B) is truly dependent on (A), then you've proven (not-A) by virtue of the fact that (A implies B) and (A implies not-B), and thus because (A), it ISN'T dependent.
This may be what you were trying to say by "different paradoxical positive," but those words don't mean anything.
Slashdot Mirror
There NfP status might not allow 3rd party access to the account.
Then how are they able to deposit to the account to begin with? Even if you don't give them explicit permission to withdraw from the account, they still have the right to "correct" an erroneous deposit, which has the same result.
You're forgetting about overdraft fees.
No, I'm not. The first time PP tries to withdraw money for a reason both parties do not agree is fair, an overdraft fee is incurred, and you shut down the account. At that point, you know you can't trust PP with your donations, and you stop using them. Until that actually happens, you continue to use them to collect donations. The overdraft fee is the risk of doing business with PayPal, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than putting the entire balance in the account at risk.
1.b) This should have to go without saying, but be sure sure the secondary account is never linked as an overdraft protection account to the first account.
1) Open a secondary account.
2) Wash the checking account down to the minimum balance daily, and the rest to the secondary account. Depending on the daily balance, the bank will do this automatically either for free or a small fee, or you can take 2 minutes a day and do it yourself.
3) Grant them the stupid permission on the checking account.
My Droid X can function as a WiFi hotspot, with corresponding service from Verizon. Are they possibly referring to this feature? Otherwise, it seems unlikely that Verizon would be subsidizing the cost of the tablets much for a one-month contract. Also, given that you sync this with a PC, it seems unlikely that a jail-breaking solution is too far off.
It's been 18 years since I last read it, but this Lacy & Cox are in a vaguely similar situation to the characters Peter Keating and Howard Roark, in which Roark the proud, capable individualist is sued for incompetence and fraud relating to one of his projects, and Keating the unoriginal, snivelling conformist straw-man testifies as an expert for the prosecution.
Oh, and Roark rapes his boss' daughter, and she develops Stockholm syndrome. I didn't read the TFA, but I assume that somehow plays in.
Not me - I just clicked on the video because I saw a link.
What's this? A lemon party?
...my address has always been "VAN! DOWN BY THE RIVER!" on Facebook.
I hereby declare that the MSRP of my app is $1,000,000 per download. Amazon thinks it should be $1.99. Since $200,000 > $1.39, they pay me $200,000 per.
How about "I don't have an opinion, so I thought I'd ask Slashdot instead"?
Hell, I remember when Wired claimed that push media was the next big thing. And look, it's still a bad idea!
Consumer Reports responded in kind that AT&T could shove it's speed tests, considering they were measuring customer satisfaction, and apparently customers could give a good goddamn about how AT&T performed on its own, unverifiable tests when their customer service is horrifying.
There is nothing "wiki" about wikileaks in any way whatsoever.
Given the large volume of documents he has to deal with, I'd say he's as wiki about it as he can be - if by 'wiki' you mean 'fast,' which is the literal translation. If, however, you mean he doesn't allow users to edit content in a collaborative, possibly vandalous way, then yes, I'd agree to that. Bear in mind that you're applying Wikipedia standards, which are pretty much unique to Wikipedia and its derivatives. Personally, I think he made good use of the prefix 'wiki' - Wikileaks does allows for rapid dissemination of information, and it evokes the contributions of users, which is more-or-less Wikileaks lifeblood.
They mocked me for staying at home, making aluminum foil hats and slathering my naked body with turkey gravy, but who's laughing now?!?
Batman's a scientist.
The question is whether it use less energy than mining, refining, manufacturing natural resources into compete LED based solutions, and then deploying and running them.
A good point, but according to TFA this effect only happens when the particles are exposed to (high-energy) blue or ultraviolet light. So, really, it's whether or not mining gold, turning it into nano-particles, infusing the leaves with them and then bombarding the surface of the leaves with high-energy light over the expected life of LED uses less energy than the LED solution.
My guess is no, unless the UV in daylight is sufficient to keep the leaves glowing from dusk to dawn. But then again, what do you do in winter?
That's just gay. Not Geek.
Well, if that's true, he's certainly come to the right place to meet ... exclusively ... men.
For those who want to Photoshop it for Fark, here you go:
Sarah Jones
What's even sicker is the legal wonks sitting around scratching their goatees and blathering
I spend too much time on the internet. I read that as "sitting around scratching their goatses."
Sadly, floors have yet to be invented. Sounds like a good idea, though.
And despite the popular claim of the opposite, you can prove a negative, generally by proving a different paradoxical positive, but still...
Uh...also no. You prove the negative (not-A) is true by assuming the positive (A) for the sake of argument, and demonstrating that it leads you to a nonsensical end (not-B) based on stipulated condition (A implies B). If (B || not-B) is truly dependent on (A), then you've proven (not-A) by virtue of the fact that (A implies B) and (A implies not-B), and thus because (A), it ISN'T dependent.
This may be what you were trying to say by "different paradoxical positive," but those words don't mean anything.
I remember catching the episode where they discovered "anti-life". That was fantastically awful.
At the preliminary hearing:
"Mr. Sycraft-fu, I'm going to allow this case to proceed. Prima facie, this case appears to have some merit."
What's more, the $42 million dollar win-that-was-a-glitch also happened in Colorado.
when doing anything an electrician probably should have touched live wires (120v, thankfully)
Further proof that an electrician should have done it: You're more concerned with voltage than amperage.