Why would an ISP bother to do this? Can you think of no legitimate uses of sending email via another mail server other than the local one?
Suppose I have an account at a university that allows me to send mail from my mail client on my desktop through their mail server after I authenticate (ie: username/pass, certificate, etc). They don't particularly care about encrypting the connection, so their mail server listens on port 25 for relays of authorized email. If your ISP (since you're living off campus, or... god forbid, your university doesn't have on-site residence) blocks outbound port 25, you cannot send email via your university account. Legitimate use, and one that I can see happening regularly in the world, that would be affected by such a sweeping move. The same goes for work servers, free email accounts, etc.
The problem with an ISP being a firewall for their users is that firewalling can and does cause problems for acceptable uses of most ISP services. Rather than shield their users and be both liable and responsible for corrective measures (time and money involved), they tend towards a 'hands off' approach and instead manage the actual service provided until such time as you abuse the AUP sufficiently to draw notice. This helps them improve their bottom line, a margin that seems to be cut fairly thin as it is.
Add to that the problem of finding the spammer in the first place. I seem to recall that $5 mil fine (actually, think it was in the billion dollar range) was decided based on the fact that the defendant nor the defendant's lawyers showed up and judgement was automatically decided against them. Not much actual merit in a real case.
Funny thing about that SP2 infobar. It's supposed to report blocked popup windows, too. However, I was browsing one site the other day with IE, clicked on a link, and what did I see but a popup add come up behind my main window.
The line given to you about US copyright laws forbidding accepting returns for open software is a lie (shocking, I know). US copyright law does not make any such restriction. In fact, I'd be suprised if US copyright law mentioned software specifically at all, considering how old the statues are. It is, at most, store policy not to accept it, regardless of the fact that the CD itself is still sealed.
Make a big stink about it. Hell, be loud but polite. Make it known to the fellow shoppers in the store that they're trying to screw you over and that may make some of the mindless consumers pause to think whether they really want to buy from there or not. But then, I am somewhat vendictive against companies that try to pull some line of BS against me or fail to treat me properly. Have absolutely no issue of making it plain to them that they treat me with respect or they lose my business totally. Now, if only that had more weight than it does these days.:(
Why remember a movie or TV show when they have battery operated (and hense, smokeless) cigerettes already on the way? I suppose I could do a search for it in Slashdot to find the obligatory link, but I'd just be taking all the fun away.
Either you like the game enough to swallow the terms, or you don't buy the game, and if enough people refuse to buy the game, eventually the standard business practice will change.
Here's the question for you, then. While I agree with the belief that if you don't like it, don't buy it, will the companies claim that it is because of rampant piracy, their game quality, or their EULA being too restrictive? Will they even ask the question or just assume that it's the customer that is the idiot for not purchasing their wonderful product?
Companies can be remarkably short sighted, especially when information as to why people don't buy something is in question.
It is called an example of the extremes. Basically, in terms that you would be more comfortable with:
If I went into NASA's systems to commit a crime that would land me in jail for decades, why would I tell you that and not something that would only put me away for 6 months?
Does that sound better to you?
Frankly, I have no clue as to what is possible in NASA's computer systems. Suppose that he had hacked into a ground guidance system while a mission was going on (if that's even possible)? It should be obvious at this point that the shuttle can be destroyed on reentry by something as stupid and simple as ice-encrusted foam that damages just a few tiles. What would happen if the angle was too steep into the atmosphere and the reentry velocity was too fast? How about if they were off on landing by just a few degrees? That thing handles like a falling brick with wings and if it doesn't come down just right, it may not come down in one piece. I would just hope that NASA's critical systems are on an isolated network not connected to the internet in any way. Whether that is the case or not...
In this case, I do not feel that 'damage estimates' that are putting him in jail for 6 months and restricting him from Computers for 3 years necessarily over-inflating. He broke into a someone else's computer system. If he was honestly that stupid to be looking for storage space for movies when DVD burners are cheaply available, than he needs to learn a reason why that is bad. This punishment seems as good as any.
What I think you confuse is that human 'programming' is not as 'in depth' and task oriented as computers have to be. Instead, for all that your body cares about, it wants three things. To eat, to deficate, and to reproduce. Anything else that you do is arbitrary.
What your body's programming is limited to consists of simple tasks. Understanding how to process input (visual, auditory, tactile, etc) though not necessarily to understand if those sensations are good or bad except at the extreme. Understanding how to store and retrieve information (this part we don't fully comprehend in the consious sense, even though it's tactic is already in use). Our programming even gives us the ability to alter itself, to a degree, and I think that this part is what would be critical in AI.
What human programming does not do is tell us how to interpret what we have learned, we have to learn how to do that based on what we experienced and whether or not we got rewarded or punished for it. We have to learn what is 'good' and what is 'bad', and to a developing child, it is fairly easy to warp these concepts, a hint that they are not pre-programmed in.
Because you do not see human behavioral coding on a computer screen, you feel that it is not programming. Because you cannot yourself alter it by typing on a keyboard, that it is not programming. Perhaps because behavioral coding is so tied to the physical structure housing it (brain), you feel that it is not programming. However, all that programming consists of is a set of instructions on how to do things.
Now, the real question is this: Can programming based on computers ever replicate completely all the intrinsic traits that biological programming has? Personally, I think it can. It is, after all, just a set of instructions. It's figuring out what those instructions should be that tends to be the stumbling block.
So would I, it didn't really sound like he did any actual damage, just used some storage space.
This is what he says he was seeking. What he intended to do, or what access he sold off to others may be different. I could tell you all day that I was breaking into your machine in order to fix things. However, I've already committed one illegal act. If I really wanted to make the shuttle go boom, why would I honestly tell you that and get myself into more trouble? I'd make up some story that sounded good at the time to keep myself from going to prison for 15 years, instead of 6 months. See how that works?
As for your 'actual damage' and 'blowing up of damages' statements, consider that it's not necessarily financial cost in the system that he broke into that they count. It's the Technician's time to investigate and repair the system, the cost to NASA of the system being unusable (if it was a core system, and their next launch must be delayed because of the intrusion, that is a valid consideration), and the cost of redeploying a sane image on the system to bring it back online. It's recovery cost and time in a case like this that determines the financial charges.
The safest and most reliable way to 100% be assured that you have wiped all trace of actions done is to roll back to a prior backup. While yes, Tripwire is a great program and yes, while using it myself I conceed that it does in fact trap file alterations well, I seem to recall there was a story not too long ago about generating two files of the same MD5 hash. If that is even remotely possible, then you cannot trust life and death situations and billions of dollars to a system that can still be compromised just because you didn't want to take the time to roll back the system to a known 'sane' version.
It's just a matter of principle in high value systems. What happens if he replaced the policy and key files for tripwire, masking his trail? What happens if he knew the passphrase to use the local and site keys? Even if you know he could not, it just isn't worth the risk. Either take your time to drill down and dig out the pieces, or take the same time to wipe and reinstall. For my money, I feel more secure about wiping and reinstalling.
I've never once had to threaten a lawsuit in order to reverse charges I felt were inappropriate or excessive. While I may be just one person, I do carry a modest amount of weight with me by the sheer fact that I'm doing business with these companies. If they want me to continue to do business with them, then the worst thing they could have me be is angry and leave.
There's a car shop around in the states called Jiffy Lube. They change your oil, check things out, and provide a nice handy little service. They pissed me off. They repeatedly showed ineptness at doing the most simple tasks (I give them the benefit of the doubt at least once, maybe more depending on their attitude). In fact, it finally came to that they 'reportedly' filled my windshield washer fluid, filled my tires to 35 psi (nevermind that I kept them at 28 front, 26 rear, as the manufacturer rated them for), and did a number of other things. I checked. They didn't fill my windshield washer fluid (I needed it because of snow/grime on the windshield when driving, and it wasn't there when I needed it), and they filled my tires ON ONE SIDE to 35 psi, and left the other side at 28 front, 26 rear. That caused my car to cavitate badly (unbalanced) when I left town to go on a road trip (in fact, I took my car to Jiffy Lube so that it would be prepared for that very trip). I had to fix their mistakes, and that pissed me off.
I went back, politely informed them that they were hopelessly inept, and that I would never do business with any of their chain stores again. I never have. I am even reminded of how pathetic their service is even now (washing the side windows, but not bothering to roll the windows up fully to wash the entire thing. something of an issue because the entire inside surface of the front windows had soda from an exploded can caked on it). They have lost me, and anyone I see where this topic comes up, I retell my story there, influencing others not to go to Jiffy Lube.
Because they pissed off one customer, they've likely lost quite a few, and get quite a bit of bad press. That is not what they hope to achieve, and if they can avoid that situation by eating $5 of bad charges, more often than not, they will without much of a fight. Those that don't lose more than they gain by cheating me out of money.
I recently contested $35 in bank charges. I did so because the way their system was set up to operate I do not feel that I should have been charged that much for a computer shifting numbers. I contested about $7 on my phone bill for a call that I don't recall ever being capable of making (some 10-10-27500 bullshit). I've contested $3 on my phone bill when the phone company tried to charge me for 3 months past service (read: I already paid and filed the bills and the invoice for those months was done). Even had a company try to get me to sign up for $7 of basic cable to save $15 off my cable internet (good deal), and I may have done it, if I hadn't asked "is this off my current rate or whatever it is at now (I pay $46, current is $58)." It is of course off the current rate, so I would be paying more.
Maybe you ask why I bothered. I mean, $35 was something, but $7? $3? That's hardly even enough money to go out and entertain myself for an evening. I do it on principle. I do it because I know the company expects me to blow it off and just pay it. I know that if they feel they can get away with that, then they will try on a regular basis. What happens when there's "just" another $3 charge on your phone bill a month? What happens when $3/month more doesn't satisfy them anymore? It goes up.
I'm not in the game of getting cheated. I look over my bills and confirm that nothing stupid was added on. I won't let these companies get the feeling that they can just do whatever they want without checks for me. Yes, it may only be $.75, but it adds up, and it sets a bad precedent.
What would it matter if you wound up spending $1000 more than you needed to in a year, all because there were some 1200 $.75 charges tacked on that shouldn't have? To me, that's where it matters most.
Claiming that restricting what children have access to until they are 18 will help make them well rounded is asinine.
I take it from the first paragraph that you disapprove of the parent, but from this statement, you seem to be approving it. Care to make a single stand? Perhaps you need to review what you were replying to in order to comprehend.
As I read it, the judge quoted is advocating knowledge of politics and their rights in advance of a child's 18th birthday. Why? Because if you don't, by the time they turn 18 and make their first vote, they will not understand the principles nor their rights under the law. Ignorant voters do not make for good decision makers. Informed voters do.
The question is "where did these kids get the idea that to bring guns to school". Or "why didn't the kids sense of right and wrong kick in". The anwser is obvious, video games have taken the role of parents in teaching them a set of values.
Such an ignorant and incorrect corrolation that one cannot even begin to find the support of this statement. As someone else stated, you have managed to find a time-dependant pattern. Both things have "gone up", therefor one must be affecting the other? How about if I told you that parental involvement in their children's lives has decreased? How about if I told you that social pressures and stress in children is on the rise? How about if I told you that, reguardless of your idea of nirvana in the past, they also had violence well before video games ever became popular? Or maybe that with the significant population increase over history that, while the number of occurances of violence in the schools may have increased, the actual per-capita occurances have decreased (the per-capita actually balancing out the disparity between sheer number counts and counts per number of people that could have done such acts)?
It's amazing that people can think that something like violence and video games are the only forces influencing children these days. How short sighted of you. The world has been evolving to deal with different issues, different stresses, and has different stimuli for successive generations. Until you come up with conclusive evidence to back up your statement of 'Violent video games cause violence in children' (and by that I mean real, scientific experiments, not just quoting newspapers or other opinions), you'd best temper your assertion about that corrolation. It only makes you look foolish and doesn't serve your purpose to get such things controlled.
And, not to be left out:
Kids have no rights to decide how to live. Parents do. And if a parent is negligent, then society steps in (much like the criminal system).
The purpose that kids should be tasked with when growing up is to learn how to live, and to be progressively given those rights as they show competence to use them responsibly. You cannot shelter a child from birth to 21, turn around and say "Here you go. You have these rights. Now go out and be an adult." and expect them to understand how to handle those rights without abusing them. That doesn't require regulation, that requires parental involvement and teaching right from wrong.
This is likely a good reason why they would prefer not to have them on during takeoff and landing. Those two times of flight are the most risk for accidents. Once the plane is on the ground safely, they pretty much give you carte blanche to use your phone.
Windows' Hibernate function is nice, but pretty well broken at times. I cannot count the number of times that I have let my system drop to standby, then hibernate, only to have quirky little things like.. oh, the USB bus fail to reinitialize. That becomes a problem as USB drives no longer become accessable.
Oddly, other than that, it is useful, especially for laptop computers. It just has some glaring usability bugs.
You show me one that works, and by golly, I'll use it. I've tried SpamAssassin. I have it set up, but for some reason, either it or I cannot comprehend what form it wants the spam messages in so that it can do heuristics on my incoming messages and actually trap things. So, for the time being, I continue to eat it. Some worthwhile filter.
While I like the iPod concept and design, I'm actually looking to buy something other than Apple's iPod for that kind of device. I want to stay out of these little gangland wars between companies, trying to one-up each other. Whatever I buy I want to be able to play whatever I have and whatever I buy, end of story, and I'm not buying 2 or 3 $400 devices to do it.
You probably should have walked out to the front desk and politely but firmly informed them that you were outraged and they give you a refund for the ticket. Be sure to be a little loud, but not obnoxious or unruly. It doesn't help the theater's image if there's some guy pissed about the length of ads and previews before the movie. I know I'd avoid going to see it if I saw that display.
One big thing I heard comes from Oracle. Oracle (the company) runs Oracle (the database). It was a mandate put down from on high and seems to make at least a modest amount of sense.
Think of it this way. The biggest way that you figure out that something should be tweaked is if you are the user of the system. Those admins that never use the systems that they deploy and work on have quite a big harder a time trying to understand just what the program is trying to do, and what to do about it when it fails. To add to that, they never come across bad quirks that noone mentions because they're just that, quirks. It doesn't cause the system to fail or halt or mangle any data, but it sure is annoying when it does it.
To live and die by your own software is not a bad thing. It gives you not only the developer's perspective of design and impliment a solution, but also allows you to see whether or not what you made is actually useful. Don't read too much into this post, like I support Microsoft totally (they can be quite an ass of a company), but the mentality is sound and used in more companies than just Microsoft.
Certain problems exist with simply end-tasking explorer.exe with Windows. What happens if explorer.exe has issues when it starts up? Just doing an End Task/End Process on it will cause it to restart, and bounce into the same problem again.
Why does explorer also decide to restart every application that it normally would on startup, yet fails to re-iconify basic system services into the system tray? This leads to increased memory usage and the user having to log out and log back in just to get their volume controls back. To be properly effective during a restart, Explorer must detect and re-iconify any application that resides in the system tray. Those that are not, and exist only in the system tray, will not be retrievable unless those icons reappear.
Those are just two big ones. As someone else said, if Explorer blocks against, say, looking up a network drive and then fails to recover/timeout (simply an example), you may not have sufficient resources remaining to start up the Task manager, dispite the forced real time priority of that manager. The system becomes basically deadlocked, and requires a full restart to regain control.
Isn't that really the insulting thing, though? Just read this one section of your post:
If the telco (this excludes comcast, btw) says no to the community
Since when do I, a citizen of the US, have to ask some corporation whether or not I can or cannot do something for my community? Doesn't that seem seriously screwed up to anyone else? I don't even care if I can do it after the corporation tells me no, I should not have to ask some corporation for permission first. I don't even care if, when they respond, they give a timeframe up to 14 months. What penalties are in place if the respond, hold back the development of such a project by the community, and then telco fails to honor the service they said they would provide? Any at all? How much you want to bet it's just a little slap on the wrist if there is one?
I cannot believe how this isn't seen as anticompetitive.
Heh. We have endless fission power, if we had the desire and capacity to build it. However, we don't. Why do you think that we would suddenly build enough plants or that what plants we build will be capable of producing energy that is endless? Keep in mind that 'endless' is the idealist talking, and cost is what is looked at in the real world. Supply and Demand.
I'm curious. By what rational is it that "because you upload and download in parallel" that makes BT 'fast'. To me, it makes it no faster than a straight download (if all down channels are used for both BT and normal downloads, no speed improvements are to be seen).
Slashdot Mirror
Why would an ISP bother to do this? Can you think of no legitimate uses of sending email via another mail server other than the local one?
... god forbid, your university doesn't have on-site residence) blocks outbound port 25, you cannot send email via your university account. Legitimate use, and one that I can see happening regularly in the world, that would be affected by such a sweeping move. The same goes for work servers, free email accounts, etc.
Suppose I have an account at a university that allows me to send mail from my mail client on my desktop through their mail server after I authenticate (ie: username/pass, certificate, etc). They don't particularly care about encrypting the connection, so their mail server listens on port 25 for relays of authorized email. If your ISP (since you're living off campus, or
The problem with an ISP being a firewall for their users is that firewalling can and does cause problems for acceptable uses of most ISP services. Rather than shield their users and be both liable and responsible for corrective measures (time and money involved), they tend towards a 'hands off' approach and instead manage the actual service provided until such time as you abuse the AUP sufficiently to draw notice. This helps them improve their bottom line, a margin that seems to be cut fairly thin as it is.
Add to that the problem of finding the spammer in the first place. I seem to recall that $5 mil fine (actually, think it was in the billion dollar range) was decided based on the fact that the defendant nor the defendant's lawyers showed up and judgement was automatically decided against them. Not much actual merit in a real case.
Funny thing about that SP2 infobar. It's supposed to report blocked popup windows, too. However, I was browsing one site the other day with IE, clicked on a link, and what did I see but a popup add come up behind my main window.
The line given to you about US copyright laws forbidding accepting returns for open software is a lie (shocking, I know). US copyright law does not make any such restriction. In fact, I'd be suprised if US copyright law mentioned software specifically at all, considering how old the statues are. It is, at most, store policy not to accept it, regardless of the fact that the CD itself is still sealed.
:(
Make a big stink about it. Hell, be loud but polite. Make it known to the fellow shoppers in the store that they're trying to screw you over and that may make some of the mindless consumers pause to think whether they really want to buy from there or not. But then, I am somewhat vendictive against companies that try to pull some line of BS against me or fail to treat me properly. Have absolutely no issue of making it plain to them that they treat me with respect or they lose my business totally. Now, if only that had more weight than it does these days.
Why remember a movie or TV show when they have battery operated (and hense, smokeless) cigerettes already on the way? I suppose I could do a search for it in Slashdot to find the obligatory link, but I'd just be taking all the fun away.
Here's the question for you, then. While I agree with the belief that if you don't like it, don't buy it, will the companies claim that it is because of rampant piracy, their game quality, or their EULA being too restrictive? Will they even ask the question or just assume that it's the customer that is the idiot for not purchasing their wonderful product?
Companies can be remarkably short sighted, especially when information as to why people don't buy something is in question.
It is called an example of the extremes. Basically, in terms that you would be more comfortable with:
If I went into NASA's systems to commit a crime that would land me in jail for decades, why would I tell you that and not something that would only put me away for 6 months?
Does that sound better to you?
Frankly, I have no clue as to what is possible in NASA's computer systems. Suppose that he had hacked into a ground guidance system while a mission was going on (if that's even possible)? It should be obvious at this point that the shuttle can be destroyed on reentry by something as stupid and simple as ice-encrusted foam that damages just a few tiles. What would happen if the angle was too steep into the atmosphere and the reentry velocity was too fast? How about if they were off on landing by just a few degrees? That thing handles like a falling brick with wings and if it doesn't come down just right, it may not come down in one piece. I would just hope that NASA's critical systems are on an isolated network not connected to the internet in any way. Whether that is the case or not...
In this case, I do not feel that 'damage estimates' that are putting him in jail for 6 months and restricting him from Computers for 3 years necessarily over-inflating. He broke into a someone else's computer system. If he was honestly that stupid to be looking for storage space for movies when DVD burners are cheaply available, than he needs to learn a reason why that is bad. This punishment seems as good as any.
What I think you confuse is that human 'programming' is not as 'in depth' and task oriented as computers have to be. Instead, for all that your body cares about, it wants three things. To eat, to deficate, and to reproduce. Anything else that you do is arbitrary.
What your body's programming is limited to consists of simple tasks. Understanding how to process input (visual, auditory, tactile, etc) though not necessarily to understand if those sensations are good or bad except at the extreme. Understanding how to store and retrieve information (this part we don't fully comprehend in the consious sense, even though it's tactic is already in use). Our programming even gives us the ability to alter itself, to a degree, and I think that this part is what would be critical in AI.
What human programming does not do is tell us how to interpret what we have learned, we have to learn how to do that based on what we experienced and whether or not we got rewarded or punished for it. We have to learn what is 'good' and what is 'bad', and to a developing child, it is fairly easy to warp these concepts, a hint that they are not pre-programmed in.
Because you do not see human behavioral coding on a computer screen, you feel that it is not programming. Because you cannot yourself alter it by typing on a keyboard, that it is not programming. Perhaps because behavioral coding is so tied to the physical structure housing it (brain), you feel that it is not programming. However, all that programming consists of is a set of instructions on how to do things.
Now, the real question is this: Can programming based on computers ever replicate completely all the intrinsic traits that biological programming has? Personally, I think it can. It is, after all, just a set of instructions. It's figuring out what those instructions should be that tends to be the stumbling block.
This is what he says he was seeking. What he intended to do, or what access he sold off to others may be different. I could tell you all day that I was breaking into your machine in order to fix things. However, I've already committed one illegal act. If I really wanted to make the shuttle go boom, why would I honestly tell you that and get myself into more trouble? I'd make up some story that sounded good at the time to keep myself from going to prison for 15 years, instead of 6 months. See how that works?
As for your 'actual damage' and 'blowing up of damages' statements, consider that it's not necessarily financial cost in the system that he broke into that they count. It's the Technician's time to investigate and repair the system, the cost to NASA of the system being unusable (if it was a core system, and their next launch must be delayed because of the intrusion, that is a valid consideration), and the cost of redeploying a sane image on the system to bring it back online. It's recovery cost and time in a case like this that determines the financial charges.
The safest and most reliable way to 100% be assured that you have wiped all trace of actions done is to roll back to a prior backup. While yes, Tripwire is a great program and yes, while using it myself I conceed that it does in fact trap file alterations well, I seem to recall there was a story not too long ago about generating two files of the same MD5 hash. If that is even remotely possible, then you cannot trust life and death situations and billions of dollars to a system that can still be compromised just because you didn't want to take the time to roll back the system to a known 'sane' version.
It's just a matter of principle in high value systems. What happens if he replaced the policy and key files for tripwire, masking his trail? What happens if he knew the passphrase to use the local and site keys? Even if you know he could not, it just isn't worth the risk. Either take your time to drill down and dig out the pieces, or take the same time to wipe and reinstall. For my money, I feel more secure about wiping and reinstalling.
I've never once had to threaten a lawsuit in order to reverse charges I felt were inappropriate or excessive. While I may be just one person, I do carry a modest amount of weight with me by the sheer fact that I'm doing business with these companies. If they want me to continue to do business with them, then the worst thing they could have me be is angry and leave.
There's a car shop around in the states called Jiffy Lube. They change your oil, check things out, and provide a nice handy little service. They pissed me off. They repeatedly showed ineptness at doing the most simple tasks (I give them the benefit of the doubt at least once, maybe more depending on their attitude). In fact, it finally came to that they 'reportedly' filled my windshield washer fluid, filled my tires to 35 psi (nevermind that I kept them at 28 front, 26 rear, as the manufacturer rated them for), and did a number of other things. I checked. They didn't fill my windshield washer fluid (I needed it because of snow/grime on the windshield when driving, and it wasn't there when I needed it), and they filled my tires ON ONE SIDE to 35 psi, and left the other side at 28 front, 26 rear. That caused my car to cavitate badly (unbalanced) when I left town to go on a road trip (in fact, I took my car to Jiffy Lube so that it would be prepared for that very trip). I had to fix their mistakes, and that pissed me off.
I went back, politely informed them that they were hopelessly inept, and that I would never do business with any of their chain stores again. I never have. I am even reminded of how pathetic their service is even now (washing the side windows, but not bothering to roll the windows up fully to wash the entire thing. something of an issue because the entire inside surface of the front windows had soda from an exploded can caked on it). They have lost me, and anyone I see where this topic comes up, I retell my story there, influencing others not to go to Jiffy Lube.
Because they pissed off one customer, they've likely lost quite a few, and get quite a bit of bad press. That is not what they hope to achieve, and if they can avoid that situation by eating $5 of bad charges, more often than not, they will without much of a fight. Those that don't lose more than they gain by cheating me out of money.
I recently contested $35 in bank charges. I did so because the way their system was set up to operate I do not feel that I should have been charged that much for a computer shifting numbers. I contested about $7 on my phone bill for a call that I don't recall ever being capable of making (some 10-10-27500 bullshit). I've contested $3 on my phone bill when the phone company tried to charge me for 3 months past service (read: I already paid and filed the bills and the invoice for those months was done). Even had a company try to get me to sign up for $7 of basic cable to save $15 off my cable internet (good deal), and I may have done it, if I hadn't asked "is this off my current rate or whatever it is at now (I pay $46, current is $58)." It is of course off the current rate, so I would be paying more.
Maybe you ask why I bothered. I mean, $35 was something, but $7? $3? That's hardly even enough money to go out and entertain myself for an evening. I do it on principle. I do it because I know the company expects me to blow it off and just pay it. I know that if they feel they can get away with that, then they will try on a regular basis. What happens when there's "just" another $3 charge on your phone bill a month? What happens when $3/month more doesn't satisfy them anymore? It goes up.
I'm not in the game of getting cheated. I look over my bills and confirm that nothing stupid was added on. I won't let these companies get the feeling that they can just do whatever they want without checks for me. Yes, it may only be $.75, but it adds up, and it sets a bad precedent.
What would it matter if you wound up spending $1000 more than you needed to in a year, all because there were some 1200 $.75 charges tacked on that shouldn't have? To me, that's where it matters most.
I take it from the first paragraph that you disapprove of the parent, but from this statement, you seem to be approving it. Care to make a single stand? Perhaps you need to review what you were replying to in order to comprehend.
As I read it, the judge quoted is advocating knowledge of politics and their rights in advance of a child's 18th birthday. Why? Because if you don't, by the time they turn 18 and make their first vote, they will not understand the principles nor their rights under the law. Ignorant voters do not make for good decision makers. Informed voters do.
Such an ignorant and incorrect corrolation that one cannot even begin to find the support of this statement. As someone else stated, you have managed to find a time-dependant pattern. Both things have "gone up", therefor one must be affecting the other? How about if I told you that parental involvement in their children's lives has decreased? How about if I told you that social pressures and stress in children is on the rise? How about if I told you that, reguardless of your idea of nirvana in the past, they also had violence well before video games ever became popular? Or maybe that with the significant population increase over history that, while the number of occurances of violence in the schools may have increased, the actual per-capita occurances have decreased (the per-capita actually balancing out the disparity between sheer number counts and counts per number of people that could have done such acts)?
It's amazing that people can think that something like violence and video games are the only forces influencing children these days. How short sighted of you. The world has been evolving to deal with different issues, different stresses, and has different stimuli for successive generations. Until you come up with conclusive evidence to back up your statement of 'Violent video games cause violence in children' (and by that I mean real, scientific experiments, not just quoting newspapers or other opinions), you'd best temper your assertion about that corrolation. It only makes you look foolish and doesn't serve your purpose to get such things controlled.
And, not to be left out:
Kids have no rights to decide how to live. Parents do. And if a parent is negligent, then society steps in (much like the criminal system).
The purpose that kids should be tasked with when growing up is to learn how to live, and to be progressively given those rights as they show competence to use them responsibly. You cannot shelter a child from birth to 21, turn around and say "Here you go. You have these rights. Now go out and be an adult." and expect them to understand how to handle those rights without abusing them. That doesn't require regulation, that requires parental involvement and teaching right from wrong.
This is likely a good reason why they would prefer not to have them on during takeoff and landing. Those two times of flight are the most risk for accidents. Once the plane is on the ground safely, they pretty much give you carte blanche to use your phone.
Windows' Hibernate function is nice, but pretty well broken at times. I cannot count the number of times that I have let my system drop to standby, then hibernate, only to have quirky little things like.. oh, the USB bus fail to reinitialize. That becomes a problem as USB drives no longer become accessable.
Oddly, other than that, it is useful, especially for laptop computers. It just has some glaring usability bugs.
Now, if only it played Minidiscs as well.
You show me one that works, and by golly, I'll use it. I've tried SpamAssassin. I have it set up, but for some reason, either it or I cannot comprehend what form it wants the spam messages in so that it can do heuristics on my incoming messages and actually trap things. So, for the time being, I continue to eat it. Some worthwhile filter.
While I like the iPod concept and design, I'm actually looking to buy something other than Apple's iPod for that kind of device. I want to stay out of these little gangland wars between companies, trying to one-up each other. Whatever I buy I want to be able to play whatever I have and whatever I buy, end of story, and I'm not buying 2 or 3 $400 devices to do it.
You probably should have walked out to the front desk and politely but firmly informed them that you were outraged and they give you a refund for the ticket. Be sure to be a little loud, but not obnoxious or unruly. It doesn't help the theater's image if there's some guy pissed about the length of ads and previews before the movie. I know I'd avoid going to see it if I saw that display.
One big thing I heard comes from Oracle. Oracle (the company) runs Oracle (the database). It was a mandate put down from on high and seems to make at least a modest amount of sense.
Think of it this way. The biggest way that you figure out that something should be tweaked is if you are the user of the system. Those admins that never use the systems that they deploy and work on have quite a big harder a time trying to understand just what the program is trying to do, and what to do about it when it fails. To add to that, they never come across bad quirks that noone mentions because they're just that, quirks. It doesn't cause the system to fail or halt or mangle any data, but it sure is annoying when it does it.
To live and die by your own software is not a bad thing. It gives you not only the developer's perspective of design and impliment a solution, but also allows you to see whether or not what you made is actually useful. Don't read too much into this post, like I support Microsoft totally (they can be quite an ass of a company), but the mentality is sound and used in more companies than just Microsoft.
Certain problems exist with simply end-tasking explorer.exe with Windows. What happens if explorer.exe has issues when it starts up? Just doing an End Task/End Process on it will cause it to restart, and bounce into the same problem again.
Why does explorer also decide to restart every application that it normally would on startup, yet fails to re-iconify basic system services into the system tray? This leads to increased memory usage and the user having to log out and log back in just to get their volume controls back. To be properly effective during a restart, Explorer must detect and re-iconify any application that resides in the system tray. Those that are not, and exist only in the system tray, will not be retrievable unless those icons reappear.
Those are just two big ones. As someone else said, if Explorer blocks against, say, looking up a network drive and then fails to recover/timeout (simply an example), you may not have sufficient resources remaining to start up the Task manager, dispite the forced real time priority of that manager. The system becomes basically deadlocked, and requires a full restart to regain control.
If the telco (this excludes comcast, btw) says no to the community
Since when do I, a citizen of the US, have to ask some corporation whether or not I can or cannot do something for my community? Doesn't that seem seriously screwed up to anyone else? I don't even care if I can do it after the corporation tells me no, I should not have to ask some corporation for permission first. I don't even care if, when they respond, they give a timeframe up to 14 months. What penalties are in place if the respond, hold back the development of such a project by the community, and then telco fails to honor the service they said they would provide? Any at all? How much you want to bet it's just a little slap on the wrist if there is one?
I cannot believe how this isn't seen as anticompetitive.
Heh. We have endless fission power, if we had the desire and capacity to build it. However, we don't. Why do you think that we would suddenly build enough plants or that what plants we build will be capable of producing energy that is endless? Keep in mind that 'endless' is the idealist talking, and cost is what is looked at in the real world. Supply and Demand.
But that's ok.
I'm curious. By what rational is it that "because you upload and download in parallel" that makes BT 'fast'. To me, it makes it no faster than a straight download (if all down channels are used for both BT and normal downloads, no speed improvements are to be seen).