Right, and that's totally different, that's a formal immigration procedure to enter the UK or EU (and most other countries).
You were also free to NOT fill this out on the plane, and instead fill it out once you got to the Immigration department, they were handed out as a courtesy to try to speed things up.
It's not something that airline personnel demanded that you write down before you board the aircraft.
Flip side argument: if you want MY tourist dollars to be spent in YOUR country, you will treat me with a certain degree of respect, and not like some second class citizen. I have no intention of setting up camp and leeching off your system, I like my own country just fine, thanks.
Second: YOU don't have the right to interrogate me, but your Immigration officers and DHS definately do. But the parent article (which you read, right?) isn't talking about DHS or Immigration officers, it's talking about American Airlines employees in the UK, asking for information that they definately AREN'T required to ask for.
Yes, this is true, but this only extends as far as making sure you have a passport and visa, if required. Without these, you WILL be turned away, and the airline will get in shit.
Anything else is subjective, and up to the immigration officer, and can't be judged by the airline... and is therefore none of their business.
The airline, or immigration officials? Immigration asking such quesetions is normal. I've flown to Costa Rica many times in teh alst few years, and never has the airline asked me for anything other than my passport.
Now, I have to say where I will be staying on immigration forms, and may have to repeat this to the immigration officer, but that's standard operating procedure in just about any country.
It's NONE of their business. That's the point. They sold me a ticket, that's enough. What I am doing once I arrive in the US is absolutely not the concern or business of the airline.
Why on earth should I have to tell the airline anything at all about what I do for a living or where I'm staying? it's none of their business.
leakage of a CC# and relevant information now doesn't constitute authorization. The onus is already on the merchants to verify things. If the merchant has no signature, they have no guarantees of ever getting paid.
The media makes it out as if having your card number stoleln is the end of hte world. IT's only a minor niusance to you and the issuer, and only really a loss for the merchant that accepted the card wrongly.
Now.. SURE, to some people, having their card denied is a lot more destructive.. but let's not put all the blame on the card issuer here... if you live at the edge of your credit, and losing that card for even a couple days screws up your life.. who's fault is that?
Yes, a few things aren't as customizable. Look & feel is deliberately not as customizable, which means from mac to mac, things are more consistant.
Opening a series of folders IS slower than navigating with bash and tab completion... but hey, you could have opened a terminal window and done the exact same thing, including emacs.
Easy access to a useful command prompt? I don' get it, what's not easy about clicking the Terminal icon on your dock? How is that any differnt whatsoever than clicking an xterm shortcut on an X11 desktop?
If you want OS X to be exactly like linux, then you will be disappointed. If you take the time to actually work within it's limits, you'll likely find you work faster than ever.
You could also have shrunk that dock to a really, really tiny size.
- Terminal would be on your Dock, because you use it often. If it's not on your dock, then you are missing the point.
- Terminal has always been in Applications/Utilities on OSX.
- If terminal doesn't have the fonts and colors you want, then it's because you never took five minutes to configure it and save the settings.
"Oh but I can't hit a 3 key combo and get a full screen terminal".. well, that's just a particular thing about linux you like, not an overall user interface thing.
I understand your complaints, but they really boil down to "When I use a system I'm not used to, my productivity drops", and don't reflect the usability of OS X or Linux in particular. No general purpose computer is going to be perfectly usable by someone who never uses it.
I find the OS X interface graphically a bit slower than most x11 systems, or even windows, but I also find it far more consistant, both in terms of graphic redraw speed and the location of key items. The end result is that I can work faster and get to what I want faster than I can in gnome/kde/etc. Everything is more repeatable in OS X.
Of course they mean owned by the company.... they aren't paying you for nothing.
The point is that the 20% is permitted for projects that YOU want to persue, not necessarily part of the overall corporate plan. Along with this comes some use of company resources.
In other words, if you have a cool idea, you can persue it and see how it goes, like any other company project, without haveing to do a ton of paperwork and have it officially approved, etc.
A lot of sports fans like sports games, because they already know the strategies, the teams, and the players. Being able to use real team names, logos, and data is a HUGE sales boost.
I don't think that's intentionally "frendly to the anti-virus industry".
The challenge of virus/worm writing is having the thing spread, of manipulating systems and hiding.
The reason there is rarely a destructive payload is because there is absolutely no challenge in a destructive payload... any moron can write destructive code.
Contrary to what the movies, and thanks to them, the media like to make people think, the primary goal of most virus writers isn't to wreak havok on a global scale, it's simply to see their code spread around the world.
It's largely just very irresponsible behavior, not necessarly malicious.
I can see it too. Unfortunately, the terms of the TOS might not be legal, and hence, not relevant. Copyright can't be waived upon death, apparently, not contractually. Perhaps if it was in his will...
Are you sure about that? I know US citizens must declare their global income even if they don't live in the US, and haven't for years. There is an exemption of $60,000 or something if you don't live in the US at all and the income is also not from the US.. but.
I'm fairly certain that as long as you are living in the US, your global income and assetts are taxable.
The only way they would be exempt are via tax treaties, (ie: he's taxed on it in japan, so not taxed in the US). This depends entirely on the country in question.
if this was settlement for work done years ago in japan, though, it's likely not taxable in the US anyway, as it was earned previously.
And, if we were in the pre-internet days, and you didn't want anyone to have access to your personal files after your death (say, your saved letters and carbon copies of outgoing ones), then you would have to a) destroy thenm b) specify the fact in your will
because by default those inheriting your assetts get EVERYTHING.
Pretending the digital world is somehow different would be a mistake on your part.
Second: Switzerland.
- No, you can't have totally anonymous bank accounts, the movies just like to portray this. - Switzerland has strong bank privacy laws. Without a court order, no bank employee can reveal any personal information about you or your holdings, and the courts cand and do punish breaches of these laws severely. A court order has to come from the local swiss judge in the district the bank is in, so unless you are breaking swiss criminal law, you are safe. One reason tehse accounts are so popular is that the swiss do not consider Tax Evasion a criminal offence.
- You can get "numbered" accounts, which are not anonymous, but the number of people with access to your personal details is reduced. For instance, the bank teller won't know your name or anything about you, but at some point up the chain of command, like the bank amanger, they DO know who you are. They are required by local laws and international agreements to know who money belongs to.
a) your bank likely isn't required to ask these things of you, your next of kin can still obtain the contents of your accounts/deposit boxes/etc without too much trouble. Why do they ask? It's much simpler and easier in the end if the bank can clearly show "Mr. X instructed us that upon his death Mrs. X gets immediate access to his holdings".
In this case, yahoo are just being dinks, and deserve some bad press over it.
Yes, but in the case of physical letters left behind in the man's home (or army locker), those would go to his next-of-kin. In practice, if not legally, this is the same thing, saved personal correspondence.
My question is: why are yahoo being dinks about it?
Sounds sensible. However. THis defeats one of the main services you are paying for.
One of the main benefits there is risk mitigation. I use a credit card because it protects me, not because it's a risk.
The media makes such a stink about credit card numbers stolen on the internets, and I agree, it's sure inconvenient... a personal niusance for anyone affected, but rather than complain about internet thieves, what we SHOULD be complaining about is a) lack of authentication by merchants and b) poor handling of claims by the issuer (VISA)
You should be able to use your visa confident that if someone else gets it, it's not your problem.
If everyone treated it that way, it wouldn't be such an issue.
How Visa & The merchant want to verify that I have authorized a transaction is up to them. I will not pay for something I didn't authorize, plain and simple.
I realize many people, unfortunately, live deep in a big debt hole, and live off their credit cards, and any interruption to that is catastrophic and costs them a lot of auxilliary money in late fees, etc. Solution: Stop living at the limit of your credit.
My philosophy has always been this: The law, and the contract with the issuer, are there to protect ME from fraud, that's why I use it. If having a credit card was such a risk, I wouldn't use it.
Inconveniencing yourslef to protect the issuer is silly; that's what we are already paying them for (with information and fees)
Yup, and that's how it is supposed to work. The onus is on the merchant to ensure that the person using the credit card is, in fat, authorized to use it.
The credit card is a token, a symbol to show that a given issuer is extending you credit, and will pay the merchant on demand. It is not the credit itself.
Far too many merchants do not check signatures and/or ask for identification.. and that's fine, because it's their gamble, not mine.
You can generally contest any payment made on your credit card, and the merchant will have to demonstrate that you authorized the transaction, or he's out of luck. Barring a signature, or stuff shipped to your address, or perhaps video evidence, there isn't much they can do.
Have a read through apple's UI guidelines, there is good wisdom in there, even for non-apple stuff.
A second mouse button and context menus seems logical, as do many things once you get used to them, but to a brand new user, they aren't.
My mac has context menus all over the place if I have two buttons. Apple does not discourage this in any way, they only want basic application functionality to actually work with one button, which isn't too much to ask.
Everyone always complains about one button on macs, but I've yhet to hear someone point to a single example where a two button mouse didn't behave as expected on OSX, or where they felt functionality was missing.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and that's totally different, that's a formal immigration procedure to enter the UK or EU (and most other countries).
You were also free to NOT fill this out on the plane, and instead fill it out once you got to the Immigration department, they were handed out as a courtesy to try to speed things up.
It's not something that airline personnel demanded that you write down before you board the aircraft.
Flip side argument: if you want MY tourist dollars to be spent in YOUR country, you will treat me with a certain degree of respect, and not like some second class citizen. I have no intention of setting up camp and leeching off your system, I like my own country just fine, thanks.
Second: YOU don't have the right to interrogate me, but your Immigration officers and DHS definately do. But the parent article (which you read, right?) isn't talking about DHS or Immigration officers, it's talking about American Airlines employees in the UK, asking for information that they definately AREN'T required to ask for.
Yes, this is true, but this only extends as far as making sure you have a passport and visa, if required. Without these, you WILL be turned away, and the airline will get in shit.
Anything else is subjective, and up to the immigration officer, and can't be judged by the airline... and is therefore none of their business.
I've travelled to the US many times, from many countries, and never have I been asked by an airline official where I am staying.
Perhaps you mean Immigration officials? It's normal for them to ask for this information, yes, but NOT for airlines themselves.
Who asked you? Immigration officials, or airline people?
Asked by whom?
The airline, or immigration officials? Immigration asking such quesetions is normal. I've flown to Costa Rica many times in teh alst few years, and never has the airline asked me for anything other than my passport.
Now, I have to say where I will be staying on immigration forms, and may have to repeat this to the immigration officer, but that's standard operating procedure in just about any country.
It's NONE of their business. That's the point. They sold me a ticket, that's enough. What I am doing once I arrive in the US is absolutely not the concern or business of the airline.
Why on earth should I have to tell the airline anything at all about what I do for a living or where I'm staying? it's none of their business.
leakage of a CC# and relevant information now doesn't constitute authorization. The onus is already on the merchants to verify things. If the merchant has no signature, they have no guarantees of ever getting paid.
The media makes it out as if having your card number stoleln is the end of hte world. IT's only a minor niusance to you and the issuer, and only really a loss for the merchant that accepted the card wrongly.
Now.. SURE, to some people, having their card denied is a lot more destructive.. but let's not put all the blame on the card issuer here... if you live at the edge of your credit, and losing that card for even a couple days screws up your life.. who's fault is that?
Yes, a few things aren't as customizable. Look & feel is deliberately not as customizable, which means from mac to mac, things are more consistant.
Opening a series of folders IS slower than navigating with bash and tab completion... but hey, you could have opened a terminal window and done the exact same thing, including emacs.
Easy access to a useful command prompt? I don' get it, what's not easy about clicking the Terminal icon on your dock? How is that any differnt whatsoever than clicking an xterm shortcut on an X11 desktop?
If you want OS X to be exactly like linux, then you will be disappointed. If you take the time to actually work within it's limits, you'll likely find you work faster than ever.
You could also have shrunk that dock to a really, really tiny size.
- Terminal would be on your Dock, because you use it often. If it's not on your dock, then you are missing the point.
- Terminal has always been in Applications/Utilities on OSX.
- If terminal doesn't have the fonts and colors you want, then it's because you never took five minutes to configure it and save the settings.
"Oh but I can't hit a 3 key combo and get a full screen terminal".. well, that's just a particular thing about linux you like, not an overall user interface thing.
I understand your complaints, but they really boil down to "When I use a system I'm not used to, my productivity drops", and don't reflect the usability of OS X or Linux in particular. No general purpose computer is going to be perfectly usable by someone who never uses it.
I find the OS X interface graphically a bit slower than most x11 systems, or even windows, but I also find it far more consistant, both in terms of graphic redraw speed and the location of key items. The end result is that I can work faster and get to what I want faster than I can in gnome/kde/etc. Everything is more repeatable in OS X.
Of course they mean owned by the company.... they aren't paying you for nothing.
The point is that the 20% is permitted for projects that YOU want to persue, not necessarily part of the overall corporate plan. Along with this comes some use of company resources.
In other words, if you have a cool idea, you can persue it and see how it goes, like any other company project, without haveing to do a ton of paperwork and have it officially approved, etc.
For the majority of players, yes.
A lot of sports fans like sports games, because they already know the strategies, the teams, and the players. Being able to use real team names, logos, and data is a HUGE sales boost.
ActiveX has been like this for years, and years, and years... since the day it came out.
IF you are silly enough to set your security settings low enough to run foreign untrusted activeX controls, well, DUH.
You know what? You can do the SAME thing if you accept signed java applets when you shouldn't....
I don't think that's intentionally "frendly to the anti-virus industry".
The challenge of virus/worm writing is having the thing spread, of manipulating systems and hiding.
The reason there is rarely a destructive payload is because there is absolutely no challenge in a destructive payload... any moron can write destructive code.
Contrary to what the movies, and thanks to them, the media like to make people think, the primary goal of most virus writers isn't to wreak havok on a global scale, it's simply to see their code spread around the world.
It's largely just very irresponsible behavior, not necessarly malicious.
I can see it too.
Unfortunately, the terms of the TOS might not be legal, and hence, not relevant. Copyright can't be waived upon death, apparently, not contractually. Perhaps if it was in his will...
Are you sure about that? I know US citizens must declare their global income even if they don't live in the US, and haven't for years. There is an exemption of $60,000 or something if you don't live in the US at all and the income is also not from the US.. but.
I'm fairly certain that as long as you are living in the US, your global income and assetts are taxable.
The only way they would be exempt are via tax treaties, (ie: he's taxed on it in japan, so not taxed in the US). This depends entirely on the country in question.
if this was settlement for work done years ago in japan, though, it's likely not taxable in the US anyway, as it was earned previously.
And, if we were in the pre-internet days, and you didn't want anyone to have access to your personal files after your death (say, your saved letters and carbon copies of outgoing ones), then you would have to
a) destroy thenm
b) specify the fact in your will
because by default those inheriting your assetts get EVERYTHING.
Pretending the digital world is somehow different would be a mistake on your part.
Second: Switzerland.
- No, you can't have totally anonymous bank accounts, the movies just like to portray this.
- Switzerland has strong bank privacy laws. Without a court order, no bank employee can reveal any personal information about you or your holdings, and the courts cand and do punish breaches of these laws severely. A court order has to come from the local swiss judge in the district the bank is in, so unless you are breaking swiss criminal law, you are safe. One reason tehse accounts are so popular is that the swiss do not consider Tax Evasion a criminal offence.
- You can get "numbered" accounts, which are not anonymous, but the number of people with access to your personal details is reduced. For instance, the bank teller won't know your name or anything about you, but at some point up the chain of command, like the bank amanger, they DO know who you are. They are required by local laws and international agreements to know who money belongs to.
a) your bank likely isn't required to ask these things of you, your next of kin can still obtain the contents of your accounts/deposit boxes/etc without too much trouble. Why do they ask? It's much simpler and easier in the end if the bank can clearly show "Mr. X instructed us that upon his death Mrs. X gets immediate access to his holdings".
In this case, yahoo are just being dinks, and deserve some bad press over it.
Yes, but in the case of physical letters left behind in the man's home (or army locker), those would go to his next-of-kin. In practice, if not legally, this is the same thing, saved personal correspondence.
My question is: why are yahoo being dinks about it?
Sounds sensible. However. THis defeats one of the main services you are paying for.
One of the main benefits there is risk mitigation. I use a credit card because it protects me, not because it's a risk.
The media makes such a stink about credit card numbers stolen on the internets, and I agree, it's sure inconvenient... a personal niusance for anyone affected, but rather than complain about internet thieves, what we SHOULD be complaining about is a) lack of authentication by merchants and b) poor handling of claims by the issuer (VISA)
You should be able to use your visa confident that if someone else gets it, it's not your problem.
If everyone treated it that way, it wouldn't be such an issue.
How Visa & The merchant want to verify that I have authorized a transaction is up to them. I will not pay for something I didn't authorize, plain and simple.
I realize many people, unfortunately, live deep in a big debt hole, and live off their credit cards, and any interruption to that is catastrophic and costs them a lot of auxilliary money in late fees, etc. Solution: Stop living at the limit of your credit.
That's interesting, and I suppose it makes sense.
If you have video evidence, you can take it up with the customer in court, visa need not be involved.
I'm sure the whole thing is in the merchant agreement.
Good idea I suppose.
My philosophy has always been this: The law, and the contract with the issuer, are there to protect ME from fraud, that's why I use it. If having a credit card was such a risk, I wouldn't use it.
Inconveniencing yourslef to protect the issuer is silly; that's what we are already paying them for (with information and fees)
Yup, and that's how it is supposed to work. The onus is on the merchant to ensure that the person using the credit card is, in fat, authorized to use it.
The credit card is a token, a symbol to show that a given issuer is extending you credit, and will pay the merchant on demand. It is not the credit itself.
Far too many merchants do not check signatures and/or ask for identification.. and that's fine, because it's their gamble, not mine.
You can generally contest any payment made on your credit card, and the merchant will have to demonstrate that you authorized the transaction, or he's out of luck. Barring a signature, or stuff shipped to your address, or perhaps video evidence, there isn't much they can do.
True enough, you can't do that. I didn't say it was THE SAME as every other operating system.
And saying "Oh but I do have a need" well... what is it that you find difficult to do otherwise?
Have a read through apple's UI guidelines, there is good wisdom in there, even for non-apple stuff.
A second mouse button and context menus seems logical, as do many things once you get used to them, but to a brand new user, they aren't.
My mac has context menus all over the place if I have two buttons. Apple does not discourage this in any way, they only want basic application functionality to actually work with one button, which isn't too much to ask.
Everyone always complains about one button on macs, but I've yhet to hear someone point to a single example where a two button mouse didn't behave as expected on OSX, or where they felt functionality was missing.