Really? Can you explain why the U.S. dollar is the preferred currency in many nations including enemies of the U.S.? Can you name one country where one can't exchange dollars for the local currency? Can you name one instance in the last 50 years where Americans had to be paid twice a day in cash and then spend the money immediately so the value wouldn't decrease?
That word you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.
And, from the Koch brothers' and their supporters' views the Koch brothers are doing it out of necessity to try and stop Soros and his ilk from destroying the country.
All the bitcoins would revert to his living relatives. He lives with his mother. Therefore, he has at least one heir. If he as siblings, cousins, etc. then they are up for a share too.
The two best responses to a request for an interview are to file a restraining order and if that doesn't work, spend a couple bitcoins on an assassin
This comment states one of the best response to a request for an interview is to murder the requester and it is now at +5 interesting? What the actual fuck, people? The person who posted this comment is apparently a paranoid psychopath and you are effectively praising him.
Does this mean that you think all people should have to bear identifying signs in public?
No, because people are sufficiently different from one another that they are easily distinguishable.
If not, why should only people in vehicles have to display such signs?
False statement. The people are not required to the signs. The vehicles are. And, again. while people are, in general, easily distinguishable from one another, vehicles are not. It is not uncommon for one to have several effectively identical vehicles in a single parking lot. (fun fact: the vehicles would most likely be "champagne" colored Toyotas)
What commercial activity did I talk about banning?
I stand corrected. I was thinking of a different thread.
I would only use a cover outdoors if I didn't care about the car's pain
Again, the entire purpose of a car cover is to protect the car's paint.
One problem is transparent covers are illegal in many places.
Where I live transparent covers are legal, but translucent or colored covers are illegal if the vehicle is in motion.
I would love to have practical and legal countermeasures against this sort of thing
Check your local laws. A rag or towel may do just what you wish.
And if currently legal methods are put into widespread use, they will simply be outlawed.
Explain in detail how it is trespassing when it is parking lot that is open to the public and the people taking the pictures are part of the public.
As long as one is not trespassing, then it is in no way intrusive.
Depending on local law, taking photos is only a crime if one is taking photos in a location where taking photos is prohibited by law. In many places it is legal to take pictures any place that it isn't legally banned, but one can be ordered to leave if one takes a picture and it becomes trespassing if one refuses.
Many people think taking pictures is illegal but it is generally legal in any public or publicly accessible space where it is not banned by law. The person who took my camera and smashed it for taking a picture of his vehicle found that out the hard way when he was arrested for theft by snatch.
And, again, laws vary by jurisdiction, but I know of no laws that are being broken in any way.
I am doubtful of that. If I park my car and put a car cover on it, it will cover the license plate. And, it would definitely depend on jurisdiction. What is illegal in one town/county/city/state may be legal in the next. A good example of this is the dry counties/towns. My mother lives in a dry county, but a wet town. But, the next town over is dry as well. And, the next county over is wet. And, of course, alcohol is completely legal in the state I live in.
Yes and no. Even though they are private places to which the public is allowed, unless there is something to indicate that no photography is permitted, there is no reason for one not to take pictures, be it of people or license plates. And, security can request on leave for pretty much any reason and have the police come if one refuses and a trespass warrant can be sworn out saying if you return you will be arrested, that again becomes a question of will the action be detected and will it be anything anyone thinks of as untoward.
Basically, while one doesn't have an intrinsic right to be there, there is nothing saying one doesn't have permission to take pictures.
Please explain in detail how someone is going to mistake your car with your license plate for a car that could be exactly the same with a DIFFERENT license plate when they are reading license plates. And, then explain how this technology would make it any different than the repo man driving by and making that same mistake.
Even assuming that the license plate is read wrong, when the repo man shows up, he will find that the car with the license plate he is looking for isn't there. He might look in the front window and check the VIN, which would not match.
Actually, there are identical twins who do pretty much look the same.
Twins are quite rare. Visually identical cars are quite common.
people are free and able to hide many of their identifying features by wearing hats, sunglasses, ski masks, or whatever.
And the same is true of people's vehicles by adding pin striping, light covers, bumper stickers, magnetic signs, etc.
What's wrong with making it a little easier for people?
You are talking about making laws that ban certain commercial activities to make things marginally easier for some people.
Also, I wouldn't want to routinely use a cover on a car that hasn't been recently washed. Scratches from abrasive dirt on the paint are a certainty.
So, wash your car cover. But, you do know that the point car covers is to protect the finish from dirt, sunlight, being scratched by someone brushing up against it, etc., right?
I'm just suggesting a more elegant way of doing it. An electronic display could be completely automatic. When you shut the ignition switch off, the plate goes blank.
Well, here is a product for you: An LCD license plate cover that is transparent when the car is on and opaque when the car is off. Fairly simple to do. But, if it fails in the opaque condition, you might get pulled over, ticketed, and/or arrested. Of course, a rag hanging over the plate would work just as well so selling it might be a problem. And, the police also use visible license plates to look for stolen vehicles and the vehicles of criminals so your product might be banned, which is also a strike against an electronic plate.
Parking lots are generally considered public areas. Unless there is a sign forbidding photography or something barring entrance, there is nothing illegal or immoral or unethical.
If it is illegal to obscure one's license plate, then using a car cover would be illegal. To the best of my knowledge, it is only illegal to obscure one's license plate while the vehicle is in motion. After, all, if you live in a location that only requires one license plate, it would then be illegal to back into a parking space.
This is collecting data nonintrusively, so at what point would it become illegal?
We don't require people to wear identifying signs around their necks every time they venture out in the public.
There aren't a million people who look and dress exactly the same every single second of every day. There is one person who look like you. There are about millions of gold Toyota Camrys.
Static plates could be replaced by electronic displays that automatically go blank when the car is parked.
Or, you could just invest in a car cover and put it on your car and over the license plate when you park.
Instead of leveling it by taking rights away, we should give people the ability to easily and legally protect themselves.
You mean like being able to obscure one's license plate when the vehicle isn't moving by, say, putting on a car cover? Oddly enough, that is perfectly legal in every state.
a person following you everywhere you go with multiple cameras.
But, that is not what they are doing.
They are driving through parking lots taking pictures of license plates, then OCRing the images and storing the location and plate information in a database.
If you don't like someone taking a picture of your car, don't park your car in a public place where a picture can be taken of it. If you don't want someone taking a picture of your license plate, figure out a way to obscure it while parked.
My point is for the bottom 25% that is a sad reality
Your point is that poor people can't afford new computers and doesn't address my statement that they can afford a used computer.
300 is A TON OF MONEY for these guys and means no food and no rent out on the street...Be thankful for what you have. I used to make a lot more in the good days and as late as last year in the great recession accepted a job for $13/hr and moved back in with my parents. A gap on a resume is a career suicide and was forced to take it:-(
Cry me a fucking river. On 9/11/2001, 95% of the clients I supported at the company I worked disappeared in the rubble of the World Trade Center. I was laid off on 9/24/2001. As I had just come back from 2 weeks vaca, my last paycheck was light because I had taken time I hadn't earned yet. I worked retail for 6 months before I got a job doing phone support. I was fired from that job and couldn't find a job for 2 years. During that time I worked retail, worked as a courier, and I worked as commercial sign builder. I didn't make $10.00 an hour until 2005 and at the sign building job I made $8.50 an hour. I started my own IT consulting company and worked at it the entire time I wasn't working in IT. I found the money to go to community college. I educated myself. And, I kept trying to get a job in tech job market saturated with candidates thanks to a number of failed tech companies in the area. I didn't try to step into a job that paid as well or better than my last. I took a night job as a NOC operator, then contract production support job, and worked my way up. Now I am a systems engineer. I didn't give up, I worked hard, improved my skills and bootstrapped myself. A gap in your resume is not "career suicide" (it is no way suicide, you are misusing the term) unless you let it be. I wasn't a whiny over-entitled bitch. I certainly didn't use it as an excuse to cry about how I couldn't buy a new computer.
Now, stop with your sniveling, grow a pair a balls, and man the fuck up.
Oh, and if you want to complain about HR, come back when you see a junior programmer position listed that requires a minimum of 8 years of continuous C experience, 4 years of other programming languages, and 4 year sysadmin experience or don't bother sending your resume.
Apple is able to charge premium prices for mediocre hardware, control what software one loads on Apple devices, AND make money. Of course Microsoft is going to follow Apple's lead and do the same thing.
I got news for you, computers depreciate faster than cars. One can buy a good used computer with Win7 or Win8 on it for $300 or less.
BTW, the average er capita income in American is about $50,000.00 per year. That is quite a bit more than $10/hr(21,800/yr). So, the group you listed is not the average either.
HDD dies because they probably didn't have a backup running either.
So, just about everyone with a home computer then? Almost no one, including many IT professionals, run backups on their home machines. That is a major reason for the popularity of cloud applications, one can still access one's data if one's computer dies.
someone still running on XP on original hardware today
The thing is, if they replace the hardware, there is an ever-increasing chance that the new hardware won't have drivers for the old operating system. Even if MS continues to provide updates to XP, they will no longer provide it as a product. Eventually, it will become unprofitable for hardware and software makers to support XP because of the shrinking market share.
Well, I'll question it. XP, like it or not, is a major part of America's IT infrastructure.
No, it isn't. The problem is the use of the word "infrastructure". That is the equivalent of saying "The Toyota Camry is is a major part of America's transportation infrastructure" or "The air conditioner is a major part of America's electrical infrastructure."
But if customers are still finding enough value to pay MS to support it, then MS is just making arbitrary decisions that are hurt long term value
Not quite. You are skipping over the strategic goals of the company and road map to the future. MS saw mobile platforms, specifically tablets and phones, as the future of computing and started gearing their software to that market. The big mistake they made was ignoring the current users by making a unified UI geared towards the touchscreen mobile market. If they had been smart, they would have provided two UIs, one that is effectively Win7 and the other one Metro, and allowed the user to choose which UI to use.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the guy called to police to make the reporter leave.
Now we know how the wizards were controlling their magic warriors in Big Trouble in Little China!
You mistake an interest in tech and science with an interest in BitCoins.
Of course, he could just be crazy.
Really? Can you explain why the U.S. dollar is the preferred currency in many nations including enemies of the U.S.? Can you name one country where one can't exchange dollars for the local currency? Can you name one instance in the last 50 years where Americans had to be paid twice a day in cash and then spend the money immediately so the value wouldn't decrease?
That word you use, I do not think it means what you think it means.
And, from the Koch brothers' and their supporters' views the Koch brothers are doing it out of necessity to try and stop Soros and his ilk from destroying the country.
All the bitcoins would revert to his living relatives. He lives with his mother. Therefore, he has at least one heir. If he as siblings, cousins, etc. then they are up for a share too.
The two best responses to a request for an interview are to file a restraining order and if that doesn't work, spend a couple bitcoins on an assassin
This comment states one of the best response to a request for an interview is to murder the requester and it is now at +5 interesting? What the actual fuck, people? The person who posted this comment is apparently a paranoid psychopath and you are effectively praising him.
Does this mean that you think all people should have to bear identifying signs in public?
No, because people are sufficiently different from one another that they are easily distinguishable.
If not, why should only people in vehicles have to display such signs?
False statement. The people are not required to the signs. The vehicles are. And, again. while people are, in general, easily distinguishable from one another, vehicles are not. It is not uncommon for one to have several effectively identical vehicles in a single parking lot. (fun fact: the vehicles would most likely be "champagne" colored Toyotas)
What commercial activity did I talk about banning?
I stand corrected. I was thinking of a different thread.
I would only use a cover outdoors if I didn't care about the car's pain
Again, the entire purpose of a car cover is to protect the car's paint.
One problem is transparent covers are illegal in many places.
Where I live transparent covers are legal, but translucent or colored covers are illegal if the vehicle is in motion.
I would love to have practical and legal countermeasures against this sort of thing
Check your local laws. A rag or towel may do just what you wish.
And if currently legal methods are put into widespread use, they will simply be outlawed.
That is an assumption that has no basis in fact.
Explain in detail how it is trespassing when it is parking lot that is open to the public and the people taking the pictures are part of the public.
As long as one is not trespassing, then it is in no way intrusive.
Depending on local law, taking photos is only a crime if one is taking photos in a location where taking photos is prohibited by law. In many places it is legal to take pictures any place that it isn't legally banned, but one can be ordered to leave if one takes a picture and it becomes trespassing if one refuses.
Many people think taking pictures is illegal but it is generally legal in any public or publicly accessible space where it is not banned by law. The person who took my camera and smashed it for taking a picture of his vehicle found that out the hard way when he was arrested for theft by snatch.
And, again, laws vary by jurisdiction, but I know of no laws that are being broken in any way.
I am doubtful of that. If I park my car and put a car cover on it, it will cover the license plate. And, it would definitely depend on jurisdiction. What is illegal in one town/county/city/state may be legal in the next. A good example of this is the dry counties/towns. My mother lives in a dry county, but a wet town. But, the next town over is dry as well. And, the next county over is wet. And, of course, alcohol is completely legal in the state I live in.
Yes and no. Even though they are private places to which the public is allowed, unless there is something to indicate that no photography is permitted, there is no reason for one not to take pictures, be it of people or license plates. And, security can request on leave for pretty much any reason and have the police come if one refuses and a trespass warrant can be sworn out saying if you return you will be arrested, that again becomes a question of will the action be detected and will it be anything anyone thinks of as untoward.
Basically, while one doesn't have an intrinsic right to be there, there is nothing saying one doesn't have permission to take pictures.
Please explain in detail how someone is going to mistake your car with your license plate for a car that could be exactly the same with a DIFFERENT license plate when they are reading license plates. And, then explain how this technology would make it any different than the repo man driving by and making that same mistake.
Even assuming that the license plate is read wrong, when the repo man shows up, he will find that the car with the license plate he is looking for isn't there. He might look in the front window and check the VIN, which would not match.
Undoubtedly, the laws vary by jurisdiction but if car covers are legal, then it is probably legal do cover the plate with a towel.
Actually, there are identical twins who do pretty much look the same.
Twins are quite rare. Visually identical cars are quite common.
people are free and able to hide many of their identifying features by wearing hats, sunglasses, ski masks, or whatever.
And the same is true of people's vehicles by adding pin striping, light covers, bumper stickers, magnetic signs, etc.
What's wrong with making it a little easier for people?
You are talking about making laws that ban certain commercial activities to make things marginally easier for some people.
Also, I wouldn't want to routinely use a cover on a car that hasn't been recently washed. Scratches from abrasive dirt on the paint are a certainty.
So, wash your car cover. But, you do know that the point car covers is to protect the finish from dirt, sunlight, being scratched by someone brushing up against it, etc., right?
I'm just suggesting a more elegant way of doing it. An electronic display could be completely automatic. When you shut the ignition switch off, the plate goes blank.
Well, here is a product for you: An LCD license plate cover that is transparent when the car is on and opaque when the car is off. Fairly simple to do. But, if it fails in the opaque condition, you might get pulled over, ticketed, and/or arrested. Of course, a rag hanging over the plate would work just as well so selling it might be a problem. And, the police also use visible license plates to look for stolen vehicles and the vehicles of criminals so your product might be banned, which is also a strike against an electronic plate.
Parking lots are generally considered public areas. Unless there is a sign forbidding photography or something barring entrance, there is nothing illegal or immoral or unethical.
If it is illegal to obscure one's license plate, then using a car cover would be illegal. To the best of my knowledge, it is only illegal to obscure one's license plate while the vehicle is in motion. After, all, if you live in a location that only requires one license plate, it would then be illegal to back into a parking space.
We don't require people to wear identifying signs around their necks every time they venture out in the public.
There aren't a million people who look and dress exactly the same every single second of every day. There is one person who look like you. There are about millions of gold Toyota Camrys.
Static plates could be replaced by electronic displays that automatically go blank when the car is parked.
Or, you could just invest in a car cover and put it on your car and over the license plate when you park.
Instead of leveling it by taking rights away, we should give people the ability to easily and legally protect themselves.
You mean like being able to obscure one's license plate when the vehicle isn't moving by, say, putting on a car cover? Oddly enough, that is perfectly legal in every state.
So, you only want people to take pictures you like or use pictures in a way you don't like and every use you don't agree with should be illegal.
a person following you everywhere you go with multiple cameras.
But, that is not what they are doing.
They are driving through parking lots taking pictures of license plates, then OCRing the images and storing the location and plate information in a database.
If you don't like someone taking a picture of your car, don't park your car in a public place where a picture can be taken of it. If you don't want someone taking a picture of your license plate, figure out a way to obscure it while parked.
Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Koch Brothers, etc would be considered outlines.
So are people who make minimum wage.
for ever millionaire there are many many more who do make $10/hr waiting tables, interning, stocking shelves at Walmart, etc.
According to Wikipedia, there are about 3.1 million individual millionaires in the the U.S.(2010) and about 6.7 millionaire households(2008). There are 3.6 million individuals making minimum wage.
My point is for the bottom 25% that is a sad reality
Your point is that poor people can't afford new computers and doesn't address my statement that they can afford a used computer.
300 is A TON OF MONEY for these guys and means no food and no rent out on the street...Be thankful for what you have. I used to make a lot more in the good days and as late as last year in the great recession accepted a job for $13/hr and moved back in with my parents. A gap on a resume is a career suicide and was forced to take it :-(
Cry me a fucking river. On 9/11/2001, 95% of the clients I supported at the company I worked disappeared in the rubble of the World Trade Center. I was laid off on 9/24/2001. As I had just come back from 2 weeks vaca, my last paycheck was light because I had taken time I hadn't earned yet. I worked retail for 6 months before I got a job doing phone support. I was fired from that job and couldn't find a job for 2 years. During that time I worked retail, worked as a courier, and I worked as commercial sign builder. I didn't make $10.00 an hour until 2005 and at the sign building job I made $8.50 an hour. I started my own IT consulting company and worked at it the entire time I wasn't working in IT. I found the money to go to community college. I educated myself. And, I kept trying to get a job in tech job market saturated with candidates thanks to a number of failed tech companies in the area. I didn't try to step into a job that paid as well or better than my last. I took a night job as a NOC operator, then contract production support job, and worked my way up. Now I am a systems engineer. I didn't give up, I worked hard, improved my skills and bootstrapped myself. A gap in your resume is not "career suicide" (it is no way suicide, you are misusing the term) unless you let it be. I wasn't a whiny over-entitled bitch. I certainly didn't use it as an excuse to cry about how I couldn't buy a new computer.
Now, stop with your sniveling, grow a pair a balls, and man the fuck up.
Oh, and if you want to complain about HR, come back when you see a junior programmer position listed that requires a minimum of 8 years of continuous C experience, 4 years of other programming languages, and 4 year sysadmin experience or don't bother sending your resume.
Apple is able to charge premium prices for mediocre hardware, control what software one loads on Apple devices, AND make money. Of course Microsoft is going to follow Apple's lead and do the same thing.
I got news for you, computers depreciate faster than cars. One can buy a good used computer with Win7 or Win8 on it for $300 or less.
BTW, the average er capita income in American is about $50,000.00 per year. That is quite a bit more than $10/hr(21,800/yr). So, the group you listed is not the average either.
HDD dies because they probably didn't have a backup running either.
So, just about everyone with a home computer then? Almost no one, including many IT professionals, run backups on their home machines. That is a major reason for the popularity of cloud applications, one can still access one's data if one's computer dies.
someone still running on XP on original hardware today
The thing is, if they replace the hardware, there is an ever-increasing chance that the new hardware won't have drivers for the old operating system. Even if MS continues to provide updates to XP, they will no longer provide it as a product. Eventually, it will become unprofitable for hardware and software makers to support XP because of the shrinking market share.
Well, I'll question it. XP, like it or not, is a major part of America's IT infrastructure.
No, it isn't. The problem is the use of the word "infrastructure". That is the equivalent of saying "The Toyota Camry is is a major part of America's transportation infrastructure" or "The air conditioner is a major part of America's electrical infrastructure."
But if customers are still finding enough value to pay MS to support it, then MS is just making arbitrary decisions that are hurt long term value
Not quite. You are skipping over the strategic goals of the company and road map to the future. MS saw mobile platforms, specifically tablets and phones, as the future of computing and started gearing their software to that market. The big mistake they made was ignoring the current users by making a unified UI geared towards the touchscreen mobile market. If they had been smart, they would have provided two UIs, one that is effectively Win7 and the other one Metro, and allowed the user to choose which UI to use.