I don't see any ads. I'm not being a smartass, they're not blocked or anything. When I search for other things I see ads. I'm guessing they changed something in the 6 or so hours since you posted this.
Like anybody here, including yourself, has a net connection because their life depends on it.
Umm, what? You're the one who said you "needed" to use IE. I said you can get by just fine with anything.
Second, you've acknowledged that it CAN be too inconvenient to use an alternative.
Again, no. I can't use IE. So at no point do I find it "too inconvenient" to use something besides IE. You're the one who made the case that you yourself "have to" use it even if you don't want to and I merely pointed out that you are choosing to use it based on convenience and you just don't want to not use it badly enough. How you manage to argue that I'm confusing convenience and need is baffling to me, unles you're doing it deliberately to cover for your previous misstep.
and for forgetting to hit the post anonymously button
Actually, I forgot to log in the first time. I don't post anonymously, karma is for trolls.
Perhaps you should read the Fractal Mapper FAQ. You can publish any maps you created under whatever terms you like, so long as they don't contain any Fractal Mapper map symbols (because the map symbols are art that they have created and own). They do not "legally own" any maps you create under any circumstances, even if you include their map symbols, copyright law doesn't work like that. If you create maps with Fractal Mapper distributed map symbols you have created a derivative work based on their work. You cannot distribute it, but they certainly can't distribute it either (nor do they own it). If you use Fractal Mapper as a tool, and do not include any of their pre-made art then they have no more claim on your maps than Adobe would have claim to an image you created in Photoshop.
Ok. Prove it, dipshit. Show me a site that doesn't work without IE, and then prove why you need to go to it. You almost certainly don't need to (about the only thing that qualifies as a need is employment or government related). It's just too inconvenient for you to use an alternative. Your convenience is different than your wants and needs, don't pretend otherwise.
What are you worried about? Did you plan on installing it? Are you concerned about VNC too, because someone might start controlling your computer remotely? Really, people, you have to choose to install it. If you install things from the internet that tell you they're going to observe all of your web browsing and then get upset about a breach of privacy there's nothing a third party can do to protect you from yourself.
So does MRTG, is that "spyware"? Nothing you install voluntarily can be considered spyware, otherwise it gets ridiculous. If that's the criteria we're using, VNC must be the epitome of evil, it lets someone control your computer remotely! Ban it!
It doesn't at all meet the commonly accepted definition of spyware. If it were bundled as part of some other software and you didn't know about it, sure, that's very spyware and scummy. But to get this program you have to explicitly go to their web site and choose to install this one program that's very explicit about what it does. If you're not tricked, lied to or treated in any way dishonestly, there's no way you can consider it spyware. Go look at the page and tell me how they "trick" you. There are seven sentences of normal size type in the body of that page (and three headers) and one of those seven sentences explicitly states:
"In exchange for having their Internet browsing and purchasing activity observed, members have access to free email virus scanning and other benefits."
If that page "tricked" you, turn off your computer now and back away.
Unless it starts getting buried as part of other installs, it's not spyware. They're very upfront about what they do. There's very little text on the linked page, and one paragraph (of three) reads in the same size type as the other text:
Marketscore is part of an online market research community with over 2 million members worldwide. Marketscore relies on its members to gain valuable insight into Internet trends and behavior. In exchange for having their Internet browsing and purchasing activity observed, members have access to free email virus scanning and other benefits.
You have to draw the line of reasonableness somewhere. If that site isn't clear enough for you to understand what they do, you probably shouldn't be on the Internet (or at least not from a computer configuration you could hurt yourself with).
This article has to be referring to those "100 games in 1" (or whatever) consoles that they sell in the mall. I just don't see the market for a quarter of a million pirated NES consoles otherwise, not to mention games you can get at Gamestop for a buck.
I don't see how those two "hands" are "the other" or even related. What do not being able to ascertain the physical identity of a spammer and responding to spam email validating your address as good have to do with one another?
So? That's a good thing. I prefer to know up front where someone's bias lies. Everyone has one and when you try to hide it you have no way of knowing where it might creep it. Just be honest about it and accept it. I can go read an MSDN journal for an IE-biased opinion.
It's not about amputated body parts. Fingerprint scanners can be fooled by gummy bears. Once someone has a copy of your fingerprint you can't revoke that password and give yourself a new fingerprint. Biometrics are only good in a limited sphere where other measures are in place.
But then there's accountability. With a password only system there can always be the issue of a stolen password. With the thumbprint and the circumstances it's used in it's basically impossible it's going to be forged.
Your biometric credentials couldn't be "compromised" for this purpose, that's the whole point as to why it's useful. It's a limited access, limited purpose system. It's only accessed from two physical terminals located in the pharmacy only during staffed hours and only does one thing, prints prescription approval labels. It exists to ensure that a given pharmacist actually does approve a given prescription rather than a tech who shoulder surfed a password or a lazy/too busy pharmacist who just gave the techs his password because he trusted them.
As for being any good? Yes. It's ideal for this particular scenario and probably many other highly similar ones.
No, biometrics doesn't "suck". But it's also not the security panacea it's usually made out to be. Biometrics can be a valuable part of the security "arsenal". One good use for it is a verification where the main breach won't come from malicious access but rather laziness.
For example, a friend of mine is a pharmacist. The pharmacy technicians do most of the putting of pills in bottles, but everything has to be reviewed and signed off on by a pharmacist before it's released. The pharmacist verifies the finished prescription, uses his thumbprint to indicate he approves it, and a label is printed. With a password system it's far too easy for anyone to print out the approval label, and that's what would happen. Not out of maliciousness, but simply out of convenience.
Coins cost twice as much to mint (4 cents vs 8 cents for a dollar coin), sure, but that's only a minor part of the equation. Coins last in circulation for about thirty years, while a bill needs to be replaced after just twenty two months. The GAO estimates that it costs $522 million a year to keep printing dollar bills rather than mandating a switch to coins.
That said, I hate dollar coins. I have enough change, I don't need more. Bills are easier to manage from a consumer standpoint.
What does being a Republican/conservative relate to that, unless coincidentally the FCC is made up of Republicans?
The five FCC Commisioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for five year terms, although only three may be from the same party. It's very much a political office, and this decision was divided down party lines. Copps and Adelstein are the two Democrats.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask ReplayTV, who were sued into oblivion because of their automatic commercial skip.
I don't see any ads. I'm not being a smartass, they're not blocked or anything. When I search for other things I see ads. I'm guessing they changed something in the 6 or so hours since you posted this.
"Have to" is synonymous with "need".
Like anybody here, including yourself, has a net connection because their life depends on it.
Umm, what? You're the one who said you "needed" to use IE. I said you can get by just fine with anything.
Second, you've acknowledged that it CAN be too inconvenient to use an alternative.
Again, no. I can't use IE. So at no point do I find it "too inconvenient" to use something besides IE. You're the one who made the case that you yourself "have to" use it even if you don't want to and I merely pointed out that you are choosing to use it based on convenience and you just don't want to not use it badly enough. How you manage to argue that I'm confusing convenience and need is baffling to me, unles you're doing it deliberately to cover for your previous misstep.
and for forgetting to hit the post anonymously button
Actually, I forgot to log in the first time. I don't post anonymously, karma is for trolls.
Perhaps you should read the Fractal Mapper FAQ. You can publish any maps you created under whatever terms you like, so long as they don't contain any Fractal Mapper map symbols (because the map symbols are art that they have created and own). They do not "legally own" any maps you create under any circumstances, even if you include their map symbols, copyright law doesn't work like that. If you create maps with Fractal Mapper distributed map symbols you have created a derivative work based on their work. You cannot distribute it, but they certainly can't distribute it either (nor do they own it). If you use Fractal Mapper as a tool, and do not include any of their pre-made art then they have no more claim on your maps than Adobe would have claim to an image you created in Photoshop.
You didn't follow his link. Gametable is a Java app. Works fine for me on Mandrake 10.1, so I see no reason it won't work on a Mac.
Ok. Prove it, dipshit. Show me a site that doesn't work without IE, and then prove why you need to go to it. You almost certainly don't need to (about the only thing that qualifies as a need is employment or government related). It's just too inconvenient for you to use an alternative. Your convenience is different than your wants and needs, don't pretend otherwise.
What are you worried about? Did you plan on installing it? Are you concerned about VNC too, because someone might start controlling your computer remotely? Really, people, you have to choose to install it. If you install things from the internet that tell you they're going to observe all of your web browsing and then get upset about a breach of privacy there's nothing a third party can do to protect you from yourself.
So does MRTG, is that "spyware"? Nothing you install voluntarily can be considered spyware, otherwise it gets ridiculous. If that's the criteria we're using, VNC must be the epitome of evil, it lets someone control your computer remotely! Ban it!
"In exchange for having their Internet browsing and purchasing activity observed, members have access to free email virus scanning and other benefits."
If that page "tricked" you, turn off your computer now and back away.
Marketscore is part of an online market research community with over 2 million members worldwide. Marketscore relies on its members to gain valuable insight into Internet trends and behavior. In exchange for having their Internet browsing and purchasing activity observed, members have access to free email virus scanning and other benefits.
You have to draw the line of reasonableness somewhere. If that site isn't clear enough for you to understand what they do, you probably shouldn't be on the Internet (or at least not from a computer configuration you could hurt yourself with).
This article has to be referring to those "100 games in 1" (or whatever) consoles that they sell in the mall. I just don't see the market for a quarter of a million pirated NES consoles otherwise, not to mention games you can get at Gamestop for a buck.
And when it's based in China or some third world country? Or when it's a joe job?
Usually through instructions in the spam itself, such as a link.
I don't see how those two "hands" are "the other" or even related. What do not being able to ascertain the physical identity of a spammer and responding to spam email validating your address as good have to do with one another?
So? That's a good thing. I prefer to know up front where someone's bias lies. Everyone has one and when you try to hide it you have no way of knowing where it might creep it. Just be honest about it and accept it. I can go read an MSDN journal for an IE-biased opinion.
Yeah...it was a dumb joke that seemed even dumber in hindsight, sorry.
The one in the last sentence of that excerpt you pasted.
It's not about amputated body parts. Fingerprint scanners can be fooled by gummy bears. Once someone has a copy of your fingerprint you can't revoke that password and give yourself a new fingerprint. Biometrics are only good in a limited sphere where other measures are in place.
But then there's accountability. With a password only system there can always be the issue of a stolen password. With the thumbprint and the circumstances it's used in it's basically impossible it's going to be forged.
As for being any good? Yes. It's ideal for this particular scenario and probably many other highly similar ones.
For example, a friend of mine is a pharmacist. The pharmacy technicians do most of the putting of pills in bottles, but everything has to be reviewed and signed off on by a pharmacist before it's released. The pharmacist verifies the finished prescription, uses his thumbprint to indicate he approves it, and a label is printed. With a password system it's far too easy for anyone to print out the approval label, and that's what would happen. Not out of maliciousness, but simply out of convenience.
Coins cost twice as much to mint (4 cents vs 8 cents for a dollar coin), sure, but that's only a minor part of the equation. Coins last in circulation for about thirty years, while a bill needs to be replaced after just twenty two months. The GAO estimates that it costs $522 million a year to keep printing dollar bills rather than mandating a switch to coins.
That said, I hate dollar coins. I have enough change, I don't need more. Bills are easier to manage from a consumer standpoint.
They were all appointed by Bush. Commissioners only serve a five year term. They're Democrats because the law limits one party to three Commissioners.
The five FCC Commisioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for five year terms, although only three may be from the same party. It's very much a political office, and this decision was divided down party lines. Copps and Adelstein are the two Democrats.
Free, Open Source .rb format creator:
http://rbmake.sourceforge.net/