No one has the ability to remove you from the network, or control ("censor") what you share. However, you are not completely anonymous on the network, and if you share something illict you can be found if someone really wants to (which this fellow apparently does).
You know, I'd buy them, if only I could. But you know what? I can't. I can buy the new versions of 4,5 and 6, but not the original versions. Lucas won't sell the originals anymore. So, no money from me, George.
The one thing you can say about the X-Box, and I don't think there's any denying this, is that they did the hardware right.
Sure that can be denied, quite easily, because they didn't do the hardware right and it's killing them. They grabbed nearly off the shelf parts and shoved them together to make basically a PC. This is expensive and inefficient. They don't make their own hardware, they have to pay someone else to do it for the, and they can't take advantage of any technological advances.
Sony, on the other hand, has their own fab plant. They designed custom chips, and they recently miniaturized even more to cut costs. Sony and Nintendo are making money on their hardware, even after cutting prices. Nintendo has a similar arrangement. Microsoft is losing money, and that was before they were forced to cut prices to keep up. The X-Box division is hemorrhaging cash right now with that couple hundred dollar loss per box. Sure, they can afford it for now, but they have to keep evaluating how long it will take them to get entrenched in the console or set-top box market. They have to decide if it's going to happen at all, and if they need to stay in or cut their losses. They're playing a dangerous game, and it could go either way.
Allegedly, the reason for Kentucky Fried Chicken changing their name to KFC was that in Canada, the meat they were serving could no longer be legally called Chicken.
interesting in that we're creating another species with qualities that suit humans but unsuitable for life on its own.
Funny, that's not what the article said.
"the lack of feathers keeps the birds cooler and leaner than their feathered cousins -- useful in hot countries."
and
"By keeping the chickens feather-free, the birds would direct their energy to growing larger rather than keeping cool."
These birds are quite well suited to temperate climates. Chickens don't need feathers any more. Growing them just drains energy the birds could put to another use.
Just as soon as TiVO decides to offer them in CANADA!!
I'm sure you'll see that just as soon as Canada dumps its inane language laws and TiVo can offer their existing product. It's apparently not worth it to them to undertake the necessary work required to sell there for what they'd make off it right now.
In the meantime, buy a DirecTiVo, buy a lifetime TiVo sub and hack it to get the DirecTV programming. It's perfectly legal there (as long as you pay for the TiVo part).
A few months ago, a friend archived a 6-hour concert onto the TiVo just by hitting "Record" while it was on. It records until your available space is used up, just like a VCR.
No, it does not. It records the program that's on in the block you hit "record." You recorded all of a 6 hour concert because it was scheduled to be on for 6 hours, not because TiVo kept going. TiVo will stop recording at the time the program is scheduled to end. If you want to, say, record a news channel all day long until you run out of space, you can't do it. TiVo records programs, not time periods, with the exception of an explicitly set up manual recording.
The best way to get around this is setting a session cookie via Apache. Then you key off that.
Then you run into people like me who routinely deny cookies unless the site has a valid reason for issuing them. This has become easier than ever for the average user with IE6's cookie management.
And it hasn't been for over two years now. Why is this particular piece of FUD so hard to stamp out? Debit cards from Visa/MC have the exact same level of liability, specifically none, with no limitation on how soon you need to report the card lost/stolen.
Anyho', this wouldn't be a problem if people had the right to their own image... would it?
Why the hell should you have the exclusive right to your image? If you're participating in a riot downtown and I'm filming it for the local news that's your own problem. Say goodbye to any sort of television news reporting. "Sorry, you don't have permission to show that video of me throwing a brick though the store window during that riot. It's my image, after all."
The law says so... even if your being abused. Ask the mayor of New York! mmmm, splifffy weed. I tried it and I liked it
How's he being abused, again? Is he being misquoted in some way? Is his quote being taken out of context in any way? Absolutely not. He was asked if he ver smoked pot, and he relpied that he did that and he enjoyed it. Are you saying he should be able to control what people say about him?
Even established companies screw this up. The DC controllers blew, not necessarily size, but shape. I find the DC controllers to be the most comfortable I've ever used. I absolutely despise the PS controller, it kills my left thumb after a little while.
All Mammal clones possible so far are FEMALE! You will never see this fact cited ever in a non-journal article. You will never see this "fact" because it really isn't a fact. See this article from way back in 1999 about the first male mouse clone.
I'm amazed at the lameness of some of the jokes that happen on April 1st. Except it's not a joke. Here's an old story from February of two years ago. But good job on the insulting airs of cynicism from someone so afraid they might look the tiniest bit silly by falling for a joke that feel the need to preemptively insult others. You've fallen for the best joke of all, sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.
The real laws vary from state to state, but according to federal law, only federal agencies are restricted in the use of your SSN. State governments are not restricted in its use by federal law, although some states restrict its use by statute. So, although it's most likely legal for a state DMV to require your SSN, it's not beyond possibility that they aren't allowed to insist on your providing it. Check with your own state's laws to be certain. Once again, completely false. All government agencies, federal, state, and even local, are regulated by the The Privacy Act of 1974 (see Section 7). It most certainly does not "vary from state to state." State and local agencies are required to disclose three things: 1. whether the disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, 2. by what statutory or other authority the SSN is solicited, and 3. what uses will be made of the number.
Also, Section 7 makes it illegal for Federal, state, and local government agencies to deny any rights, privileges or benefits to individuals who refuse to provide their SSNs unless the disclosure is required by Federal statute, or the disclosure is to an agency for use in a record system which required the SSN before 1975. Anytime you're asked for your SSN, look for a Privacy Act Statement, or ask for one. That will tell you if it's mandatory or not, if there isn't one, don't give your number.
She then tells me that she is sorry but she is not allowed to sell alcohol to out-of-State resident. WTF? Some places in Massachusetts do something like that as well. They won't sell to someone under 25 with an out of state license. The logic and applicability of it is downright puzzling. It's happened at bars, but not always, and only once at a restaurant. I'm not sure if it's a mandatory thing for bars and not restaurants, or just something they've started doing. I live in Connecticut, not far from the Mass border and I'm older than that, but one or two of my friends aren't and its caught us more than once (not knowing the logic of it). It frankly wasn't worth my time to figure out and adhere to, so now we just don't go out in Massachusetts anymore when we might want to drink. Way to drive away business, Massholes.
It is a federal crime to _require _ your SSN for any reason other than social security. People still believe that blatantly false urban legend? Apparently so, since the Social Security Administration has to debunk it right on their web site: "If a business or other enterprise asks you for your Social Security number, you can refuse to give it to them. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested." Sure they can't require you to give it to them, but they certainly can require it as a condition of doing business with you.
As a Cox customer, I can say that's incorrect. They have news servers that are painfully slow, but reasonably complete with half-decent retention. They seem to be running their own servers with a lot of help from Usenetserver. You may have been thinking of Comcast, who originally announced they wouldn't be providing news until some unspecified point in the future, if at all. Whether it was public outcry or some other business reason, they recanted and outsourced to Giganews. For a measly 1 gig/month.
In general, though, ISPs aren't dropping Usenet so much as outsourcing it. For less than what it cost them to run their own servers, poorly, they can outsource to a quality outfit like Supernews.
Slashdot Mirror
No one has the ability to remove you from the network, or control ("censor") what you share. However, you are not completely anonymous on the network, and if you share something illict you can be found if someone really wants to (which this fellow apparently does).
You know, I'd buy them, if only I could. But you know what? I can't. I can buy the new versions of 4,5 and 6, but not the original versions. Lucas won't sell the originals anymore. So, no money from me, George.
Oink oink!
Sure that can be denied, quite easily, because they didn't do the hardware right and it's killing them. They grabbed nearly off the shelf parts and shoved them together to make basically a PC. This is expensive and inefficient. They don't make their own hardware, they have to pay someone else to do it for the, and they can't take advantage of any technological advances.
Sony, on the other hand, has their own fab plant. They designed custom chips, and they recently miniaturized even more to cut costs. Sony and Nintendo are making money on their hardware, even after cutting prices. Nintendo has a similar arrangement. Microsoft is losing money, and that was before they were forced to cut prices to keep up. The X-Box division is hemorrhaging cash right now with that couple hundred dollar loss per box. Sure, they can afford it for now, but they have to keep evaluating how long it will take them to get entrenched in the console or set-top box market. They have to decide if it's going to happen at all, and if they need to stay in or cut their losses. They're playing a dangerous game, and it could go either way.
Old Urban Legend, debunked by Snopes.
and
"By keeping the chickens feather-free, the birds would direct their energy to growing larger rather than keeping cool."
These birds are quite well suited to temperate climates. Chickens don't need feathers any more. Growing them just drains energy the birds could put to another use.
the inerds I suppose you could call them that
I'm sure you'll see that just as soon as Canada dumps its inane language laws and TiVo can offer their existing product. It's apparently not worth it to them to undertake the necessary work required to sell there for what they'd make off it right now.
In the meantime, buy a DirecTiVo, buy a lifetime TiVo sub and hack it to get the DirecTV programming. It's perfectly legal there (as long as you pay for the TiVo part).
No, it does not. It records the program that's on in the block you hit "record." You recorded all of a 6 hour concert because it was scheduled to be on for 6 hours, not because TiVo kept going. TiVo will stop recording at the time the program is scheduled to end. If you want to, say, record a news channel all day long until you run out of space, you can't do it. TiVo records programs, not time periods, with the exception of an explicitly set up manual recording.
Then you run into people like me who routinely deny cookies unless the site has a valid reason for issuing them. This has become easier than ever for the average user with IE6's cookie management.
And it hasn't been for over two years now. Why is this particular piece of FUD so hard to stamp out? Debit cards from Visa/MC have the exact same level of liability, specifically none, with no limitation on how soon you need to report the card lost/stolen.
Visa:
Card Comparison chart, notice that all the check cards are covered by Zero Liability.
Information on Visa's Zero Liability Policy.
Mastercard:
Debit MasterCard features, notice their own Zero Liability Policy listed.
Information on the MasterCard Zero Liability Policy.
It depends on the state. Here's a summary of voyeurism laws by state, as well as federal laws.
watch it pass now, because of varying penalties for minors. No matter what other inanity is attached that one provision makes it "for the children."
Why the hell should you have the exclusive right to your image? If you're participating in a riot downtown and I'm filming it for the local news that's your own problem.
Say goodbye to any sort of television news reporting. "Sorry, you don't have permission to show that video of me throwing a brick though the store window during that riot. It's my image, after all."
The law says so... even if your being abused. Ask the mayor of New York! mmmm, splifffy weed. I tried it and I liked it
How's he being abused, again? Is he being misquoted in some way? Is his quote being taken out of context in any way? Absolutely not. He was asked if he ver smoked pot, and he relpied that he did that and he enjoyed it. Are you saying he should be able to control what people say about him?
Even established companies screw this up. The DC controllers blew, not necessarily size, but shape.
I find the DC controllers to be the most comfortable I've ever used. I absolutely despise the PS controller, it kills my left thumb after a little while.
I mean, who wants discontented prostitutes?
Lonely masochists?
All Mammal clones possible so far are FEMALE!
You will never see this fact cited ever in a non-journal article.
You will never see this "fact" because it really isn't a fact.
See this article from way back in 1999 about the first male mouse clone.
I'm amazed at the lameness of some of the jokes that happen on April 1st.
Except it's not a joke. Here's an old story from February of two years ago. But good job on the insulting airs of cynicism from someone so afraid they might look the tiniest bit silly by falling for a joke that feel the need to preemptively insult others. You've fallen for the best joke of all, sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.
The real laws vary from state to state, but according to federal law, only federal agencies are restricted in the use of your SSN. State governments are not restricted in its use by federal law, although some states restrict its use by statute. So, although it's most likely legal for a state DMV to require your SSN, it's not beyond possibility that they aren't allowed to insist on your providing it. Check with your own state's laws to be certain.
Once again, completely false. All government agencies, federal, state, and even local, are regulated by the The Privacy Act of 1974 (see Section 7). It most certainly does not "vary from state to state." State and local agencies are required to disclose three things:
1. whether the disclosure is mandatory or voluntary,
2. by what statutory or other authority the SSN is solicited, and
3. what uses will be made of the number.
Also, Section 7 makes it illegal for Federal, state, and local government agencies to deny any rights, privileges or benefits to individuals who refuse to provide their SSNs unless the disclosure is required by Federal statute, or the disclosure is to an agency for use in a record system which required the SSN before 1975.
Anytime you're asked for your SSN, look for a Privacy Act Statement, or ask for one. That will tell you if it's mandatory or not, if there isn't one, don't give your number.
Yeah, they do, you'll see things like "Edit: Due to comments, blah blah". Of course, this time he just quietly changed it without an edit.
She then tells me that she is sorry but she is not allowed to sell alcohol to out-of-State resident. WTF?
Some places in Massachusetts do something like that as well. They won't sell to someone under 25 with an out of state license. The logic and applicability of it is downright puzzling. It's happened at bars, but not always, and only once at a restaurant. I'm not sure if it's a mandatory thing for bars and not restaurants, or just something they've started doing. I live in Connecticut, not far from the Mass border and I'm older than that, but one or two of my friends aren't and its caught us more than once (not knowing the logic of it). It frankly wasn't worth my time to figure out and adhere to, so now we just don't go out in Massachusetts anymore when we might want to drink. Way to drive away business, Massholes.
It is a federal crime to _require _ your SSN for any reason other than social security.
People still believe that blatantly false urban legend? Apparently so, since the Social Security Administration has to debunk it right on their web site:
"If a business or other enterprise asks you for your Social Security number, you can refuse to give it to them. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested."
Sure they can't require you to give it to them, but they certainly can require it as a condition of doing business with you.
Pegasus Mail, here, and Eudora Sponsored (and possibly Light) version, here.
Interesting how they point out that the Alaskan Senator is a Republican, yet never point out what party Hollings is from....
Fourth paragraph, "Hollings, a Democrat from South Carolina, said in his statement to the committee."
I guess ignorance is "Interesting" on Slashdot.
Cox doesn't offer Usenet at all.
As a Cox customer, I can say that's incorrect. They have news servers that are painfully slow, but reasonably complete with half-decent retention. They seem to be running their own servers with a lot of help from Usenetserver. You may have been thinking of Comcast, who originally announced they wouldn't be providing news until some unspecified point in the future, if at all. Whether it was public outcry or some other business reason, they recanted and outsourced to Giganews. For a measly 1 gig/month.
In general, though, ISPs aren't dropping Usenet so much as outsourcing it. For less than what it cost them to run their own servers, poorly, they can outsource to a quality outfit like Supernews.