DirecTV gave numbers, 30% increase where as Viacom said "pennies a day". Pennies a day add up to dollars a week and hundreds a year.
DirecTV also pointed out 8 of the 26 Viacom channels going away were HD versions of the same channel, so it is double counting. I don't see Viacom countering these arguments.
In a time when people are being asked to do more for frozen wages or even pay cuts, why does Viacom deserve a raise? If they were cutting commercials sure. Giving me more value for my money, that's great. As it stands they are asking for more just to see if they can get it.
If you mean manually editing the titles, then no, it won't work that way. If you open menu customization in VS 2012 and look at the captions, they're actually all proper cased - "File" etc. The uppercasing effect is applied programmatically (which is why you can turn it off via reg key).
Thanks for clarifying, I haven't had a chance to run 2012 yet. Yeah, that's not right.
At what point did Microsoft need a justification for anything they do? They just do what they want and expect others to live with it. Look at Windows ME. Look at Vista. It is only when users won't pay they back down.
The article, which is based on a blog post, mentions that it is not obvious how to change the case. If you read the blog post it says they haven't settled on how Microsoft will expose a change of case feature. My guess is you'll have to customize the menu, just like what's been done in Visual Studio for years.
Prove that your bool a(string b) is different than my bool a(string b).
As long as the copyright comments are there, I guess I own all obfuscated versions which happen to mangle as "a" which take a string and return a boolean.
So I just attempted to contact him with the following:
To the Honorable Greg Walden,
With respect to the "Protecting The Passwords of Online Users" amendment, I've read the text:
SEC. 5. PROTECTING THE PASSWORDS OF ONLINE USERS.
Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to limit or restrict the ability of the Federal Communications Commission to adopt a rule or to amend an existing rule to protect online privacy, including requirements in such rule that prohibit licensees or regulated entities from mandating that job applicants or employees disclose confidential passwords to social networking web sites.
If I understand it correctly, and please help me out here, I'm not a lawyer, this doesn't instruct the FCC to pass a rule protecting user privacy. Instead, it simply states that nothing in the bill it was to be attached to can prevent the FCC from making such a rule.
As such, you said (and again correct me if I have the quote incorrect, or the site misquoted you):
Your amendment doesn’t protect them. It doesn’t do that. Actually, what this amendment does is say that all of the reforms that we are trying to put in place at the Federal Communications Commission, in order to have them have an open and transparent process where they are required to publish their rules in advance so that you can see what they’re proposing, would basically be shoved aside. They could do whatever they wanted on privacy if they wanted to, and you wouldn’t know it until they published their text afterward. There is no protection here.
Now, for your claim to be true, that would mean by publishing the rules ahead of time, and having a transparent process, would some how prevent or restrict the FCC's ability from making such a rule, or making rules in general. I don't understand how making something transparent can impact what it can make.
That is, unless there's another portion of the bill that does restrict their ability to make rules, which I'm not aware of.
Please, help me understand here. It seems this might have given the house a way to pressure the senate and president to pass the bill, as you could point and say it gives the FCC the powers needed to prevent this kind of abuse, and why they shouldn't vote that down, or veto the bill.
That said, the point is somewhat moot now, though I would like to understand your argument. As such, and as you said "I think it’s awful that employers think they can demand our passwords and can go snooping around. There is no disagreement with that." when should I expect a bill from you with a laser like focus on this practice. It needs to be bigger than just Facebook and social networks, it needs to include personal e-mail and websites.
I would expect it to be approximately 1 page long, saying in essence, employers and government agencies cannot coerce the disclosure of user credentials of any person's personal accounts.
That would protect bank accounts, social media, website accounts, e-mail and future innovations, including but not limited to systems that may not use a username/password log in in the future.
It also would address the current confusion various courts have with respect to demanding log ins for phones and personal accounts. To me it is not feasible to prove people remember their log in credentials, so to punish people who may forget their information, especially under the stress induced by an investigation, is deplorable.
One could perform the mental gymnastics to say, the 60 day rule restricts the FCC from making a rule, thus in the name of online privacy, should not apply, but that is a stretch.
Or better said, if you're not the farmer, you're the pig.
Free food, water and a place to live?!? What could possibly go wrong?
I will now use this argument against Socialism too. Thanks.:)
I actually think this cuts both ways, one could say the farmer is the 1% paying the minimum required to keep all of the lower classes happy while they get ready to slaughter them for their own gain.
I mean I'm no expert, but my understanding with Socialism was that there was no class division, thus no farmer.
Enough of the hyperbole. Facebook only has as much on you as you let them have. No one died in the transition from MySpace to Facebook and no one is going to die when Facebook goes the way of MySpace.
People just want to be lazy about their lives and blame others when things go wrong for doing so. Facebook can't share anything with anyone I don't let share myself to begin with.
Yup, you're right. No way other people could tag me in their photos and have that violate my own privacy.
I've always view Facebook as a modern day, War Games. The only winning move is not to play.
Keep your passwords in kepass, on your phone, computer, wherever. In fact, I have my phone automatically rsync'd to my server and tablet to give the best chance of survival. (Try doing that on an iPhone.) Have the master code to get in stored in a safe deposit box. Since it isn't a password you use anywhere else, no need to change it monthly.
Oh, wait. Nevermind. I assume you're not already a Mac user, so the cost is higher.
Bingo. I currently do not own a Mac, so yeah, the cost would be about $1099, instead of the $20 I paid to become an Android dev (company gave me a PC they were retiring so, no cost there).
First, I'm not a hater, I'm a pragmatist. I couldn't see paying $500 for an iPad 1, and I still can't see paying $500 for an iPad 2, regardless of features. I mean for that price, it should come with a lap dance or something.
Second as I responded to someone else, I did a brief search and didn't find the technical specs. Maybe I missed it, I mean there were so many news reports, most of which lacked any real information I could have just not seen the right link. In addition the linked articles seemed to be very light on any kind of details, so I had the summary to go on. I'll give you storage is a problem, just like the iPad. I mean I've seen 32 GB microsd cards for as low as $30, why does it cost $100 for Apple to add 16 GB? I mean that kind of markup really feels like tablet makers are trying to screw consumers.
Fair enough; however, in reading the articles and an admittedly brief Google search, I didn't find a list of the technical specs, such as external SD card, etc.
As a result, I could only reply to what I read in the summary which specifically called out the lack of a microphone and camera.
I have an iPad 2 and a Viewsonic G-Tablet. I use the iPad for stupid little games, I use the G-Tab for real work. Both have their place; however, if I hadn't won the iPad I wouldn't have it. The price point is far too high, I was able to get the G-Tab off of Woot!.
I do appreciate Amazon's position in trying to address the price point, I mean as sales has shown, only Apple can demand an Apple price.
Oh and as a developer, I doubt that I'll be developing for iOS anytime soon, the costs are too damn high. Android development works with what ever system I already have and I know what will happen when I upload my app to the market.
I mean really. Who's buying the iPad for the high quality camera and microphone.
And for the extra $300, you can buy a digital tape recorder and a digital camera, and have enough left over for dinner. I'm sure there's a site that can help you find those (except for dinner).
Dont cheer franken, he should be against the whole damn thing. TOS violations a felony? What complete idiot can stand by any part of that bill? So now I can make a TOS for my website or my home and declare laws that are not laws of the land and they become felonies...
Oh wait, this is only for the rich and the corperations... Must be a fucking republican law.
From the summary above:
However, Senators Franken and Grassley added an amendment (PDF) to exempt violations of ToS and employer policies from the lists of felony activity. w00t for common sense.
People don't understand how fast a snapping turtle can move, how far it can stretch out or the biting force.
They assume all turtles are harmless, that is until they are bit by one. Just some stats, they can whip their head around quickly, extend it approximately 75% the length of their body and can snap a broom stick in half with their bite.
I'm going to be modded into hell for this, but oh well, my excellent karma can take it.
Wow, so this is it? This is the point where Slashdot isn't afraid to show its radical bias in blatant bold-faced type on the front page?
You pepper the TSA agent with derogatory remarks ("Checkpoint smurf", "Groper") based on allegations filed in a lawsuit? Do any of you ever look at a murder trial and immediately go "Oh, hey, look at that MURDERER on trial. They're on trial, so they must have killed someone." This crowd froths at the mouth when anyone in government is accused of doing something wrong, but they're the first to stand up and yell "innocent until proven guilty" when someone they can relate to is in the spotlight for something. You're all pathetic. Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt pathetic.
Now I understand why CmdrTaco left. I'd abandon my life's work, too, if this is what it turned in to.
The issue is as I see it, the agent doesn't deny what happened, they are suing because the rapist label was applied.
Maybe I read it wrong, but based on the accusation, that label appears to be fitting.
Slashdot Mirror
So apparently Viacom is even taking away their free streaming services to keep people on DirecTV from seeing the Daily Show/Colbert.
DirecTV gave numbers, 30% increase where as Viacom said "pennies a day". Pennies a day add up to dollars a week and hundreds a year.
DirecTV also pointed out 8 of the 26 Viacom channels going away were HD versions of the same channel, so it is double counting. I don't see Viacom countering these arguments.
In a time when people are being asked to do more for frozen wages or even pay cuts, why does Viacom deserve a raise? If they were cutting commercials sure. Giving me more value for my money, that's great. As it stands they are asking for more just to see if they can get it.
If you mean manually editing the titles, then no, it won't work that way. If you open menu customization in VS 2012 and look at the captions, they're actually all proper cased - "File" etc. The uppercasing effect is applied programmatically (which is why you can turn it off via reg key).
Thanks for clarifying, I haven't had a chance to run 2012 yet. Yeah, that's not right.
At what point did Microsoft need a justification for anything they do? They just do what they want and expect others to live with it. Look at Windows ME. Look at Vista. It is only when users won't pay they back down.
The article, which is based on a blog post, mentions that it is not obvious how to change the case. If you read the blog post it says they haven't settled on how Microsoft will expose a change of case feature. My guess is you'll have to customize the menu, just like what's been done in Visual Studio for years.
It is nice that the grandparents want to be involved, but let me say technology and kids do not mix. I'm living proof of that
PB&J sandwich in the VCR at the top of an 8' book case. I'm not saying how I did it.
Plexiglass case + tablet is your best bet.
Prove that your bool a(string b) is different than my bool a(string b).
As long as the copyright comments are there, I guess I own all obfuscated versions which happen to mangle as "a" which take a string and return a boolean.
I wonder if they'd expel him for writing profanities with a pencil from school on paper he got from school as well?
To the Honorable Greg Walden,
With respect to the "Protecting The Passwords of Online Users" amendment, I've read the text:
SEC. 5. PROTECTING THE PASSWORDS OF ONLINE USERS.
Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to limit or restrict the ability of the Federal Communications Commission to adopt a rule or to amend an existing rule to protect online privacy, including requirements in such rule that prohibit licensees or regulated entities from mandating that job applicants or employees disclose confidential passwords to social networking web sites.
If I understand it correctly, and please help me out here, I'm not a lawyer, this doesn't instruct the FCC to pass a rule protecting user privacy. Instead, it simply states that nothing in the bill it was to be attached to can prevent the FCC from making such a rule.
As such, you said (and again correct me if I have the quote incorrect, or the site misquoted you):
Your amendment doesn’t protect them. It doesn’t do that. Actually, what this amendment does is say that all of the reforms that we are trying to put in place at the Federal Communications Commission, in order to have them have an open and transparent process where they are required to publish their rules in advance so that you can see what they’re proposing, would basically be shoved aside. They could do whatever they wanted on privacy if they wanted to, and you wouldn’t know it until they published their text afterward. There is no protection here.
Now, for your claim to be true, that would mean by publishing the rules ahead of time, and having a transparent process, would some how prevent or restrict the FCC's ability from making such a rule, or making rules in general. I don't understand how making something transparent can impact what it can make.
That is, unless there's another portion of the bill that does restrict their ability to make rules, which I'm not aware of.
Please, help me understand here. It seems this might have given the house a way to pressure the senate and president to pass the bill, as you could point and say it gives the FCC the powers needed to prevent this kind of abuse, and why they shouldn't vote that down, or veto the bill.
That said, the point is somewhat moot now, though I would like to understand your argument. As such, and as you said "I think it’s awful that employers think they can demand our passwords and can go snooping around. There is no disagreement with that." when should I expect a bill from you with a laser like focus on this practice. It needs to be bigger than just Facebook and social networks, it needs to include personal e-mail and websites.
I would expect it to be approximately 1 page long, saying in essence, employers and government agencies cannot coerce the disclosure of user credentials of any person's personal accounts.
That would protect bank accounts, social media, website accounts, e-mail and future innovations, including but not limited to systems that may not use a username/password log in in the future.
It also would address the current confusion various courts have with respect to demanding log ins for phones and personal accounts. To me it is not feasible to prove people remember their log in credentials, so to punish people who may forget their information, especially under the stress induced by an investigation, is deplorable.
One could perform the mental gymnastics to say, the 60 day rule restricts the FCC from making a rule, thus in the name of online privacy, should not apply, but that is a stretch.
Document link:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/DEMS%20documents.pdf
Or better said, if you're not the farmer, you're the pig.
Free food, water and a place to live?!? What could possibly go wrong?
I will now use this argument against Socialism too. Thanks. :)
I actually think this cuts both ways, one could say the farmer is the 1% paying the minimum required to keep all of the lower classes happy while they get ready to slaughter them for their own gain.
I mean I'm no expert, but my understanding with Socialism was that there was no class division, thus no farmer.
Enough of the hyperbole. Facebook only has as much on you as you let them have. No one died in the transition from MySpace to Facebook and no one is going to die when Facebook goes the way of MySpace.
People just want to be lazy about their lives and blame others when things go wrong for doing so. Facebook can't share anything with anyone I don't let share myself to begin with.
Yup, you're right. No way other people could tag me in their photos and have that violate my own privacy.
I've always view Facebook as a modern day, War Games. The only winning move is not to play.
Or better said, if you're not the farmer, you're the pig.
Free food, water and a place to live?!? What could possibly go wrong?
And it couldn't be the provision that allows the committee to fine groups who submit false claims. Cause that never, ever happens.
So it can tell when I'm giving it the middle finger? I don't have to do it verbally as well?
Keep your passwords in kepass, on your phone, computer, wherever. In fact, I have my phone automatically rsync'd to my server and tablet to give the best chance of survival. (Try doing that on an iPhone.) Have the master code to get in stored in a safe deposit box. Since it isn't a password you use anywhere else, no need to change it monthly.
Oh, wait. Nevermind. I assume you're not already a Mac user, so the cost is higher.
Bingo. I currently do not own a Mac, so yeah, the cost would be about $1099, instead of the $20 I paid to become an Android dev (company gave me a PC they were retiring so, no cost there).
First, I'm not a hater, I'm a pragmatist. I couldn't see paying $500 for an iPad 1, and I still can't see paying $500 for an iPad 2, regardless of features. I mean for that price, it should come with a lap dance or something.
Second as I responded to someone else, I did a brief search and didn't find the technical specs. Maybe I missed it, I mean there were so many news reports, most of which lacked any real information I could have just not seen the right link. In addition the linked articles seemed to be very light on any kind of details, so I had the summary to go on. I'll give you storage is a problem, just like the iPad. I mean I've seen 32 GB microsd cards for as low as $30, why does it cost $100 for Apple to add 16 GB? I mean that kind of markup really feels like tablet makers are trying to screw consumers.
Fair enough; however, in reading the articles and an admittedly brief Google search, I didn't find a list of the technical specs, such as external SD card, etc.
As a result, I could only reply to what I read in the summary which specifically called out the lack of a microphone and camera.
I have an iPad 2 and a Viewsonic G-Tablet. I use the iPad for stupid little games, I use the G-Tab for real work. Both have their place; however, if I hadn't won the iPad I wouldn't have it. The price point is far too high, I was able to get the G-Tab off of Woot!.
I do appreciate Amazon's position in trying to address the price point, I mean as sales has shown, only Apple can demand an Apple price.
Oh and as a developer, I doubt that I'll be developing for iOS anytime soon, the costs are too damn high. Android development works with what ever system I already have and I know what will happen when I upload my app to the market.
I mean really. Who's buying the iPad for the high quality camera and microphone.
And for the extra $300, you can buy a digital tape recorder and a digital camera, and have enough left over for dinner. I'm sure there's a site that can help you find those (except for dinner).
Dont cheer franken, he should be against the whole damn thing. TOS violations a felony? What complete idiot can stand by any part of that bill? So now I can make a TOS for my website or my home and declare laws that are not laws of the land and they become felonies...
Oh wait, this is only for the rich and the corperations... Must be a fucking republican law.
From the summary above:
However, Senators Franken and Grassley added an amendment (PDF) to exempt violations of ToS and employer policies from the lists of felony activity. w00t for common sense.
Reading is fundamental.
People don't understand how fast a snapping turtle can move, how far it can stretch out or the biting force.
They assume all turtles are harmless, that is until they are bit by one. Just some stats, they can whip their head around quickly, extend it approximately 75% the length of their body and can snap a broom stick in half with their bite.
Based on the accusation, a suspect is a murderer. That is pretty much the point parent was making.
To the accuser they are. Am I missing something here?
I'm going to be modded into hell for this, but oh well, my excellent karma can take it.
Wow, so this is it? This is the point where Slashdot isn't afraid to show its radical bias in blatant bold-faced type on the front page?
You pepper the TSA agent with derogatory remarks ("Checkpoint smurf", "Groper") based on allegations filed in a lawsuit? Do any of you ever look at a murder trial and immediately go "Oh, hey, look at that MURDERER on trial. They're on trial, so they must have killed someone." This crowd froths at the mouth when anyone in government is accused of doing something wrong, but they're the first to stand up and yell "innocent until proven guilty" when someone they can relate to is in the spotlight for something. You're all pathetic. Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt pathetic.
Now I understand why CmdrTaco left. I'd abandon my life's work, too, if this is what it turned in to.
The issue is as I see it, the agent doesn't deny what happened, they are suing because the rapist label was applied.
Maybe I read it wrong, but based on the accusation, that label appears to be fitting.
Your point? Something has to be experienced by a lot of people to really be considered news for nerds?
I find your logic full of holes and bad assumptions.
Ha ha, you're at a restaurant alone. Nerd!
Oh while I'm at it, let me correct something here, just because I'm eating alone it does not make me a nerd. A dork maybe, but not a nerd.
That said, the fact that I'm correcting your use of a derogatory epithet, that sir, makes me a nerd.
Which explains why CO wasn't covered how?