I was using Orb to stream tv and various streams to my Q (Verizon) from my home computer and it worked okay. It was not the best quality but it did work good for a zero cost streaming solution. I got rid of the Q for other reasons.
All jokes aside, I avoided an iPod for this exact reason. I guess in theory I could have just got an iPod and used iTunes and been happy but I am amazed at the tie in that some people are inclined to go through with. Imagine having an iPod, using your iPod specific sound system on your desk, your iPod specific doc station built into your car by the manufacturer, using an iPhone to listen to those iTunes with a ATT contract. That is way to deep for me and I have not even touched on the video side. I'm sure the integration is great but you are severely limited to choices that are offered by Apple to put all of your eggs in one basket like that. Well, you have the docking station built into the dash of your car and the 2 year contract on the iPhone, you might as well keep buying tunes from iTMS and buy another iPod if your fails. Again, you do not have to take it to that level but it seems odd that so many people are willing to do that. The idea that a simple thing such as a car maker offering only Sirius or XM is limiting my choices! To each is own I guess and my statements are neither for nor against any specific company or an attempt to change someones mind and i am familiar with the concept that other computer companies are kind of doing the same thing which does not make the situation any better or justify it.
The sick mom, the scared little child, the stealing of information from her computer, etc are methods to appeal to a jury.
The case will come down to a few technical matters that will have to be decided (I am thinking like a technical person, not a lawyer)
1) Was the IP address that Media Sentry reports to have actually assigned to a computer account that she paid for. Who determines the accuracy? I have no idea. I guess the ISP providing logs. Of course, this does not mean she is guilty even if it was her computer account. I can let someone use my computer and I am not automatically liable for their actions. Think about lending a car to your friend. If they get in an accident, it is not automatically your fault or liability. They may have been drunk, they may not have a license etc so the result would still have to be determined by a court or jury.
2) Is a screen shot or a text list of files sufficient evidence to ensure that the files with those names are actually a copy of a copyrighted song? I've heard stories about people poisoning files sharing networks with bogus files and I've also heard about many people downloading bogus files as well. A screen shot showing a file name "Metallica_Ride_the_lightning.mp3" does not seem like enough evidence for Lars get $150K from someone. I would think that you would actually have to download the file from someone in its entirety (and only from that person) in a traceable manner and inspect the file. Clicking on the icon and it showing up in your download directory should not be sufficient for Media Sentry to supply as evidence. Anyone in the world including Media Sentry could claim they actually downloaded the file. Oh please judge, trust us.
So, it comes down to who and what. From what I've read, the RIAA rackets evidence *should* not stand up in court. On that note, the RIAA is powerful and they bring to the plate that users downloading and distributing files is hurting their business. You can NOT underestimate that power. For a judge to make a ruling for a single individual that would undermine the RIAAs powerhouse operation and plan would be a HUGE thing and have HUGE implications that would be heard throughout the world and even provoke members of congress to get involved. I don't agree with that but in reality, I feel it would be that way. I do not trust that real evidence will matter in this case. I think it will come down to the RIAA trying to protect what they want, will overpower the decision making process.
I almost get a usable signal in my bedroom which is 237 decimeters away from my access point in my basement. Oh... the article claims 237 miles. My "of the shelf" equipment must have come from the clearance shelf.
No, all of my cars have a sensor that disables the compressor when in defrost/defog when the temperature is below a certain point. That point is somewhere ABOVE the freezing mark. Most cars have this. I was trying to point that out in my initial post.
If your car does not have that option, it is the exception and I agree it should have it. My cheap Hyundai has it and every car I've owned since the early 90's has had that option (Ford, Chevy, Chrysler). You might want to check out your car and see if it really does not have that ability. If your car does not have that option, that is the problem and the "design flaw", not the overall concept that other cars have the compressor running automatically above some temperature when in defrost. Manual control of the compressor does seem like a better choice for some people but I'd wager that a huge amount of people would complain about defogging not working because they did not think to turn on the compressor. I would say that reason alone is probably why the compressor running with a temperature cutoff circuit is standard across the board now, with the obvious exception of the car you have;)
The theory of using the compressor in defog mode is a sound one.
Air chilled through the AC coils contains less moisture, less moist air blowing across your windshield will defog the inside of window better. You windshield will only fog up if the air in the car and around the windshield is moist, blowing more of the same moist air is not the best way to defog it. I have a car without AC, when it is above 65-70 degrees and raining, I have a hell of time trying to defog the window, even more so when I just ran to the car and I am a little wet. I end up cranking the defrost on high with heat and have to put down the windows enough for flow but not enough to get wet. The "high" and heat will heat up the window and evaporate the moisture but it still does not work well because I am blowing moiste air there anyway and I end up being hot as hell and still can't see good. You may not realize how much running the compressor helps because you you have not experienced one that did not run on defog. Maybe you have no AC and have been getting lucky. On that note, most cars have a temperature setting that the compressor will be used when in defrost, anything under that temperature and the compressor will not be used. I think the setting is typically in the upper 50's and 60's. Meaning.. If the outside air temperature is below the set point, the compressor will not come on when you are in defog mode. Air at or below that temperature range does not normally hold enough moisture to cause fogging and the non conditioned fresh air from outside is dry enough to defog.
A side effect of having the compressor running in defog for a long period is you get moisture on the outside of the windshield because the window cools down and moisture forms. To combat that, turn the temperature up a little. If your windows are fogging up all of the time, make sure your car vents are not blocked (typically near the back windows somewhere or in the hatch, and/or leave the fan on low and have it blow onto the floor. This will provide enough "fresh air" to keep the interior air from getting stale and prevent a buildup of moisture which will then allow you to turn off the defog which will prevent the outside from getting moisture.
Costco had some cheap of the wall brand that I really liked, I think it was 2.5 lb bag of beans for $8. They just recently stopped selling it. Years ago, I gave up buying only by the higher priced coffee that referenced some exotic mountain or island. Although I notice differences in quality and taste in different coffee beans, the quality is not relative to the price.
At work, we have the Flavia drink stations that take the single packs. Definitely convenient but not cost effective for home use unless I stole the packets from work.
I fully understand both of your sides. One is responsible for their own actions. One should read all of the fine print. One should understand the total contract before they sign. On the other hand, saying free credit report is deceptive or is attempting to be deceptive. Offering unlimited internet that is not unlimited is deceptive. Placing a full page ad in the paper offering a 27in LCD television for $50 and in the fine print stating "only 2 per store" is deceptive. Why would the store waste so much money on that ad when they only have two of them? It is to deceive you! How about $500 of any car in our lot with fine print "only certain cars apply and ask salesman first", oh, now the salesman knows you have the coupon and will jack up the initial price $500 more. Maybe not deceive you as the law states but it is to deceive you in a real life situation. These advertisments are meant to catch you off gaurd and to fool people. We in the US (and who knows where else in the world) have been subjected to this for years and the use of these tactics is getting worse. I guess we accept it because it has been around so long and it changes slowly enough that we get used to the new tactics every time.
I've had music CDs stolen in the past. It sucks. This was before CDRs were on the market and I don't believe a single insurance company covers recording media. I went to a local pawn shop to try to replace some of my stolen cds, One specific shop I frequent often did not place the cds in any specific order, basically, they threw them in a storage bin in any old order. One day, like 25 out of the 30 in this one specific bin contained almost my entire collection of cds I had taken from my car. I listen to a wide variety of music (death metal, classical, electronica etc) and a couple of the CDs were special order DDD discs from Telarc. Even a few of the covers that I was missing from the plastic cases were missing on these ones (a few more were missing then what I already had at home but not one "extra" cover was present. Coincidence? Who knows but I ended up buying quite a few of them back. I checked that same pawn shop often but my stolen car stereo never showed up there. I called the officer "working" on my case and he said unless there were identifying marks, there was nothing they could do. I do not blame a lack of law or holding period for my cds being stolen or resold. It happens. This law does not directly help the people that have merchandise stolen, it MAY attempt to make it not worthwhile for someone to target CDs but I agree that the main goal seems to be to please the RIAA. Maybe not directly related to theft but people that copy and then sell the originals.
I have been using TaxAct for years as well. It is only $9 something more for the State e-file like you stated. I did it because I was too lazy to mail it.
I wanted to use the online version this year which is even cheaper but they do not support importing previous years information from the download version into the online version.
No one is milking off of anyone. If you are making a call between two people using VoIP, there is no POTS involved at all. Therefore, no POTS fees and no additional costs to the POTS providers. The call is 100% void of any POTS lines. If you are making a VoIP --> POTS call, only half of the people involved are using POTS, and that person with the POTS line is paying the POTS provider for the POTS service. Where is the something for nothing coming from that you speak of? What if we were all using CB radios to communicate with each other, how about IM, email, webcams, online whitboards, live meetings. What if I have no "home" phone service at all, should I still pay the POTS providers to maintain it just in case I change my mind later?
Your agruement is like saying we should all pay 42 cents to send an email because that is how much it cost the post office to send a mail and they have very strict requirements.
I use VoIP at home, I know I have given up my 99.999% uptime and that is acceptable to me. Why is it acceptable? Because I have other means of communication as well and for about 1/4 of the cost of my POTS line, I have about 20 more features and more flexability that I could not get at any price with my POTS service. Sorry, it should not cost me $2/month to keep my phone number unlisted and unpublished from the Verizon phonebook, that is what Verizon was charging for years, what does it take for that to happen, a one time click in a data field and I pay $24 a year for that? Why were they charging people for that unservice? Because if a significant portion of their customers (which was everyone with a "phone" a few years ago) opted out, they would not be able to sell valuble yellow page space in those phone books. How about $5/month for *69 or $3/month for tone dialing? Are these the same fees and charges that you claim are justified and all providers should charge the same? You know, on even ground with each other.
Would they invest in communities that could afford to pay the top rate and subscribe to all the optional features? Of course they would. But then would they invest in communities where even basic service might be unaffordable, where maybe 1 in 1,000 would subscribe to a value-added feature, where people struggling to pay for rent and food and healthcare might wind up going months past due on their phone service? Certainly not.
Sorry to quote so much.
That is the problem though. They are granted a monopoly by the local governments in the areas they serve. They control the lines, the poles, the CO, and the right of way for those given areas. No other companies are allowed to come in and provide competition because they CAN NOT use the lines and poles. Some local governments want to force the local carriers to service all or most areas equally, basically offering a contract that states you can be a monopoly but under these certain conditions. Some local governments are weak and pro carrier and some are pro consumer. What do the carriers want and are fighting for now? Local franchise reform that takes the bite away from the local governments. They milked the local governments for years with promises of upgrades and deregulation and now that many areas are built up, they want to write and control the rules on who and how they serve the locals in those areas but still want ownership of their poles and lines for themselves that we all paid for.
The only thing that would ever be fair for consumers would be for the local governments (or a third party) to run and maintain the lines and the last mile and for all carriers to have equal access to those lines (separate the line from the service). For the amount of money people have paid through increases in service costs and tacked on fees to upgrade and install those lines over the years, we have already paid for those lines many times over and we are now stuck with a single entity controlling them, basically, we are renting them from the carrier and we keep paying over and over again. Had the local government paid for that directly years ago, we would not be in this position right now and would have true equal access. Of course, the carriers are actively fighting any local government that attempts to run their own lines as well.
The concept of "separation of physical lines from service" applies to ALL utilities. Home phones, internet access through cable or phone, corporate circuits (T1, DS3, OC12, etc), cell phones, electricity and natural gas lines. You always have to go through a local monopoly for the last mile and they always get their cut and make it as hard as possible to not use their service on those lines. Water service seems to be the only one service mainly handled through the local governments, I guess in most areas of the country, the water source is mostly drawn from relatively local sources and no companies have found a way to make money from that by running their own lines.
I don't know about the bank(s) you use but my debit/credit or "check card" has the same exact fraud protection policy as my credit card from the same bank. Both have the Visa logo as well.
I guess the difference is you would be able to dispute fraud from the actual credit card before paying the bill at the end of the month and not experience an actual loss of funds. A fraudulent check card purchase amount would be taken right from your checking account automatically, forcing you to dispute it to get it back and may cause a ripple effect as other checks and maybe some scheduled online bill payments drawn from that same checking account now have insufficient funds to clear.
I had a some fraudulent charges on my check card in the past. It only one phone call and 5 minutes to get my money back but that call did not happen until AFTER I noticed it on my monthly statement and the money was already gone. I did not hit the point where I experienced the ripple effect though.
Okay, I started off this reply with thinking there was no real difference between the two forms of payment because of the similar fraud protections but now I'm thinking I should be using my credit card more then my check card.
Either way, ATM/debit, check/debit, and credit card all from the same actual checking account are still much better solutions then carrying cash for me.
However, in this paper, we do not show a breakdown of drives per manufacturer, model, or vintage due to the proprietary nature of these data.
and then add to it with:
Interestingly, this does not change our conclusions. In contrast to age-related results, we note that all results shown in the rest of the paper are not affected signifi- cantly by the population mix.
Proprietary? Wrong use of the word there. What they really mean is we do not want to make specific companies look bad or maybe they do not want people to make incorrect conclusions based on the scope of their specific testing. In reality, I think the specific models and companies would be interesting though. For hard drives in general, this is very interesting information. For what specific drives to avoid, this report is no useful.
Some $7/hr cashier is not the owner of the store. They're not authorized to change the prices of anything and any reasonable adult knows this to be true.
Bullshit. You have NO idea who can do what and there is no way you are responsible for knowing what people are authorized to do. Listen to your own statement, "that dude was probably the owner", I have no idea neither do you, there was at least 10 people behind those tables. How about my Home Depot example, was that person a manager? Could this person feel comfortable with their manager and know they can make a decision like that? I don't know, do you?
I've called places about many things and I have no idea who I am dealing with. I've called my cell phone company and questioned some activation fees, they were removed, I asked Comcast about a competitive price for Verizon DSL that was being introduced in my area, Comcast knocked $15 of my bill for 12 months. I've called my credit card company and asked about getting a lower interest rate, after some haggling, it was done. How much or what position were any of those people? I have no idea. My point is that your claim of something being so obvious that every adult should know is obviously not that obvious is it? I do agree, $0.00 for two boxed sets of CD/DVDs is suspect and an obvious mistake. Illegal to try to take advantage of? No. Your blanket claim of receiving a random discount is not stealing either.
How do you determine who has permission to knock 10% off? Do you know every stores policy? Are you required to know every stores policy? Does the person have to have a different color shirt to give permission? Does the person have to call someone else to get permission? What if you are already dealing with that "someone else" person. Your scenario is completely bogus. I bought a 21 inch monitor at a computer show last week, the price was $150, I told some random dude standing behind the tables I'd take if for $120, he said okay, I paid my cash and left with the monitor. Are you telling me I was stealing? Another scenario from Home Depot. I was buying numerous things and one was a 3ft threaded steel rod that was probably about $5. The item did not have a legible UPC and the cashier was looking through a few books and could not find the price. She called another person over and he could not find it either. She handed me the rod and said, don't worry about it. I grabbed it along with my other stuff and left. I do not consider that stealing. That person is representing Home Depot and as far as I am concerned, Home Depot made the decision to not waste any more time with it. I've got % knocked off many things and I have no idea if the person I was dealing with was legit or not, that is not my responsibility.
I posted this in another comment already but if you look at Amazons price policy, they CLEARLY states that the final price for products is not determined until you submit your order, not when the item is in your cart, not when you are browsing the web page that lists a price. They also specifically state the price can change from the time you place an item in your cart and the time you proceed to final checkout based on availability and different promotions.
The price you agree to with shopping online is the final click here to purchase, it does not matter what was stated earlier on any specific web page. 50% off, limited time only, today only, blah blah blah, none of that matters, the agreement is the final price when you place your order.
I offer you a clip of Amazons own pricing policy from their web site, it basically states the same exact thing:
Confirming Prices
Items in your Shopping Cart will always reflect the most recent price displayed on the item's product detail page. Please note that this price may differ from the price shown for the item when you first placed it in your cart. Placing an item in your cart does not reserve the price shown at that time. It is also possible that an item's price may decrease between the time you place it in your cart and the time you purchase it.
Some discounts are limited-time offers. Also, as the discount we are able to offer for any item is dependent upon its availability, Amazon.com's price will necessarily change on occasion.
With respect to items sold by Amazon.com, we cannot confirm the price of an item until you order; however, we do NOT charge your credit card until after your order has entered the shipping process. Despite our best efforts, a small number of the items in our catalog may be mispriced. If an item's correct price is higher than our stated price, we will, at our discretion, either contact you for instructions before shipping or cancel your order and notify you of such cancellation.
Please note that this policy applies only to products sold and shipped by Amazon.com. Your purchases from third-party sellers using Amazon.com Payments are charged at the time you place your order, and third-party sellers may follow different policies in the event of a mispriced item.
That is not the same thing. Imagine asking the waiter how much the Roast duck and bottle costs, he states $9 and you order that and pay the bill when you leave, two weeks later receive a bill for $90 because the bill should have been $99. Would you have ordered it if would not have clearly stated $9?
With ordering online, the final price minus all discounts, shipping and taxes is posted on the final page that states click here to finalize your order. That is the point where you make an agreement and agree with the terms. Not the main page that claims "all merchandise is 50%" off, not the page that says, "add to cart", not the page that offers an extended warranty and accessories. Not the page that asks for your address and phone number. You do not purchase the product and enter into an agreement until that final page that states what will be charged to your card. Every single person that has ever shopped online has backed out at that last minute and hit cancel because they did not want to go through with it or did not agree to the final price. Everything that lead to that page with the final click is not relevant because you did not agree to anything before that.
I am on the fence on this one. It does suck for Amazon and I'm sure they have lost money and probably a few people are out of a job. Your analogy with the bag of money does not fit though. When you finalize an order, you are making an active agreement with the other party. You and the buyer agree to buy certain merchandise at a certain price, you complete the order and they ship it. The defence that Amazon did not really know the price, it was a database error, it was a mistake etc because no human actually looks at the orders. Well you know what, that is not my fault that their automated system failed. They chose to use automation because of the benefits but failed to account for the negatives of using such a system. If they had caught the error before shipping? That is a different story because the burden to make good is not in your hands now. Once you have the products in your hands, they can not change the price and charge you more. Imagine if a car dealer did that? "Sorry but we can not possibly sell you that car the price we agreed on two months ago, please pay this extra bill for two thousand more dollars." This is consumer protection 101. I would have never agreed to buying the car at $2000 more and I would have never agreed to anything more then $1 for a boxed cd set from Amazon. Another thing sort of off topic that comes to mind here that shows how a companies streamlined automated system can fail is with those credit card applications that are sent out via postal mail. You have every right to modify the contract that comes with those cards, including the payment terms, the late fees, the interest rate, the arbitration clauses etc.. You can send in your modified version of the contract and place a clause that states if they send you card based on that agreement, they agree to your modified terms. Well I can tell you what would happen. The automated system they have in place and the minimum wage employees would never even notice your pen and inked changes to the fine print in the contract and process your application and you would receive a card. In theory, down the road you would have a case against them over the terms because it is not your fault they did not read the contract and it is not your fault they do not have a system in place to even look at contracts. Your are expected to read the entire contract, how are they exempt from the same? They are doing business, they should have a system in place that would see your changes and promptly throw your application in the trash. They agreed to your terms by sending you a card. Contracts work BOTH ways. Back to the Amazon issue, they sent your merchandise based on an agreed price, the process is completed.
I can not get to either referenced link right now so I am making a few assumptions.
How is AC voltage getting to the laptop? The power converter should be sending nothing but 12-21VDC. It has to be the power converter or even a faulty wired outlet with a bad ground [note 1]. Meaning the voltage between the positive terminal and the negative terminal of the power adapter is low 12-21VDC in relation to each other but they are riding some type of AC voltage with respect to the reference ground. Technically this would not be a problem but as soon as something chassis related touches ground, you have an alternate path for current and if it is really the noted 20 or more volts AC, you will blow things up. Hooking up an oscilloscope from chassis ground to common ground would give more details as to the actual cause. Probably a bad reference inside the device to common ground caused by either a bad capacitor/inductor or a bad ground wire.
I've seen similar problems in some Compaq and IBM laptops in the past. Nothing physically shocking but many on board NICs blown out because the cable provides another different path this current to flow. Compaq came on site and did a field change to several hundred of our laptops, IBM did nothing but keep repairing them under warranty.
In summary.. I think it is the power converter or a bad ground in the outlet because it should not be passing DC riding on some AC wave to the laptop and the laptop itself does not generate its own AC power internally.
[1] I had a faulty home outlet before and it blew up components in my computer (noise, smoke, pieces of chips flying etc..). I connected up my printer via a LPT cable to my computer and as soon as I plugged my printer into the wall... BANG. Computer and printer were dead. The outlet the computer and monitor were in had a bad ground and the one the printer was in had a good ground.
Slashdot Mirror
I was using Orb to stream tv and various streams to my Q (Verizon) from my home computer and it worked okay. It was not the best quality but it did work good for a zero cost streaming solution. I got rid of the Q for other reasons.
All jokes aside, I avoided an iPod for this exact reason. I guess in theory I could have just got an iPod and used iTunes and been happy but I am amazed at the tie in that some people are inclined to go through with. Imagine having an iPod, using your iPod specific sound system on your desk, your iPod specific doc station built into your car by the manufacturer, using an iPhone to listen to those iTunes with a ATT contract. That is way to deep for me and I have not even touched on the video side. I'm sure the integration is great but you are severely limited to choices that are offered by Apple to put all of your eggs in one basket like that. Well, you have the docking station built into the dash of your car and the 2 year contract on the iPhone, you might as well keep buying tunes from iTMS and buy another iPod if your fails. Again, you do not have to take it to that level but it seems odd that so many people are willing to do that. The idea that a simple thing such as a car maker offering only Sirius or XM is limiting my choices! To each is own I guess and my statements are neither for nor against any specific company or an attempt to change someones mind and i am familiar with the concept that other computer companies are kind of doing the same thing which does not make the situation any better or justify it.
The sick mom, the scared little child, the stealing of information from her computer, etc are methods to appeal to a jury.
The case will come down to a few technical matters that will have to be decided (I am thinking like a technical person, not a lawyer)
1) Was the IP address that Media Sentry reports to have actually assigned to a computer account that she paid for. Who determines the accuracy? I have no idea. I guess the ISP providing logs. Of course, this does not mean she is guilty even if it was her computer account. I can let someone use my computer and I am not automatically liable for their actions. Think about lending a car to your friend. If they get in an accident, it is not automatically your fault or liability. They may have been drunk, they may not have a license etc so the result would still have to be determined by a court or jury.
2) Is a screen shot or a text list of files sufficient evidence to ensure that the files with those names are actually a copy of a copyrighted song? I've heard stories about people poisoning files sharing networks with bogus files and I've also heard about many people downloading bogus files as well. A screen shot showing a file name "Metallica_Ride_the_lightning.mp3" does not seem like enough evidence for Lars get $150K from someone. I would think that you would actually have to download the file from someone in its entirety (and only from that person) in a traceable manner and inspect the file. Clicking on the icon and it showing up in your download directory should not be sufficient for Media Sentry to supply as evidence. Anyone in the world including Media Sentry could claim they actually downloaded the file. Oh please judge, trust us.
So, it comes down to who and what. From what I've read, the RIAA rackets evidence *should* not stand up in court. On that note, the RIAA is powerful and they bring to the plate that users downloading and distributing files is hurting their business. You can NOT underestimate that power. For a judge to make a ruling for a single individual that would undermine the RIAAs powerhouse operation and plan would be a HUGE thing and have HUGE implications that would be heard throughout the world and even provoke members of congress to get involved. I don't agree with that but in reality, I feel it would be that way.
I do not trust that real evidence will matter in this case. I think it will come down to the RIAA trying to protect what they want, will overpower the decision making process.
Not all houses are made from 2x2x10 rooms stacked on top of each other.
I almost get a usable signal in my bedroom which is 237 decimeters away from my access point in my basement. Oh... the article claims 237 miles. My "of the shelf" equipment must have come from the clearance shelf.
Article 4, section 34b
Do not allow "key logger" or equivalent key tracking software to be installed on network connected computers or terminals.
Problem solved.
No, all of my cars have a sensor that disables the compressor when in defrost/defog when the temperature is below a certain point. That point is somewhere ABOVE the freezing mark. Most cars have this. I was trying to point that out in my initial post.
If your car does not have that option, it is the exception and I agree it should have it. My cheap Hyundai has it and every car I've owned since the early 90's has had that option (Ford, Chevy, Chrysler). You might want to check out your car and see if it really does not have that ability. If your car does not have that option, that is the problem and the "design flaw", not the overall concept that other cars have the compressor running automatically above some temperature when in defrost. ;)
Manual control of the compressor does seem like a better choice for some people but I'd wager that a huge amount of people would complain about defogging not working because they did not think to turn on the compressor. I would say that reason alone is probably why the compressor running with a temperature cutoff circuit is standard across the board now, with the obvious exception of the car you have
The theory of using the compressor in defog mode is a sound one.
Air chilled through the AC coils contains less moisture, less moist air blowing across your windshield will defog the inside of window better. You windshield will only fog up if the air in the car and around the windshield is moist, blowing more of the same moist air is not the best way to defog it. I have a car without AC, when it is above 65-70 degrees and raining, I have a hell of time trying to defog the window, even more so when I just ran to the car and I am a little wet. I end up cranking the defrost on high with heat and have to put down the windows enough for flow but not enough to get wet. The "high" and heat will heat up the window and evaporate the moisture but it still does not work well because I am blowing moiste air there anyway and I end up being hot as hell and still can't see good. You may not realize how much running the compressor helps because you you have not experienced one that did not run on defog. Maybe you have no AC and have been getting lucky. On that note, most cars have a temperature setting that the compressor will be used when in defrost, anything under that temperature and the compressor will not be used. I think the setting is typically in the upper 50's and 60's. Meaning.. If the outside air temperature is below the set point, the compressor will not come on when you are in defog mode. Air at or below that temperature range does not normally hold enough moisture to cause fogging and the non conditioned fresh air from outside is dry enough to defog.
A side effect of having the compressor running in defog for a long period is you get moisture on the outside of the windshield because the window cools down and moisture forms. To combat that, turn the temperature up a little. If your windows are fogging up all of the time, make sure your car vents are not blocked (typically near the back windows somewhere or in the hatch, and/or leave the fan on low and have it blow onto the floor. This will provide enough "fresh air" to keep the interior air from getting stale and prevent a buildup of moisture which will then allow you to turn off the defog which will prevent the outside from getting moisture.
I tried "Mustang" in the URL box and it gave me a Google page of Mustang hits. I tried "hello" and was taken directly to www.hello.com
Obviously a little going on behind the scenes before Google kicks in the I'm feeling lucky result.
Try peach and then plum
Costco had some cheap of the wall brand that I really liked, I think it was 2.5 lb bag of beans for $8. They just recently stopped selling it. Years ago, I gave up buying only by the higher priced coffee that referenced some exotic mountain or island. Although I notice differences in quality and taste in different coffee beans, the quality is not relative to the price.
At work, we have the Flavia drink stations that take the single packs. Definitely convenient but not cost effective for home use unless I stole the packets from work.
I fully understand both of your sides. One is responsible for their own actions. One should read all of the fine print. One should understand the total contract before they sign. On the other hand, saying free credit report is deceptive or is attempting to be deceptive. Offering unlimited internet that is not unlimited is deceptive. Placing a full page ad in the paper offering a 27in LCD television for $50 and in the fine print stating "only 2 per store" is deceptive. Why would the store waste so much money on that ad when they only have two of them? It is to deceive you! How about $500 of any car in our lot with fine print "only certain cars apply and ask salesman first", oh, now the salesman knows you have the coupon and will jack up the initial price $500 more. Maybe not deceive you as the law states but it is to deceive you in a real life situation. These advertisments are meant to catch you off gaurd and to fool people. We in the US (and who knows where else in the world) have been subjected to this for years and the use of these tactics is getting worse. I guess we accept it because it has been around so long and it changes slowly enough that we get used to the new tactics every time.
I've had music CDs stolen in the past. It sucks. This was before CDRs were on the market and I don't believe a single insurance company covers recording media. I went to a local pawn shop to try to replace some of my stolen cds, One specific shop I frequent often did not place the cds in any specific order, basically, they threw them in a storage bin in any old order. One day, like 25 out of the 30 in this one specific bin contained almost my entire collection of cds I had taken from my car. I listen to a wide variety of music (death metal, classical, electronica etc) and a couple of the CDs were special order DDD discs from Telarc. Even a few of the covers that I was missing from the plastic cases were missing on these ones (a few more were missing then what I already had at home but not one "extra" cover was present. Coincidence? Who knows but I ended up buying quite a few of them back. I checked that same pawn shop often but my stolen car stereo never showed up there. I called the officer "working" on my case and he said unless there were identifying marks, there was nothing they could do.
I do not blame a lack of law or holding period for my cds being stolen or resold. It happens. This law does not directly help the people that have merchandise stolen, it MAY attempt to make it not worthwhile for someone to target CDs but I agree that the main goal seems to be to please the RIAA. Maybe not directly related to theft but people that copy and then sell the originals.
Okay, there are 17000 small businesses in the US selling diamonds and jewelry. How do you get them all to fit in the first page of search results?
I have been using TaxAct for years as well. It is only $9 something more for the State e-file like you stated. I did it because I was too lazy to mail it.
I wanted to use the online version this year which is even cheaper but they do not support importing previous years information from the download version into the online version.
No one is milking off of anyone. If you are making a call between two people using VoIP, there is no POTS involved at all. Therefore, no POTS fees and no additional costs to the POTS providers. The call is 100% void of any POTS lines. If you are making a VoIP --> POTS call, only half of the people involved are using POTS, and that person with the POTS line is paying the POTS provider for the POTS service. Where is the something for nothing coming from that you speak of? What if we were all using CB radios to communicate with each other, how about IM, email, webcams, online whitboards, live meetings. What if I have no "home" phone service at all, should I still pay the POTS providers to maintain it just in case I change my mind later?
Your agruement is like saying we should all pay 42 cents to send an email because that is how much it cost the post office to send a mail and they have very strict requirements.
I use VoIP at home, I know I have given up my 99.999% uptime and that is acceptable to me. Why is it acceptable? Because I have other means of communication as well and for about 1/4 of the cost of my POTS line, I have about 20 more features and more flexability that I could not get at any price with my POTS service. Sorry, it should not cost me $2/month to keep my phone number unlisted and unpublished from the Verizon phonebook, that is what Verizon was charging for years, what does it take for that to happen, a one time click in a data field and I pay $24 a year for that? Why were they charging people for that unservice? Because if a significant portion of their customers (which was everyone with a "phone" a few years ago) opted out, they would not be able to sell valuble yellow page space in those phone books. How about $5/month for *69 or $3/month for tone dialing? Are these the same fees and charges that you claim are justified and all providers should charge the same? You know, on even ground with each other.
Would they invest in communities that could afford to pay the top rate and subscribe to all the optional features? Of course they would. But then would they invest in communities where even basic service might be unaffordable, where maybe 1 in 1,000 would subscribe to a value-added feature, where people struggling to pay for rent and food and healthcare might wind up going months past due on their phone service? Certainly not.
Sorry to quote so much.
That is the problem though. They are granted a monopoly by the local governments in the areas they serve. They control the lines, the poles, the CO, and the right of way for those given areas. No other companies are allowed to come in and provide competition because they CAN NOT use the lines and poles. Some local governments want to force the local carriers to service all or most areas equally, basically offering a contract that states you can be a monopoly but under these certain conditions. Some local governments are weak and pro carrier and some are pro consumer. What do the carriers want and are fighting for now? Local franchise reform that takes the bite away from the local governments. They milked the local governments for years with promises of upgrades and deregulation and now that many areas are built up, they want to write and control the rules on who and how they serve the locals in those areas but still want ownership of their poles and lines for themselves that we all paid for.
The only thing that would ever be fair for consumers would be for the local governments (or a third party) to run and maintain the lines and the last mile and for all carriers to have equal access to those lines (separate the line from the service). For the amount of money people have paid through increases in service costs and tacked on fees to upgrade and install those lines over the years, we have already paid for those lines many times over and we are now stuck with a single entity controlling them, basically, we are renting them from the carrier and we keep paying over and over again. Had the local government paid for that directly years ago, we would not be in this position right now and would have true equal access. Of course, the carriers are actively fighting any local government that attempts to run their own lines as well.
The concept of "separation of physical lines from service" applies to ALL utilities. Home phones, internet access through cable or phone, corporate circuits (T1, DS3, OC12, etc), cell phones, electricity and natural gas lines. You always have to go through a local monopoly for the last mile and they always get their cut and make it as hard as possible to not use their service on those lines. Water service seems to be the only one service mainly handled through the local governments, I guess in most areas of the country, the water source is mostly drawn from relatively local sources and no companies have found a way to make money from that by running their own lines.
I don't know about the bank(s) you use but my debit/credit or "check card" has the same exact fraud protection policy as my credit card from the same bank. Both have the Visa logo as well.
I guess the difference is you would be able to dispute fraud from the actual credit card before paying the bill at the end of the month and not experience an actual loss of funds. A fraudulent check card purchase amount would be taken right from your checking account automatically, forcing you to dispute it to get it back and may cause a ripple effect as other checks and maybe some scheduled online bill payments drawn from that same checking account now have insufficient funds to clear.
I had a some fraudulent charges on my check card in the past. It only one phone call and 5 minutes to get my money back but that call did not happen until AFTER I noticed it on my monthly statement and the money was already gone. I did not hit the point where I experienced the ripple effect though.
Okay, I started off this reply with thinking there was no real difference between the two forms of payment because of the similar fraud protections but now I'm thinking I should be using my credit card more then my check card.
Either way, ATM/debit, check/debit, and credit card all from the same actual checking account are still much better solutions then carrying cash for me.
You did not miss anything. The report states:
However, in this paper, we do not show a
breakdown of drives per manufacturer, model, or vintage
due to the proprietary nature of these data.
and then add to it with:
Interestingly, this does not change our conclusions. In
contrast to age-related results, we note that all results
shown in the rest of the paper are not affected signifi-
cantly by the population mix.
Proprietary? Wrong use of the word there. What they really mean is we do not want to make specific companies look bad or maybe they do not want people to make incorrect conclusions based on the scope of their specific testing. In reality, I think the specific models and companies would be interesting though.
For hard drives in general, this is very interesting information. For what specific drives to avoid, this report is no useful.
Some $7/hr cashier is not the owner of the store. They're not authorized to change the prices of anything and any reasonable adult knows this to be true.
Bullshit. You have NO idea who can do what and there is no way you are responsible for knowing what people are authorized to do. Listen to your own statement, "that dude was probably the owner", I have no idea neither do you, there was at least 10 people behind those tables. How about my Home Depot example, was that person a manager? Could this person feel comfortable with their manager and know they can make a decision like that? I don't know, do you?
I've called places about many things and I have no idea who I am dealing with. I've called my cell phone company and questioned some activation fees, they were removed, I asked Comcast about a competitive price for Verizon DSL that was being introduced in my area, Comcast knocked $15 of my bill for 12 months. I've called my credit card company and asked about getting a lower interest rate, after some haggling, it was done. How much or what position were any of those people? I have no idea. My point is that your claim of something being so obvious that every adult should know is obviously not that obvious is it?
I do agree, $0.00 for two boxed sets of CD/DVDs is suspect and an obvious mistake. Illegal to try to take advantage of? No. Your blanket claim of receiving a random discount is not stealing either.
How do you determine who has permission to knock 10% off? Do you know every stores policy? Are you required to know every stores policy? Does the person have to have a different color shirt to give permission? Does the person have to call someone else to get permission? What if you are already dealing with that "someone else" person. Your scenario is completely bogus. I bought a 21 inch monitor at a computer show last week, the price was $150, I told some random dude standing behind the tables I'd take if for $120, he said okay, I paid my cash and left with the monitor. Are you telling me I was stealing? Another scenario from Home Depot. I was buying numerous things and one was a 3ft threaded steel rod that was probably about $5. The item did not have a legible UPC and the cashier was looking through a few books and could not find the price. She called another person over and he could not find it either. She handed me the rod and said, don't worry about it. I grabbed it along with my other stuff and left. I do not consider that stealing. That person is representing Home Depot and as far as I am concerned, Home Depot made the decision to not waste any more time with it.
I've got % knocked off many things and I have no idea if the person I was dealing with was legit or not, that is not my responsibility.
I posted this in another comment already but if you look at Amazons price policy, they CLEARLY states that the final price for products is not determined until you submit your order, not when the item is in your cart, not when you are browsing the web page that lists a price. They also specifically state the price can change from the time you place an item in your cart and the time you proceed to final checkout based on availability and different promotions.
The price you agree to with shopping online is the final click here to purchase, it does not matter what was stated earlier on any specific web page. 50% off, limited time only, today only, blah blah blah, none of that matters, the agreement is the final price when you place your order.
I offer you a clip of Amazons own pricing policy from their web site, it basically states the same exact thing:
Confirming Prices
Items in your Shopping Cart will always reflect the most recent price displayed on the item's product detail page. Please note that this price may differ from the price shown for the item when you first placed it in your cart. Placing an item in your cart does not reserve the price shown at that time. It is also possible that an item's price may decrease between the time you place it in your cart and the time you purchase it.
Some discounts are limited-time offers. Also, as the discount we are able to offer for any item is dependent upon its availability, Amazon.com's price will necessarily change on occasion.
With respect to items sold by Amazon.com, we cannot confirm the price of an item until you order; however, we do NOT charge your credit card until after your order has entered the shipping process. Despite our best efforts, a small number of the items in our catalog may be mispriced. If an item's correct price is higher than our stated price, we will, at our discretion, either contact you for instructions before shipping or cancel your order and notify you of such cancellation.
Please note that this policy applies only to products sold and shipped by Amazon.com. Your purchases from third-party sellers using Amazon.com Payments are charged at the time you place your order, and third-party sellers may follow different policies in the event of a mispriced item.
That is not the same thing.
Imagine asking the waiter how much the Roast duck and bottle costs, he states $9 and you order that and pay the bill when you leave, two weeks later receive a bill for $90 because the bill should have been $99. Would you have ordered it if would not have clearly stated $9?
With ordering online, the final price minus all discounts, shipping and taxes is posted on the final page that states click here to finalize your order. That is the point where you make an agreement and agree with the terms. Not the main page that claims "all merchandise is 50%" off, not the page that says, "add to cart", not the page that offers an extended warranty and accessories. Not the page that asks for your address and phone number. You do not purchase the product and enter into an agreement until that final page that states what will be charged to your card. Every single person that has ever shopped online has backed out at that last minute and hit cancel because they did not want to go through with it or did not agree to the final price. Everything that lead to that page with the final click is not relevant because you did not agree to anything before that.
I am on the fence on this one. It does suck for Amazon and I'm sure they have lost money and probably a few people are out of a job.
Your analogy with the bag of money does not fit though. When you finalize an order, you are making an active agreement with the other party. You and the buyer agree to buy certain merchandise at a certain price, you complete the order and they ship it. The defence that Amazon did not really know the price, it was a database error, it was a mistake etc because no human actually looks at the orders. Well you know what, that is not my fault that their automated system failed. They chose to use automation because of the benefits but failed to account for the negatives of using such a system. If they had caught the error before shipping? That is a different story because the burden to make good is not in your hands now. Once you have the products in your hands, they can not change the price and charge you more. Imagine if a car dealer did that? "Sorry but we can not possibly sell you that car the price we agreed on two months ago, please pay this extra bill for two thousand more dollars." This is consumer protection 101. I would have never agreed to buying the car at $2000 more and I would have never agreed to anything more then $1 for a boxed cd set from Amazon.
Another thing sort of off topic that comes to mind here that shows how a companies streamlined automated system can fail is with those credit card applications that are sent out via postal mail. You have every right to modify the contract that comes with those cards, including the payment terms, the late fees, the interest rate, the arbitration clauses etc.. You can send in your modified version of the contract and place a clause that states if they send you card based on that agreement, they agree to your modified terms. Well I can tell you what would happen. The automated system they have in place and the minimum wage employees would never even notice your pen and inked changes to the fine print in the contract and process your application and you would receive a card. In theory, down the road you would have a case against them over the terms because it is not your fault they did not read the contract and it is not your fault they do not have a system in place to even look at contracts. Your are expected to read the entire contract, how are they exempt from the same? They are doing business, they should have a system in place that would see your changes and promptly throw your application in the trash. They agreed to your terms by sending you a card. Contracts work BOTH ways. Back to the Amazon issue, they sent your merchandise based on an agreed price, the process is completed.
I can not get to either referenced link right now so I am making a few assumptions.
How is AC voltage getting to the laptop? The power converter should be sending nothing but 12-21VDC. It has to be the power converter or even a faulty wired outlet with a bad ground [note 1]. Meaning the voltage between the positive terminal and the negative terminal of the power adapter is low 12-21VDC in relation to each other but they are riding some type of AC voltage with respect to the reference ground. Technically this would not be a problem but as soon as something chassis related touches ground, you have an alternate path for current and if it is really the noted 20 or more volts AC, you will blow things up. Hooking up an oscilloscope from chassis ground to common ground would give more details as to the actual cause. Probably a bad reference inside the device to common ground caused by either a bad capacitor/inductor or a bad ground wire.
I've seen similar problems in some Compaq and IBM laptops in the past. Nothing physically shocking but many on board NICs blown out because the cable provides another different path this current to flow. Compaq came on site and did a field change to several hundred of our laptops, IBM did nothing but keep repairing them under warranty.
In summary.. I think it is the power converter or a bad ground in the outlet because it should not be passing DC riding on some AC wave to the laptop and the laptop itself does not generate its own AC power internally.
[1] I had a faulty home outlet before and it blew up components in my computer (noise, smoke, pieces of chips flying etc..). I connected up my printer via a LPT cable to my computer and as soon as I plugged my printer into the wall... BANG. Computer and printer were dead. The outlet the computer and monitor were in had a bad ground and the one the printer was in had a good ground.