, I'd suggest returning your current device and buying an Ipaq 6515. It has the GPS unit built right in - no attachments.
That's a bad idea. Why? Because your GPS receiver needs to see the sky. But - you need to see your PDAs screen. Often these two do not mix, for example in your car; you might want to have a GPS receiver horizontally on the dashboard, under the windshield, but the PDA in an upright position. A bluetooth GPS receiver offers more practical configurations to work with, to maximize GPS visibility and minimize screen glare.
Better: dynamically change the names of form fields ("subject", "message", etc) based on the current time. MD5 hash the current hour with the field name, and have the software only check the current and previous values. Spam bots generally have to be told what field names to look for.
Unless you're also willing to change the order of fields on your post-submit page, as well as the form factor, that doesn't do much good.
#1, get a better cell phone. With TDMA phones (GSM, D-AMPS, iDEN) you get a lot of noise as the transceiver switches on and off several times a second, transmitting at full power. iDEN phones (NexTel) have always been *by far* the worst about this, in my experience. If you get a CDMA phone (eg, Verizon), the phones on a cell share a common, continuous, low-level signal, which does not cause this kind of interference.
While I'm there are differences in the amount of audible interference on speakers between the technologies, there are some issues with your explanation. 1) CDMA phones do not transmit continuously. That would suck down the batteries in no time. When there is nothing to transmit, they don't transmit anything. 2) The signal may be "low-level", but hey, GSM signals are "low-level" too; just outputting the maximum amount of RF power for the heck of it wastes too much power. No matter how "low-level" the signal is that your (CDMA) handset transmits, the closer you put your phone to any other sort of equipment, the higher the level of RF interference.
What IS true though, is that CDMA is a spread-spectrum approach, much like wifi, ofdm, etc. Both GSM and CDMA phones will use just about the same amount of power to transmit, but in GSM that power will be delivered to a single frequency, whereas with CDMA its spread out over multiple frequencies. Think of housing 8 families in a bungalow home each instead of 1 high-rise appartment building. (But, just moving your CDMA handset a few inches closer to your speakers should be enough to compensate for this..)
A CDMA phone can cause just as much interference as a GSM phone when you take into account variables such as distance-to-the-cell-tower and susceptibility to specific frequency bands. As a technology, it's to be preferred over TDMA in the general scheme of things, but lower short-range interference from transmitters isn't its main selling point at all.
Secure Digital and xD is just a proprietary as Memory Stick. Why does everyone blame SONY for disagreeing on formats?
Oh BTW, MiniDisc is a great recording format. It just never took off as a distribution format in the United States. Sony's previous market introduction was too successfull... the Compact Audio Disc.
Wonder why the CD was so succesful? Unlike MD and MemoryStick there was no standards war. Like DVD, it was a collaboration of the big consumer electronics firms. Sony didn't invent the CD; Philips, Sony and Matshushita got together to make the CD happen. In fact, "Compact Disc" is a Philips trademark. Likewise, DVD was a cross-industry effort, unlike BlueRay. MiniDisc is also not as great a recording format as DAT, even if you prefer tape. MemoryStick utterly failed, unlike MMC and SD, because it's hella easier to license MMC and SD technology. MS is only found in Sony appliances. xD is also proprietary, but it was never introduced as THE memory card format, and if I put my 3 year old xD card into a brand new Olympus or Fujifilm camera, it will still work, whereas Sony has Memorystick 1, 2, 3 which even differ in size, and it's expensive.
If you want to point to fairly recent Sony introductions, you'd be stuck with IEEE 1394 (firewire, amusingly, Sony's iLink was, for a long time, incompatible with IEEE 1394 in subtle ways, even though Sony proposed the standard) or SPDIF (though the P in SPDIF stands for Philips, the CD guys).
Also, The NeverEnding Format Wars (MemoryStick, BlueRay, etc.), PS3 Delays And High Price (Save Up Suckers), MP3 Players That Really Only Play ATRAC, Trying To Get Us To Buy MD Even Though We Told Them A Zillion Times That Tape Sucks Come On Philips Dumped Their Digital Tape Ages Ago, and last but not least Every Kind Of Hardware They Make Except For Playstation Is Being Made By Some Other Taiwanes Or Korean Company For Less Money And Higher Quality.
For Europeans, a "checking account" as such doesn't exist. You just have a "regular" account, and some of those (in some countries) come with cheques, or you can apply for them, in much the same way that you can get/apply for a debit card, overdraught, etc.
My point was; to Europeans, the need for a checking account is nil, so we look upon USian's use of language w.r.t. "checking accounts" as quite quaint. This doesn't negate that there are good reasons for having one (in the US), just that these reasons do not form a part of our daily experiences.
As for paying your block assocation/condo fees; I'd much rather pay those via scheduled money transfers. Much less hassle. My uncle runs one of those condo associations, and he just logs into internet-banking, downloads the statement into presumably excel, and sorts out which people haven't paid.
The EU is running a tight ship in Telecommunications and Banking (less so in utilities, but still, no European version of Enron); otherwise, banks would be working as inefficiently as they could get away with. Only because of EU enforcement actions do we have good cross-border electronic funds transfer as well.
You could use ACH; it's pretty expensive though, $100/yr plus $35/month plus $5 per batch.. (at least here). A comparable service from a Dutch bank is free upto 1000 transactions, 9cents per transaction thereafter (but there are bulk discounts). Only thing is, it's not cross-border.
Credit cards remain an oddity in Europe for many of the same reasons checks do. Direct debit, scheduled transfers, and debit cards fill too many of the blanks, and recently banks have started to do better at internet transactions too (they're now ganging up together so you can pay at webstores via a redirect to your regular internetbanking website).
Are you guys serious? Yes, we use "cheques" all the time in the U.S. I get my wages in a check, I pay the rent with a check, etc. I do use a debit card for most purchases, though.
Yeah, these guys are serious. Just to give an example; the "Eurocheque" was abolished in 2002 (along with the introduction of the Euro coinage) to not much fanfare; most countries had already given up on the scheme in the 1990s. Currently, no bank in my country (be it a small country; The Netherlands) offers cheques. The vast majority of point-of-sale transactions are by debit card, except for small amounts (EUR 10) or with merchants who don't have a debit card terminal (which is getting increasingly rare, even pizza delivery boys are getting issued with mobile terminals).
From the 1990s on, checks were used mostly because, unlike in the US, they were "covered" up to EUR 500; they didn't bounce - so people would use them as a line of credit those last few days in the month before your wages come through.
Bills are still invoiced with a preprinted money-order attached, but it's more convenient to just type over the ID number on your bank's e-banking site, or to tell the company to use direct debit.
All recurring stuff just gets credited and debited to my account automatically.
Actually, a lot of Europeans (myself included) get a bit puzzled when USians mention checks all the time. Or with the concept of a "checking account". Why would you want a checking account? Nobody uses checks, and you get a debit card and internet banking with your regular account right? "Billpay" services would be even more alien to Europeans..
The manufacturer's name is High Technology Corporation (of Taiwan). This model is codenamed "Prophet". some forums here on the different models, upgrades etc.
Investing in the company you work for isn't a bad thing. That's what owners often do. The problem is when you don't have diverse investments, and they're all tied up on one rickety ship.
"Investing in the company you work for isn't a bad thing" is too much of a blanket statement to be true. Investing in the company you work for is most certainly a bad thing if the company you work for sucks.
Owners of a company own the company, by definition. Company ownership is done by ownership of stock. So owners of a company own stock in a company. And every stockholder is part-owner. Owners don't "often" invest in a company, they do it by very definition.
That's only based on the stuff in (one of) your addressbooks, not on previous manual input, and it only displays a window with options after you press enter (in other words it does NOT type ahead), which is not in any way similar to autocomplete in outlook or firefox or anything else.. It's clumsy and it sucks.
You have to bear in mind that the submitter probably isn't a native speaker of English. Also, the editor most likely isn't even a native reader of English.
Outlook may be pretty evil, what with sending RTF e-mails.. But then.. so does Lotus Notes! It manages to 'retain' formatting from other applications when copy-pasting when it's entirely inappropriate, even (like, pasting some text from a webpage, bam! different font). It doesn't download attachments when you get your mail, but when you do download it, it doesn't add it to its 'local mail database', but let's you save it somewhere. Get the attachment from e-mail again because you deleted it from your filesystem, you have to download again. Calendering, sure, nice. But buggy as hell. Rescheduling usually doesn't work, you can read invites from Outlook users, but (sometimes) not accept them, or when you accept them, they don't get notified. "Replicating" databases takes ages, and doesn't in fact allow you to work offline. The client isn't noticibly multithreaded, you have to wait for a download to finish before being able to do something else. The client is a huge bloated binary, and it writes huge ass 'database' files to your disk. When you kill the client (which you often have to do as some actions lock the client up completely, though you'd like to cancel them), you have to log off and login again to restart it. It comes with transparant encrypted connections to its server - but it's not on by default. There is no clear way to mark a message unread!! I had to endure a few weeks of "tip of the day" messages to find out the INSERT button marks messages read/unread. No context menu option for that. Making a todo note? Not by using a menu option in the To-Do part of your screen, but you have to focuse the ToDo canvas, and then go to the client's main menu and select "create Todo". It uses proprietary mail protocols that don't add the usual RFC 2822 headers, and RFC 2822 headers from internet mail are really hard to get at. It makes you confirm unicode (utf-8) encoding for a message TWICE, even though it selects it by default when you type an accented character. It's slow and unresponsive. Did I mention the address books don't work properly? And no auto-complete?
This might all be fixed in later and greater versions (i have no idea what version I'm on now, I think 6.5 or something).. But compared to Lotus Notes, Outlook is a godsend!
Yeah. Compared to Lotus Notes, Outlook is a godsend.. Just imagine how crappy Lotus Notes must be, for that comparison to hold!
Maybe I missed something. What law are you talking about? I have googled, but I am not coming up with anything. Please enlighten me.
Google for The Hague Invasion Act.
first hit, second hit, with linkage to.gov site. The wikipedia article for "International Criminal Court" also links the "The Hague Invation Act" page.
You or other democracies would have to flat out attack us to enable our president to go to war against a western nation.
No, just put a GI on trial. You do realize this has been written into law?
China, OTH, is making plans to have a go at us (and EU as well). We have seen glimpses in some of the chinese wwriting and military sayings.
If you take that kind of posturing seriously. They're only really interested in portraying their military might w.r.t. Taiwan.
If you read Pravda, you will find some more interesting thoughts against USA, but I seriously doubt that they would take us on.
You do realize that Pravda is a privately-owned tabloid rag these days? Only slightly more respectable than World Weekly News (and I *do* mean only slightly)?
China, Russia, Iran, etc. have all been lashing out at the US in words for quite some time now. Those are empty words, and have been quite some time. Russia only posed a viable threat at the beginning of the cold war. But, if you choose to be paranoid about it, yeah, it can be scary.
So far, you have "glimpses" of propaganda-based writings, articles in a tabloid rag, but on the US side an actual Act passed by Congress (and the Senate) that authorizes the use of military force by an expeditiary force to attack The Hague in the event of a GI being brought up on trial in the International Criminal Court - which happens to be recognized by every other civilized nation. And unlike China, Russia, etc., the US has proved many times that it is quite willing to use military force, even if it hurts their economic interests (if you remember, Iraq's oil production did falter, which was bad news for SUV owners and people with, well, heating).
I'd say that paints a picture of the US where the US comes off as an agressor, and a serious risk, much more than those scary rogue nations (which lack capabilities to boot!).
This is not to say that I'm some kind of rabid anti-Americanist. Or that I think the possibility of US invasion is anything but remote. But at the very least, the US writing actual laws to invade my country is, well.... Insulting. Worryingly indicative of seemingly endless arrogance.
You might want to look at stuff like this from a slightly less US-centric point of view.
The US maybe "the World's Policeman". But it's also the world's biggest bully.
And its policymakers have no shortage of apologists.
What amazes me is that over the last 5 years, our gov. has outsourced so many critical areas to nations that are at best neutral, and more likely future enemies.
A cynic might take that to mean that the US is looking to make a lot more enemies.. Who am I kidding, the plans to invade my country have already been made, a bill was passed by Congress to invade The Hague in the event the International Criminal Court would ever attempt to try a USian.. SO yeah, I live in a future enemy State, despite being one of the strongest supporters of NATO....
Here in Europe providers offer "SIM-only" (i.e. no handset-subsidizing) plans.
This is largely in response to independent mobile phone sellers deciding to sell the plan without handsets, and to let their customers pocket (part of) the one-time subsidies.
I hate it when people use the:) as both a smiley and a closing bracket. I feel like the rest of their post is inside the bracket, and feel like they've finished the post incorrectly when they don't put a final ).
Glad to see I'm not the only one who gets riled up by that.. Though, by now, I'm used to parsing most texts in Quirks mode. (you didn't escape that final \);)).
That still doesn't deal with obviousness. Faced with the problem of providing additional feedback to the gamer, exploiting an additional sense (touch) isn't non-obvious. Stimulating touch by vibration isn't non-obvious (in fact it's just about cheapest way to do it, short from electrocution). I'd posit that the VAST majority of application patents, and probably ALL "business method" patents are stating the bleedingly obvious. In fact, so many patents are issued for application patents, people are just applying for every possible combination of existing methods and apparatuses for any use.
The greatest thing about application patents is that you don't even have to state which problem you're trying to solve, just "a method for *specific use* by *doing something*"; whether or not it's even better than another way isn't even in question - which explains the wealth of "but on the internet" patents.
The only workaround would be changing the picture on the card but it's printed on it so it starts getting complicated and costly for the thief.
They only need to copy the information on the magnetic stripe (which is read out in its entirety every time it's swiped) onto a card that doesn't have a picture on it. That card can pretty much look like anything, seeing as regular credit cards are imprinted with all sorts of crap these days anyway. It would be nice for the name&numbers to match up, but not really necessary.
. You can't call it negligence, not even by the greatest leap of imagination is it possible to make such a mistake, so it must be malice.
On the contrary, it is negligence. Negligence in replacing outdated systems with newer, more secure ones.
The system where PINs are (potentially) stored is from an older, kinder time. In fact, a time where most places weren't hooked up to data networks permanently. The idea being that you could store transactions, and encrypted PINs, for a while, then connect and upload the data, and get your money. Obviously this is more suited to credit card transactions.
The system was never designed by, well, competent people, and it was also not designed with modern networks in mind. Today, it would be a no-brainer to use some sort of challenge-response or public key algorithm. Like in "chip&pin" (where the PIN unlocks a public key signing-function on the chip card). But this is a remnant of the 70s.
Every once in a while, a story crops up where it's found out that ancient protocols are still being used between when a customer with a card from bank A withdraws money from an ATM from bank B (usually across borders, since at a national level (speaking about europe here) electronic funds transfers are standardized pretty well).. Only a few years ago, for example, it was found out it was possible to carry out a transaction in France with a card from the Netherlands without the actual PIN!
This is basically the sort of thing that audits are supposed to catch, because to a lay person the fact that something "just works" is good enough. You only know it's insecure once something bad happens, or if you happen to have a degree in cryptography. In an audit, if you can't answer the question "so, you're sure it uses the latest XYZ123 standard and isn't misconfigured?", then you know you're in trouble. Guilty until proven innocent; rather than Management by Exception..
Slashdot Mirror
, I'd suggest returning your current device and buying an Ipaq 6515. It has the GPS unit built right in - no attachments.
That's a bad idea. Why? Because your GPS receiver needs to see the sky. But - you need to see your PDAs screen. Often these two do not mix, for example in your car; you might want to have a GPS receiver horizontally on the dashboard, under the windshield, but the PDA in an upright position. A bluetooth GPS receiver offers more practical configurations to work with, to maximize GPS visibility and minimize screen glare.
Better: dynamically change the names of form fields ("subject", "message", etc) based on the current time. MD5 hash the current hour with the field name, and have the software only check the current and previous values. Spam bots generally have to be told what field names to look for.
Unless you're also willing to change the order of fields on your post-submit page, as well as the form factor, that doesn't do much good.
#1, get a better cell phone. With TDMA phones (GSM, D-AMPS, iDEN) you get a lot of noise as the transceiver switches on and off several times a second, transmitting at full power. iDEN phones (NexTel) have always been *by far* the worst about this, in my experience. If you get a CDMA phone (eg, Verizon), the phones on a cell share a common, continuous, low-level signal, which does not cause this kind of interference.
While I'm there are differences in the amount of audible interference on speakers between the technologies, there are some issues with your explanation.
1) CDMA phones do not transmit continuously. That would suck down the batteries in no time. When there is nothing to transmit, they don't transmit anything.
2) The signal may be "low-level", but hey, GSM signals are "low-level" too; just outputting the maximum amount of RF power for the heck of it wastes too much power. No matter how "low-level" the signal is that your (CDMA) handset transmits, the closer you put your phone to any other sort of equipment, the higher the level of RF interference.
What IS true though, is that CDMA is a spread-spectrum approach, much like wifi, ofdm, etc. Both GSM and CDMA phones will use just about the same amount of power to transmit, but in GSM that power will be delivered to a single frequency, whereas with CDMA its spread out over multiple frequencies. Think of housing 8 families in a bungalow home each instead of 1 high-rise appartment building. (But, just moving your CDMA handset a few inches closer to your speakers should be enough to compensate for this..)
A CDMA phone can cause just as much interference as a GSM phone when you take into account variables such as distance-to-the-cell-tower and susceptibility to specific frequency bands. As a technology, it's to be preferred over TDMA in the general scheme of things, but lower short-range interference from transmitters isn't its main selling point at all.
How does that work buying (oral contract) $0.25 items from the cheap-ass-quarter-dollar-items store? Or, like, bubblegum?
Secure Digital and xD is just a proprietary as Memory Stick. Why does everyone blame SONY for disagreeing on formats?
... the Compact Audio Disc.
Oh BTW, MiniDisc is a great recording format. It just never took off as a distribution format in the United States. Sony's previous market introduction was too successfull
Wonder why the CD was so succesful? Unlike MD and MemoryStick there was no standards war. Like DVD, it was a collaboration of the big consumer electronics firms. Sony didn't invent the CD; Philips, Sony and Matshushita got together to make the CD happen. In fact, "Compact Disc" is a Philips trademark. Likewise, DVD was a cross-industry effort, unlike BlueRay.
MiniDisc is also not as great a recording format as DAT, even if you prefer tape.
MemoryStick utterly failed, unlike MMC and SD, because it's hella easier to license MMC and SD technology. MS is only found in Sony appliances.
xD is also proprietary, but it was never introduced as THE memory card format, and if I put my 3 year old xD card into a brand new Olympus or Fujifilm camera, it will still work, whereas Sony has Memorystick 1, 2, 3 which even differ in size, and it's expensive.
If you want to point to fairly recent Sony introductions, you'd be stuck with IEEE 1394 (firewire, amusingly, Sony's iLink was, for a long time, incompatible with IEEE 1394 in subtle ways, even though Sony proposed the standard) or SPDIF (though the P in SPDIF stands for Philips, the CD guys).
why do we all have a "rabid hate" for Sony?
DRM rootkits.
Also, The NeverEnding Format Wars (MemoryStick, BlueRay, etc.), PS3 Delays And High Price (Save Up Suckers), MP3 Players That Really Only Play ATRAC, Trying To Get Us To Buy MD Even Though We Told Them A Zillion Times That Tape Sucks Come On Philips Dumped Their Digital Tape Ages Ago, and last but not least Every Kind Of Hardware They Make Except For Playstation Is Being Made By Some Other Taiwanes Or Korean Company For Less Money And Higher Quality.
They're a company in decline.
Actually, my question was rhetorical ;-)
For Europeans, a "checking account" as such doesn't exist. You just have a "regular" account, and some of those (in some countries) come with cheques, or you can apply for them, in much the same way that you can get/apply for a debit card, overdraught, etc.
My point was; to Europeans, the need for a checking account is nil, so we look upon USian's use of language w.r.t. "checking accounts" as quite quaint. This doesn't negate that there are good reasons for having one (in the US), just that these reasons do not form a part of our daily experiences.
As for paying your block assocation/condo fees; I'd much rather pay those via scheduled money transfers. Much less hassle. My uncle runs one of those condo associations, and he just logs into internet-banking, downloads the statement into presumably excel, and sorts out which people haven't paid.
The EU is running a tight ship in Telecommunications and Banking (less so in utilities, but still, no European version of Enron); otherwise, banks would be working as inefficiently as they could get away with. Only because of EU enforcement actions do we have good cross-border electronic funds transfer as well.
You could use ACH; it's pretty expensive though, $100/yr plus $35/month plus $5 per batch.. (at least here). A comparable service from a Dutch bank is free upto 1000 transactions, 9cents per transaction thereafter (but there are bulk discounts). Only thing is, it's not cross-border.
Credit cards remain an oddity in Europe for many of the same reasons checks do. Direct debit, scheduled transfers, and debit cards fill too many of the blanks, and recently banks have started to do better at internet transactions too (they're now ganging up together so you can pay at webstores via a redirect to your regular internetbanking website).
Are you guys serious? Yes, we use "cheques" all the time in the U.S. I get my wages in a check, I pay the rent with a check, etc. I do use a debit card for most purchases, though.
Yeah, these guys are serious. Just to give an example; the "Eurocheque" was abolished in 2002 (along with the introduction of the Euro coinage) to not much fanfare; most countries had already given up on the scheme in the 1990s. Currently, no bank in my country (be it a small country; The Netherlands) offers cheques. The vast majority of point-of-sale transactions are by debit card, except for small amounts (EUR 10) or with merchants who don't have a debit card terminal (which is getting increasingly rare, even pizza delivery boys are getting issued with mobile terminals).
From the 1990s on, checks were used mostly because, unlike in the US, they were "covered" up to EUR 500; they didn't bounce - so people would use them as a line of credit those last few days in the month before your wages come through.
Bills are still invoiced with a preprinted money-order attached, but it's more convenient to just type over the ID number on your bank's e-banking site, or to tell the company to use direct debit.
All recurring stuff just gets credited and debited to my account automatically.
Actually, a lot of Europeans (myself included) get a bit puzzled when USians mention checks all the time. Or with the concept of a "checking account". Why would you want a checking account? Nobody uses checks, and you get a debit card and internet banking with your regular account right? "Billpay" services would be even more alien to Europeans..
The manufacturer's name is High Technology Corporation (of Taiwan). This model is codenamed "Prophet". some forums here on the different models, upgrades etc.
Give me something like a Treo, except in the size of an iPod or RAZR and I'd be happy to donate my iPod with video to someone.
Something like a iMate JAMin?
Investing in the company you work for isn't a bad thing. That's what owners often do. The problem is when you don't have diverse investments, and they're all tied up on one rickety ship.
"Investing in the company you work for isn't a bad thing" is too much of a blanket statement to be true. Investing in the company you work for is most certainly a bad thing if the company you work for sucks.
Owners of a company own the company, by definition. Company ownership is done by ownership of stock. So owners of a company own stock in a company. And every stockholder is part-owner. Owners don't "often" invest in a company, they do it by very definition.
I prefered the "cute" articles.
ME TOO!!!!!111 LOLOLOL *gg*
We want more kittiesss!!!!!!!11111
That's only based on the stuff in (one of) your addressbooks, not on previous manual input, and it only displays a window with options after you press enter (in other words it does NOT type ahead), which is not in any way similar to autocomplete in outlook or firefox or anything else.. It's clumsy and it sucks.
You have to bear in mind that the submitter probably isn't a native speaker of English. Also, the editor most likely isn't even a native reader of English.
All I can say is.. STAY AWAY!!
Outlook may be pretty evil, what with sending RTF e-mails.. But then.. so does Lotus Notes! It manages to 'retain' formatting from other applications when copy-pasting when it's entirely inappropriate, even (like, pasting some text from a webpage, bam! different font). It doesn't download attachments when you get your mail, but when you do download it, it doesn't add it to its 'local mail database', but let's you save it somewhere. Get the attachment from e-mail again because you deleted it from your filesystem, you have to download again. Calendering, sure, nice. But buggy as hell. Rescheduling usually doesn't work, you can read invites from Outlook users, but (sometimes) not accept them, or when you accept them, they don't get notified. "Replicating" databases takes ages, and doesn't in fact allow you to work offline. The client isn't noticibly multithreaded, you have to wait for a download to finish before being able to do something else. The client is a huge bloated binary, and it writes huge ass 'database' files to your disk. When you kill the client (which you often have to do as some actions lock the client up completely, though you'd like to cancel them), you have to log off and login again to restart it. It comes with transparant encrypted connections to its server - but it's not on by default. There is no clear way to mark a message unread!! I had to endure a few weeks of "tip of the day" messages to find out the INSERT button marks messages read/unread. No context menu option for that. Making a todo note? Not by using a menu option in the To-Do part of your screen, but you have to focuse the ToDo canvas, and then go to the client's main menu and select "create Todo". It uses proprietary mail protocols that don't add the usual RFC 2822 headers, and RFC 2822 headers from internet mail are really hard to get at. It makes you confirm unicode (utf-8) encoding for a message TWICE, even though it selects it by default when you type an accented character. It's slow and unresponsive. Did I mention the address books don't work properly? And no auto-complete?
This might all be fixed in later and greater versions (i have no idea what version I'm on now, I think 6.5 or something).. But compared to Lotus Notes, Outlook is a godsend!
Yeah. Compared to Lotus Notes, Outlook is a godsend.. Just imagine how crappy Lotus Notes must be, for that comparison to hold!
Maybe I missed something. What law are you talking about? I have googled, but I am not coming up with anything. Please enlighten me.
.gov site. The wikipedia article for "International Criminal Court" also links the "The Hague Invation Act" page.
Google for The Hague Invasion Act.
first hit, second hit, with linkage to
You or other democracies would have to flat out attack us to enable our president to go to war against a western nation.
No, just put a GI on trial. You do realize this has been written into law?
China, OTH, is making plans to have a go at us (and EU as well). We have seen glimpses in some of the chinese wwriting and military sayings.
If you take that kind of posturing seriously. They're only really interested in portraying their military might w.r.t. Taiwan.
If you read Pravda, you will find some more interesting thoughts against USA, but I seriously doubt that they would take us on.
You do realize that Pravda is a privately-owned tabloid rag these days? Only slightly more respectable than World Weekly News (and I *do* mean only slightly)?
China, Russia, Iran, etc. have all been lashing out at the US in words for quite some time now. Those are empty words, and have been quite some time. Russia only posed a viable threat at the beginning of the cold war. But, if you choose to be paranoid about it, yeah, it can be scary.
So far, you have "glimpses" of propaganda-based writings, articles in a tabloid rag, but on the US side an actual Act passed by Congress (and the Senate) that authorizes the use of military force by an expeditiary force to attack The Hague in the event of a GI being brought up on trial in the International Criminal Court - which happens to be recognized by every other civilized nation. And unlike China, Russia, etc., the US has proved many times that it is quite willing to use military force, even if it hurts their economic interests (if you remember, Iraq's oil production did falter, which was bad news for SUV owners and people with, well, heating).
I'd say that paints a picture of the US where the US comes off as an agressor, and a serious risk, much more than those scary rogue nations (which lack capabilities to boot!).
This is not to say that I'm some kind of rabid anti-Americanist. Or that I think the possibility of US invasion is anything but remote. But at the very least, the US writing actual laws to invade my country is, well.... Insulting. Worryingly indicative of seemingly endless arrogance.
You might want to look at stuff like this from a slightly less US-centric point of view.
The US maybe "the World's Policeman". But it's also the world's biggest bully.
And its policymakers have no shortage of apologists.
What amazes me is that over the last 5 years, our gov. has outsourced so many critical areas to nations that are at best neutral, and more likely future enemies.
A cynic might take that to mean that the US is looking to make a lot more enemies.. Who am I kidding, the plans to invade my country have already been made, a bill was passed by Congress to invade The Hague in the event the International Criminal Court would ever attempt to try a USian.. SO yeah, I live in a future enemy State, despite being one of the strongest supporters of NATO....
It does sound remarkably like the Iowa Electronic Markets.
Here in Europe providers offer "SIM-only" (i.e. no handset-subsidizing) plans.
This is largely in response to independent mobile phone sellers deciding to sell the plan without handsets, and to let their customers pocket (part of) the one-time subsidies.
Do you not have independent phoneshops in the US?
I hate it when people use the
Glad to see I'm not the only one who gets riled up by that.. Though, by now, I'm used to parsing most texts in Quirks mode. (you didn't escape that final \);)).
Oh come on, it's only a speech imperfectment, and perhaps a touch of dystextia..
That still doesn't deal with obviousness. Faced with the problem of providing additional feedback to the gamer, exploiting an additional sense (touch) isn't non-obvious. Stimulating touch by vibration isn't non-obvious (in fact it's just about cheapest way to do it, short from electrocution). I'd posit that the VAST majority of application patents, and probably ALL "business method" patents are stating the bleedingly obvious. In fact, so many patents are issued for application patents, people are just applying for every possible combination of existing methods and apparatuses for any use.
The greatest thing about application patents is that you don't even have to state which problem you're trying to solve, just "a method for *specific use* by *doing something*"; whether or not it's even better than another way isn't even in question - which explains the wealth of "but on the internet" patents.
The only workaround would be changing the picture on the card but it's printed on it so it starts getting complicated and costly for the thief.
They only need to copy the information on the magnetic stripe (which is read out in its entirety every time it's swiped) onto a card that doesn't have a picture on it. That card can pretty much look like anything, seeing as regular credit cards are imprinted with all sorts of crap these days anyway. It would be nice for the name&numbers to match up, but not really necessary.
. You can't call it negligence, not even by the greatest leap of imagination is it possible to make such a mistake, so it must be malice.
On the contrary, it is negligence. Negligence in replacing outdated systems with newer, more secure ones.
The system where PINs are (potentially) stored is from an older, kinder time. In fact, a time where most places weren't hooked up to data networks permanently. The idea being that you could store transactions, and encrypted PINs, for a while, then connect and upload the data, and get your money. Obviously this is more suited to credit card transactions.
The system was never designed by, well, competent people, and it was also not designed with modern networks in mind. Today, it would be a no-brainer to use some sort of challenge-response or public key algorithm. Like in "chip&pin" (where the PIN unlocks a public key signing-function on the chip card). But this is a remnant of the 70s.
Every once in a while, a story crops up where it's found out that ancient protocols are still being used between when a customer with a card from bank A withdraws money from an ATM from bank B (usually across borders, since at a national level (speaking about europe here) electronic funds transfers are standardized pretty well).. Only a few years ago, for example, it was found out it was possible to carry out a transaction in France with a card from the Netherlands without the actual PIN!
This is basically the sort of thing that audits are supposed to catch, because to a lay person the fact that something "just works" is good enough. You only know it's insecure once something bad happens, or if you happen to have a degree in cryptography. In an audit, if you can't answer the question "so, you're sure it uses the latest XYZ123 standard and isn't misconfigured?", then you know you're in trouble. Guilty until proven innocent; rather than Management by Exception..