I can't speak for any hybrid owners, since I don't know any, but I bought a 2002 Acura RSX Type S new in early 2002. For those that may not be familiar with this car, it's essentially just a souped-up Honda Civic with a nicer interior. It's been a great car and is a blast to drive. It's roughly the same size as a Prius. Base price was about $22,500, or about $2k more than a base 2002 Prius. I don't know what the standard features and available options were on the Prius, but there wasn't too much to add to the Acura. An underbody kit, spoiler, and fog lights were about it. The car has been averaging about 30mpg, with the best I ever achieved being 39mpg on a road trip. Most of my driving is "surburban". Not stop-and-go like in a city, but not mostly highway, either.
Where I'm going with this is that the absolute costs for a 2002 Prius versus my RSX would not have been significantly different, especially spread out over the 10 years that I have owned my car. And on top of that, the RSX is *far* more enjoyable to drive than any Prius.
If you live in the city, than a hybrid can make a lot sense. A small diesel would get you almost as good mileage, with a lower up front cost and, probably, lower lifetime maintenance costs.
Do I think hybrids are here to stay? Of course! Do I think that they're over-hyped? Absolutely. For specific types of driving styles and habits, they *can* save you some money if you keep them long enough or put enough miles on them. In my particular case, I want to own a vehicle that I enjoy driving. I don't want a "supercar", but I do want a car than has some modicum of performance. The base hybrids that I've seen so far, for the most part, don't.
Just looking at current models, a 2012 Prius "Level 5" with a few options lists for about $33k. A Honda Civic sedan specced out roughly the same lists for about $24k. That's $9k in difference just to get a hybrid. You better keep it for a pretty long time or put a lot of miles on it to recoup that upfront cost. If you end up financing it, it's even worse, since you get to pay interest on that additional up-front cost, too.
After making sure that there is no data that needs to be kept on any old hard drives, I take them to the range and shoot them..223 Remington rounds punch nice holes through them. 3 or 4 strategically placed shots, making sure that you hit the platters, seems to work pretty well. I would be surprised if much data could be recovered from discs that are physically missing a decent percentage of their area. Of course, the less fun way to achieve the same end is to use a drill press and just drill multiple holes through the platters. If you do go the firearms route, make sure you keep at least 10 yards between you and the drive (to avoid any potential injury from ricochets or flying hard drive parts, make sure you have a safe backstop behind the drive(s), and use a rifle caliber. I've found that most hand gun rounds won't fully penetrate the platters in a drive.
I think the last time I saw a movie in a theater was in 2002. For the price of admission for two people alone, I can usually buy the DVD. My stereo has better sound than the theaters I've been in, and my couch is way more comfortable than any theater seat. On top of that, I have the freedom to watch the movie on my schedule, pause it if I need to, and my popcorn is much better than theater popcorn. Not to mention the cost of snacks at home is about a tenth of what it costs at a theater. Lastly, I don't have to woory about what's on the floor, and there's no risk of there being rude folks in the audience to detract from the "experience".
I basically have no use for theaters anymore- they're just way too expensive and offer an inferior experience.
"With ad blocking becoming ever more popular among users, why do you block ads? And with what?"
Because many of the ads are annoying, intrusive and irrelevant. I mainly use my browser's pop-up and ad-blocking tools.
"Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?"
Yes- I actively searched out the sites I read. And that's one of the key differences- I *read* a web site, I *watch* the TV. I have far more choices of what to read online than what I can watch on TV, as well as more control.
"What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?"
If the magazine is more advertising than content, yes, I will not purchase it. If I buy or subscribe to a magazine, I'm paying for interesting content, not to see mostly irrelevant advertising.
"I'm specifically talking about the ads in a webpage, but even popup blockers can cause problems with me using a site."
I have yet to have problems with using a pop-up blocker. There are a few sites that use pop-ups when logging in or other situations, but it's easy enough to set my browser to allow pop-ups from that specific site. I can't recall the last time I had to deal with pop-up ads.
You know, I just have to laugh at folks who complain about late fees. It's pretty clearly stated in whatever store's policy, that a customer has to sign, that returning items late results in late fees. So, everyone knows that returning stuff late rsults in late fees. What I don't understand is why is it so hard for so many people to return things on time? And *knowing* that being late results in late fees, why would anyone treat late fees so casually? Are all these folks so rich that they just don't care? Hell, if late fees are such an issue, you just go out and buy the DVD or whatever.
Out of curiosity, how long had it been since you rented the movie that resulted in this particular late fee? You said it had been a while- was it maybe long enough for Blockbuster to think that they had already lost you as a customer?
Really, either return stuff on time, pay the late fees, or buy the movies you want to watch. What's the difficult concept here?
This is simply not true. At work, we have a wireless network which exclusively uses public, routable IPs.
Well, you got me there. I've never seen a wireless network that used exclusively public IP's. I'll rephrase my statement, though- an end user has no way of knowing whether a wireless network is intentionally publically available or not. Most free hotspots that I've seen do not use publically routable IP's, yet they are still publically accessible on purpose.
That's a pretty bold statement. Got any legal backing for it?
For one, how about US Code? It explicitly states that using publically available communications systems is not a crime in and of itself. Another poster has the relevant sections of code posted, and it seems awfully clear cut. You are making your network publically available by allowing your router to grant me access.
Whether you are technically inclined or not, *you* are responsible for the products you purchase. I have not yet seen an owner's manual that did not explain how to turn on WEP or use some other way to secure a wireless access point. Do not blame anyone else if you do not or can not understand the owner's manual. It's *your* responsibiity to know what you're doing, not mine.
If you're talking off-the-shelf commodity routers like the offerings from D-Link, Netgear, and Linksys, you have to do something pretty explicit in order to get that server accessible from the public Internet. You don't just plug it all in and suddenly the world has access to any machine on your private network.
The world may not have access to the specific machines on my network, but if I don't enable security, anyone within range usually does have access to my wireless network. Perhaps I intended that, and perhaps not. An end user has NO WAY of knowing whther my network is open intentionally or not.
Well, in that case, *every* wireless network is private, and since there are plenty that are open to the public, how is a user to know that any specific one doesn't allow just anyone to use it?
I'll give another example- I have a web server on my private network that is reachable from "the internet". So, is my web server considered a private network resource or not?
After all, it's behind my router on the "private" side of the network, but it is reachable from the public side. By your definition above, my web server must be a private resource and anyone who accesses it without my express permission is breaking the law (at least in some jurisdictions).
Setting an access point to not be publically available is a trivial matter. By allowing your access point to grant me access if I ask for it, you are in effect granting me access to your network. An earlier poster had it right- if you have a sign up next to your door that says "Open House Today", you can't have some arrested for trespassing when they walk in. If I connect to a wide open access point, I'm not forcing my way into the network, I'm not "hacking" anything, and at no point am I told to go away. My client asks your base station for information allowing it to connect. If your base station gives me that information, how exactly am I trespassing? I'm asking for permission first, and you are granting it. It's that simple. Now if you're too stupid to know what your equipment does, don't blame me or anyone else for your lack of understanding. Maybe you should have hired a professional to install your networking gear if security is a concern for you but you don't know how to make things secure.
Here's another analogy. Let's say I walk up to your house's front door, and you happen to have a system in place that opens the door as soon as someone approaches and puts out a sign saying "Come on in". I'm not trespassing if I enter your house- your door opened for me and a sign said I could come in. Now, let's say that system has a way to set it up so that it only works when you or your family approach the door. If you fail to activate that part of the system, allowing it to open the door for anyone who walks up, you still can't have me arrested for trespassing. Now if you're home, and you happen to see me walk in, ask me to leave, and then I don't, then you might have a case.
Besides, as has been mentioned by previous posters- the spectrum that a wireless base station works on is public property. Your base station is broadcasting itself to anyone who can hear it. It's not my or anyone else's but your own responsibility to configure your network to allow or deny access as you see fit.
There's a problem with your analogy, however. Actually, a couple of problems. First off, in the real world, your property (land, house, etc.) are private. You own them. You have a deed, receipt, etc. The radio spectrum that wireless routers use is *not* private property. It is public property. Manufacturers must be licensed and comply with a bunch of regulations in order to build a device that broadcasts over the public spectrum.
Second problem- the internet is designed to be open. According to your intrepretation of the law, it would be illegal for anyone to load any web site without express persmission of the web site's owner. How do you get this express permission? If I try to load a web site, I usually don't see anything in big bold print telling me it's okay to continue, nor do I usually have to ask for permission. If a person wants to keep a web site private, they password protect it. If I hack the password, then yes, I'm breaking the law. Wireless access can be treated the same way. If my device sends a request for an IP, and the router replies back with the information needed to connect, I haven't hacked a thing.
The internet simply would not function as designed if you needed express permission to use every resource attached to it.
I don't see how naming an operating system after after an animal is trampling anybody's IP rights. Last time I checked, the word "tiger" was a common english word- it's not Apple's problem that TigerDirect choose that word to be part of their name. Besides, do you really think anyone was confused about Mac OS X Tiger and TigerDirect?
And as far as being hammered, Apple does get hammered, and rightly so, when it comes to DMCA threats, etc. Apple certainly is far from perfect or an ideal corporate citizen. But all-in-all, I think they are better than Microsoft when it comes to their corporate citizenship.
What if the local government wants to set up wireless access because a majority of it's citizens has asked for it?
What if the government got a donation from some third party to pay for it?
If the people want it, why shouldn't the local government be able to provide it?
Government *is* supposed to mostly do what the people want, isn't it?
And to say that if enough people want something, it will get built, is a load of bull$shit. A perfect example- I live in a community of roughly 30,000 people, and we cannot get DSL access, even though all of the surrounding towns can. Why? Because SBC has limited resources and is building out their network in other, more lucrative, markets first. There's great demand in my town, but SBC has decided that there's *more* demand somewhere else. Too bad for us. By the time SBC gets around to my town, there probably won't be as much demand, which will likely bump us even lower on the list. Businesses have limited resources, and of course will go where the profit potential is highest- nothing wrong with that. But don't try to say that "if people want it, some one will provide it". That's BS and most people know it...
Maybe it's me, but WTF is so hard about returning a rented movie on time? Granted, I haven't rented anything since laserdics were popular, but I *never* had a problem returning a movie within three days. As for DVD's, I just buy the ones I want. Between the DVD club, buying used DVD's, and just finding good deals, I'm averaging right around $10 a DVD, and I get to watch it as many damn times as I want. And yes, I have watched most of my DVD's more than once.
Are people really so stupid to think that by saying "No more Late Fees", that they can keep rentals forever without penalty?
If you can't be responsible enough to return a rental product on time, maybe you shouldn't be renting them in the first place...
While I may or may not disagree with some of Soros' views regarding Bush (who I am not a big fan of, by the way), one major issue I have with Soros is his support and funding for the various anti-2nd Ammendment groups out there. Groups such as the Million Mom March (more like the 1000 Mom March, but whatever), the Brady Center (formerly Handgun Control Inc.), etc. Soros is also a big supporter of a proposed UN Treaty that would outlaw private ownership of firearms.
I simply cannot support anyone who is so vehemently opposed to my Rights as a US citizen.
I noticed though that his thoughts on anything other than Bush or Iraq aren't posted on his website. I wonder if he's trying to hide his other political views because they aren't as popular as his anti-Bush stance...
My wife and I almost never go out to theaters anymore, With tickets running $8 or higher per person, it's cheaper for us to wait and buy the DVD than to go see a film in a theater. Between the DVD clubs and buying used DVD's from a couple local rental shops, we're averaging less than $11 per DVD, and we have quite a few.
While it would nice if we had a larger screen to watch a movie on, our 25" TV works well enough for now, and we have a decent sound system. It's nice to be able to kick back and relax and just watch the movie. We can pause it if we have to (bathroom break, phone call, whatever), we don't pay outrageous prices for food or drink (besides, my hot air popped popcorn is better tasting that theater popcorn!), we don't have to worry about other people in a theater not being quiet or having garbage on the floor, and we get whatever special features that may come on the DVD. Where possible, we buy only the widescreen versions of movies, so we're not losing anything by the movie being "reformatted to fit your tv screen".
The only time we go to a theater anymore is if we have free passes, which I think we've had twice so far this year. We've bought a whole lot more DVD's this year, though....
Maybe I'm dating myself here, but I also still have the laserdisc releases of the original Star Wars releases, and I have no plans on getting rid of them. I also have the laserdisc version of Star Trek- The Motion Picture. Note, I also have the DVD versions (or soon will), but there's something about the original theatrical releases that makes me want to keep them...
It's too bad Lucas didn't offer the different versions on the new DVD's. It should have been a relatively simple task to offer viewers a choice between original theatrical release and his newer versions...
I take it one step further- I record the gas amount purchased, odometer mileage, and cost on a piece of paper, in my pager, or wherever. When I get back home, it all goes into a spreadsheet. I have the spreadsheet set up to calculate mileage for each particular tank of gas, overall average mileage, average cost of gas, etc. I also keep track of maintenance costs, insurance costs, and all that in the same spreadsheet. This tells me what my cost of ownership is on a per day or even per mile basis. It's pretty eye-opening, I might add.
As for mileage, the worst I've gotten in my current car is 21.479 mpg, and the best is 37.032. The average is 26.048. EPA numbers are 24 City / 31 Highway. Overall, I'd say my driving is 70% city, so the mileage I'm getting is pretty much spot-on with EPA estimates.
True, the typical criminal probably isn't a good enough shot to drop anybody with a.32, but plenty of people have been killed by.22LR's. Let's see- just about any round that nicks your carotid or femoral artery will kill you quick enough. There's a big misconception that small caliber rounds aren't "dangerous" or "manly" enough to work as defensive rounds. If you can place your shots well, any bullet will kill some one. Maybe not right away like a.45ACP to the temple will, but they'll be dead nonetheless. Besides, a smaller caliber, lower velocity round is less likely to cause collateral damage. Do some research sometime and look up the statistics for various calibers and loads- you might be surprised.
If you can do your end (shoot well, know how your firearm works, train often, etc.), almost anything you shoot will do its part.
The simplest two reasons I can think of for case sensitivity in a language is to maintain use of all available namespace (case insensitive cuts the namespace roughly in half), and it allows for more efficient compilers. IE, compilers don't have to treat two different characters the same, like "A" and "a", which have different intrinsic values.
The namespace issue would be the most important to me, though. Besides, What's the problem with typing case sensitively? You do so in "normal" communications all the time- what's so bad about continuing that habit in your coding? It makes the code easier to read, and if you stick to conventions, it makes understanding your code that much faster as a reader can differentiate an item based on it's capitalization. Personally, I hate reading code that's all caps...
Where I live (northern Illinois), the counties all have a "solid waste disposal agency", and they occasionally have a 3-day event in which they accept old electronics. They take pretty much anything except for large appliances, microwaves, and software. There's no cost- all you have to do is drop the items off at preset collection points. These are usually local community colleges or corporate sponsors. I've used these event twice now to get rid of broken monitors, computers too old to be useful for me, etc. They take the items and recycle them properly, where the normal trash pickup, if they take the items, will just dump them in a landfill.
On the one hand, I have to agree with another poster in that being a law enforcement officer shouldn't grant you more privacy than an ordinary citizen. On the other hand, it's too bad that the law in question wasn't more specific, like just banning SSN's. We need some sort of protection from abuse of SSN's- they were never designed to be the universal ID number that they are now, and it's far too easy to commit identity theft with SSN's being relatively easy to acquire...
"Now, having established that consumers prefer (and have chosen) to pay for the ink, HP is entitled to protect its ink sales. This just seems logical."
Oh? How is that a company which decides on a particular business plan, and then sees that this particular business plan isn't making them the profits they had expected, is entitled to ARTIFICIALLY cause a product to become unusable?
There are plenty of comparisons to use here- what if you could only put Ford batteries in a car manufactured by Ford Motor Co., and that battery shuts itself off after 4 years? Are you suggesting that Ford is entitled to do this? Or how about Dell- what if Dell PC's "expired" after 4 years, since that's about an average PC life is? Is Dell entitled to do this? Hell, it might jumpstart the PC industry if everyone who owned a computer had to buy a new one every 4 years!
I'm sorry, but if a company's business plan ends up not working, it's not my problem. Maybe they should have planned better. But artificially causing a product to fail, whether it was previously functional or not, is wrong. Especially so when I can't legally hack the product to make it continue to work, thanks to the DMCA.
I buy things when *I* want to, not when some company has decided that I'm due to spend some money. As far as printers and ink cartridges, I'll buy a replacement when my ink cartridge runs out or when the quality degrades far enough due to age- I do not want to buy a replacement simply because the manufacturer thinks I should after "x" period of time.
How is an online store selling a product for a lower price a "REAL problem"? It's called competition. Last time I checked, competition was generally a good thing. It's not like there's a whole lot of local competition in most places, so a local gaming store is free to pretty much do what they want in most cases. Adding in the online stores to the mix at least brings some pressure on the gaming stores to either lower prices or offer other benefits that online stores can't. Besides, you can't beat a local store for "impulse buying" anyway...
As for not using a gaming store if you don't buy from them, well, I usually don't. The vast majority of the gaming sessions I'm involved in are held at my house. I'm lucky enough to have a decent sized gaming table and an understanding wife who lets me play pretty much as much as I want. The group I game with are all decent people that I don't mind inviting to my home. I will occasionally play at the local store, but those are games that I did not organize. By buying most of my gaming stuff online the last couple of years, I've saved about $1000 off of MSRP. That's not an insignificant amount for this hobby!
Maybe you know details I don't, but how is attacking a military force, in a justified military action, criminal? Last time I checked, the UN and most of the world's nations agreed with the Gulf War. Just because the forces were in retreat does not mean they are not a legitimate military target. What should the Coalition have done- let all that equipment and military personnel just go back across the border so that Iraq could still threaten it's neighbors with them?
(Troops + Weapons) in (invaded country) = (legitimate military target) for (invaded country's defenders)
Although my price range is a tad lower, say a max of $700. I'd prefer one that's motorized, but that's not a necessity as long as there's a good way to get it pointed in the right direction. If it is motorized, being Mac-compatible would be a *big* plus...
I updated to 10.2.4 via Software Update this morning, and the only thing that happened was that I had some icons added to the dock for iTunes, iMovie, etc. I removed the icons from the dock before, since I only want the dock to show running apps, and it was no big deal to just drag the icons off the dock.
I haven't had any time problems, no cryptic error messages, and no other problems that I'm aware of.
Oh, I did have to move iPhoto and iMovie (which I updated via Software Update at the same time that I got 10.2.4). The updaters for them placed them in the Applications directory, and I like to keep my apps a little more organized than that. Just a simple drag and replace and everything was back to how I had it.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for any hybrid owners, since I don't know any, but I bought a 2002 Acura RSX Type S new in early 2002. For those that may not be familiar with this car, it's essentially just a souped-up Honda Civic with a nicer interior. It's been a great car and is a blast to drive. It's roughly the same size as a Prius. Base price was about $22,500, or about $2k more than a base 2002 Prius. I don't know what the standard features and available options were on the Prius, but there wasn't too much to add to the Acura. An underbody kit, spoiler, and fog lights were about it. The car has been averaging about 30mpg, with the best I ever achieved being 39mpg on a road trip. Most of my driving is "surburban". Not stop-and-go like in a city, but not mostly highway, either.
Where I'm going with this is that the absolute costs for a 2002 Prius versus my RSX would not have been significantly different, especially spread out over the 10 years that I have owned my car. And on top of that, the RSX is *far* more enjoyable to drive than any Prius.
If you live in the city, than a hybrid can make a lot sense. A small diesel would get you almost as good mileage, with a lower up front cost and, probably, lower lifetime maintenance costs.
Do I think hybrids are here to stay? Of course! Do I think that they're over-hyped? Absolutely. For specific types of driving styles and habits, they *can* save you some money if you keep them long enough or put enough miles on them. In my particular case, I want to own a vehicle that I enjoy driving. I don't want a "supercar", but I do want a car than has some modicum of performance. The base hybrids that I've seen so far, for the most part, don't.
Just looking at current models, a 2012 Prius "Level 5" with a few options lists for about $33k. A Honda Civic sedan specced out roughly the same lists for about $24k. That's $9k in difference just to get a hybrid. You better keep it for a pretty long time or put a lot of miles on it to recoup that upfront cost. If you end up financing it, it's even worse, since you get to pay interest on that additional up-front cost, too.
After making sure that there is no data that needs to be kept on any old hard drives, I take them to the range and shoot them. .223 Remington rounds punch nice holes through them. 3 or 4 strategically placed shots, making sure that you hit the platters, seems to work pretty well. I would be surprised if much data could be recovered from discs that are physically missing a decent percentage of their area. Of course, the less fun way to achieve the same end is to use a drill press and just drill multiple holes through the platters.
If you do go the firearms route, make sure you keep at least 10 yards between you and the drive (to avoid any potential injury from ricochets or flying hard drive parts, make sure you have a safe backstop behind the drive(s), and use a rifle caliber. I've found that most hand gun rounds won't fully penetrate the platters in a drive.
I think the last time I saw a movie in a theater was in 2002. For the price of admission for two people alone, I can usually buy the DVD. My stereo has better sound than the theaters I've been in, and my couch is way more comfortable than any theater seat. On top of that, I have the freedom to watch the movie on my schedule, pause it if I need to, and my popcorn is much better than theater popcorn. Not to mention the cost of snacks at home is about a tenth of what it costs at a theater. Lastly, I don't have to woory about what's on the floor, and there's no risk of there being rude folks in the audience to detract from the "experience".
I basically have no use for theaters anymore- they're just way too expensive and offer an inferior experience.
"With ad blocking becoming ever more popular among users, why do you block ads? And with what?"
Because many of the ads are annoying, intrusive and irrelevant. I mainly use my browser's pop-up and ad-blocking tools.
"Do you view internet ads as different from say, TV ads?"
Yes- I actively searched out the sites I read. And that's one of the key differences- I *read* a web site, I *watch* the TV. I have far more choices of what to read online than what I can watch on TV, as well as more control.
"What about in a magazine? Do you not buy a magazine because it has too many?"
If the magazine is more advertising than content, yes, I will not purchase it. If I buy or subscribe to a magazine, I'm paying for interesting content, not to see mostly irrelevant advertising.
"I'm specifically talking about the ads in a webpage, but even popup blockers can cause problems with me using a site."
I have yet to have problems with using a pop-up blocker. There are a few sites that use pop-ups when logging in or other situations, but it's easy enough to set my browser to allow pop-ups from that specific site. I can't recall the last time I had to deal with pop-up ads.
You know, I just have to laugh at folks who complain about late fees. It's pretty clearly stated in whatever store's policy, that a customer has to sign, that returning items late results in late fees. So, everyone knows that returning stuff late rsults in late fees. What I don't understand is why is it so hard for so many people to return things on time? And *knowing* that being late results in late fees, why would anyone treat late fees so casually? Are all these folks so rich that they just don't care? Hell, if late fees are such an issue, you just go out and buy the DVD or whatever.
Out of curiosity, how long had it been since you rented the movie that resulted in this particular late fee? You said it had been a while- was it maybe long enough for Blockbuster to think that they had already lost you as a customer?
Really, either return stuff on time, pay the late fees, or buy the movies you want to watch. What's the difficult concept here?
Let's see if this works:
5 7&cid=12994366
:)
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1549
That's the article that lists some of the applicable US Code. I'm feeling too lazy to actually look up the code at a federal web site...
This is simply not true. At work, we have a wireless network which exclusively uses public, routable IPs.
Well, you got me there. I've never seen a wireless network that used exclusively public IP's. I'll rephrase my statement, though- an end user has no way of knowing whether a wireless network is intentionally publically available or not. Most free hotspots that I've seen do not use publically routable IP's, yet they are still publically accessible on purpose.
That's a pretty bold statement. Got any legal backing for it?
For one, how about US Code? It explicitly states that using publically available communications systems is not a crime in and of itself. Another poster has the relevant sections of code posted, and it seems awfully clear cut. You are making your network publically available by allowing your router to grant me access.
Whether you are technically inclined or not, *you* are responsible for the products you purchase. I have not yet seen an owner's manual that did not explain how to turn on WEP or use some other way to secure a wireless access point. Do not blame anyone else if you do not or can not understand the owner's manual. It's *your* responsibiity to know what you're doing, not mine.
If you're talking off-the-shelf commodity routers like the offerings from D-Link, Netgear, and Linksys, you have to do something pretty explicit in order to get that server accessible from the public Internet. You don't just plug it all in and suddenly the world has access to any machine on your private network.
The world may not have access to the specific machines on my network, but if I don't enable security, anyone within range usually does have access to my wireless network. Perhaps I intended that, and perhaps not. An end user has NO WAY of knowing whther my network is open intentionally or not.
Well, in that case, *every* wireless network is private, and since there are plenty that are open to the public, how is a user to know that any specific one doesn't allow just anyone to use it?
I'll give another example- I have a web server on my private network that is reachable from "the internet". So, is my web server considered a private network resource or not?
After all, it's behind my router on the "private" side of the network, but it is reachable from the public side. By your definition above, my web server must be a private resource and anyone who accesses it without my express permission is breaking the law (at least in some jurisdictions).
Setting an access point to not be publically available is a trivial matter. By allowing your access point to grant me access if I ask for it, you are in effect granting me access to your network. An earlier poster had it right- if you have a sign up next to your door that says "Open House Today", you can't have some arrested for trespassing when they walk in. If I connect to a wide open access point, I'm not forcing my way into the network, I'm not "hacking" anything, and at no point am I told to go away. My client asks your base station for information allowing it to connect. If your base station gives me that information, how exactly am I trespassing? I'm asking for permission first, and you are granting it. It's that simple. Now if you're too stupid to know what your equipment does, don't blame me or anyone else for your lack of understanding. Maybe you should have hired a professional to install your networking gear if security is a concern for you but you don't know how to make things secure.
Here's another analogy. Let's say I walk up to your house's front door, and you happen to have a system in place that opens the door as soon as someone approaches and puts out a sign saying "Come on in". I'm not trespassing if I enter your house- your door opened for me and a sign said I could come in. Now, let's say that system has a way to set it up so that it only works when you or your family approach the door. If you fail to activate that part of the system, allowing it to open the door for anyone who walks up, you still can't have me arrested for trespassing. Now if you're home, and you happen to see me walk in, ask me to leave, and then I don't, then you might have a case.
Besides, as has been mentioned by previous posters- the spectrum that a wireless base station works on is public property. Your base station is broadcasting itself to anyone who can hear it. It's not my or anyone else's but your own responsibility to configure your network to allow or deny access as you see fit.
There's a problem with your analogy, however. Actually, a couple of problems. First off, in the real world, your property (land, house, etc.) are private. You own them. You have a deed, receipt, etc. The radio spectrum that wireless routers use is *not* private property. It is public property. Manufacturers must be licensed and comply with a bunch of regulations in order to build a device that broadcasts over the public spectrum.
Second problem- the internet is designed to be open. According to your intrepretation of the law, it would be illegal for anyone to load any web site without express persmission of the web site's owner. How do you get this express permission? If I try to load a web site, I usually don't see anything in big bold print telling me it's okay to continue, nor do I usually have to ask for permission. If a person wants to keep a web site private, they password protect it. If I hack the password, then yes, I'm breaking the law. Wireless access can be treated the same way. If my device sends a request for an IP, and the router replies back with the information needed to connect, I haven't hacked a thing.
The internet simply would not function as designed if you needed express permission to use every resource attached to it.
I don't see how naming an operating system after after an animal is trampling anybody's IP rights. Last time I checked, the word "tiger" was a common english word- it's not Apple's problem that TigerDirect choose that word to be part of their name. Besides, do you really think anyone was confused about Mac OS X Tiger and TigerDirect?
And as far as being hammered, Apple does get hammered, and rightly so, when it comes to DMCA threats, etc. Apple certainly is far from perfect or an ideal corporate citizen. But all-in-all, I think they are better than Microsoft when it comes to their corporate citizenship.
What if the local government wants to set up wireless access because a majority of it's citizens has asked for it?
What if the government got a donation from some third party to pay for it?
If the people want it, why shouldn't the local government be able to provide it?
Government *is* supposed to mostly do what the people want, isn't it?
And to say that if enough people want something, it will get built, is a load of bull$shit. A perfect example- I live in a community of roughly 30,000 people, and we cannot get DSL access, even though all of the surrounding towns can. Why? Because SBC has limited resources and is building out their network in other, more lucrative, markets first. There's great demand in my town, but SBC has decided that there's *more* demand somewhere else. Too bad for us. By the time SBC gets around to my town, there probably won't be as much demand, which will likely bump us even lower on the list. Businesses have limited resources, and of course will go where the profit potential is highest- nothing wrong with that. But don't try to say that "if people want it, some one will provide it". That's BS and most people know it...
Maybe it's me, but WTF is so hard about returning a rented movie on time? Granted, I haven't rented anything since laserdics were popular, but I *never* had a problem returning a movie within three days. As for DVD's, I just buy the ones I want. Between the DVD club, buying used DVD's, and just finding good deals, I'm averaging right around $10 a DVD, and I get to watch it as many damn times as I want. And yes, I have watched most of my DVD's more than once.
Are people really so stupid to think that by saying "No more Late Fees", that they can keep rentals forever without penalty?
If you can't be responsible enough to return a rental product on time, maybe you shouldn't be renting them in the first place...
While I may or may not disagree with some of Soros' views regarding Bush (who I am not a big fan of, by the way), one major issue I have with Soros is his support and funding for the various anti-2nd Ammendment groups out there. Groups such as the Million Mom March (more like the 1000 Mom March, but whatever), the Brady Center (formerly Handgun Control Inc.), etc. Soros is also a big supporter of a proposed UN Treaty that would outlaw private ownership of firearms.
I simply cannot support anyone who is so vehemently opposed to my Rights as a US citizen.
I noticed though that his thoughts on anything other than Bush or Iraq aren't posted on his website. I wonder if he's trying to hide his other political views because they aren't as popular as his anti-Bush stance...
My wife and I almost never go out to theaters anymore, With tickets running $8 or higher per person, it's cheaper for us to wait and buy the DVD than to go see a film in a theater. Between the DVD clubs and buying used DVD's from a couple local rental shops, we're averaging less than $11 per DVD, and we have quite a few.
While it would nice if we had a larger screen to watch a movie on, our 25" TV works well enough for now, and we have a decent sound system. It's nice to be able to kick back and relax and just watch the movie. We can pause it if we have to (bathroom break, phone call, whatever), we don't pay outrageous prices for food or drink (besides, my hot air popped popcorn is better tasting that theater popcorn!), we don't have to worry about other people in a theater not being quiet or having garbage on the floor, and we get whatever special features that may come on the DVD. Where possible, we buy only the widescreen versions of movies, so we're not losing anything by the movie being "reformatted to fit your tv screen".
The only time we go to a theater anymore is if we have free passes, which I think we've had twice so far this year. We've bought a whole lot more DVD's this year, though....
Maybe I'm dating myself here, but I also still have the laserdisc releases of the original Star Wars releases, and I have no plans on getting rid of them. I also have the laserdisc version of Star Trek- The Motion Picture. Note, I also have the DVD versions (or soon will), but there's something about the original theatrical releases that makes me want to keep them...
It's too bad Lucas didn't offer the different versions on the new DVD's. It should have been a relatively simple task to offer viewers a choice between original theatrical release and his newer versions...
I take it one step further- I record the gas amount purchased, odometer mileage, and cost on a piece of paper, in my pager, or wherever. When I get back home, it all goes into a spreadsheet. I have the spreadsheet set up to calculate mileage for each particular tank of gas, overall average mileage, average cost of gas, etc. I also keep track of maintenance costs, insurance costs, and all that in the same spreadsheet. This tells me what my cost of ownership is on a per day or even per mile basis. It's pretty eye-opening, I might add.
As for mileage, the worst I've gotten in my current car is 21.479 mpg, and the best is 37.032. The average is 26.048. EPA numbers are 24 City / 31 Highway. Overall, I'd say my driving is 70% city, so the mileage I'm getting is pretty much spot-on with EPA estimates.
True, the typical criminal probably isn't a good enough shot to drop anybody with a .32, but plenty of people have been killed by .22LR's. Let's see- just about any round that nicks your carotid or femoral artery will kill you quick enough. There's a big misconception that small caliber rounds aren't "dangerous" or "manly" enough to work as defensive rounds. If you can place your shots well, any bullet will kill some one. Maybe not right away like a .45ACP to the temple will, but they'll be dead nonetheless. Besides, a smaller caliber, lower velocity round is less likely to cause collateral damage. Do some research sometime and look up the statistics for various calibers and loads- you might be surprised.
If you can do your end (shoot well, know how your firearm works, train often, etc.), almost anything you shoot will do its part.
The simplest two reasons I can think of for case sensitivity in a language is to maintain use of all available namespace (case insensitive cuts the namespace roughly in half), and it allows for more efficient compilers. IE, compilers don't have to treat two different characters the same, like "A" and "a", which have different intrinsic values.
The namespace issue would be the most important to me, though. Besides, What's the problem with typing case sensitively? You do so in "normal" communications all the time- what's so bad about continuing that habit in your coding? It makes the code easier to read, and if you stick to conventions, it makes understanding your code that much faster as a reader can differentiate an item based on it's capitalization. Personally, I hate reading code that's all caps...
Where I live (northern Illinois), the counties all have a "solid waste disposal agency", and they occasionally have a 3-day event in which they accept old electronics. They take pretty much anything except for large appliances, microwaves, and software. There's no cost- all you have to do is drop the items off at preset collection points. These are usually local community colleges or corporate sponsors. I've used these event twice now to get rid of broken monitors, computers too old to be useful for me, etc. They take the items and recycle them properly, where the normal trash pickup, if they take the items, will just dump them in a landfill.
On the one hand, I have to agree with another poster in that being a law enforcement officer shouldn't grant you more privacy than an ordinary citizen. On the other hand, it's too bad that the law in question wasn't more specific, like just banning SSN's. We need some sort of protection from abuse of SSN's- they were never designed to be the universal ID number that they are now, and it's far too easy to commit identity theft with SSN's being relatively easy to acquire...
"Now, having established that consumers prefer (and have chosen) to pay for the ink, HP is entitled to protect its ink sales. This just seems logical."
Oh? How is that a company which decides on a particular business plan, and then sees that this particular business plan isn't making them the profits they had expected, is entitled to ARTIFICIALLY cause a product to become unusable?
There are plenty of comparisons to use here- what if you could only put Ford batteries in a car manufactured by Ford Motor Co., and that battery shuts itself off after 4 years? Are you suggesting that Ford is entitled to do this?
Or how about Dell- what if Dell PC's "expired" after 4 years, since that's about an average PC life is? Is Dell entitled to do this? Hell, it might jumpstart the PC industry if everyone who owned a computer had to buy a new one every 4 years!
I'm sorry, but if a company's business plan ends up not working, it's not my problem. Maybe they should have planned better. But artificially causing a product to fail, whether it was previously functional or not, is wrong. Especially so when I can't legally hack the product to make it continue to work, thanks to the DMCA.
I buy things when *I* want to, not when some company has decided that I'm due to spend some money. As far as printers and ink cartridges, I'll buy a replacement when my ink cartridge runs out or when the quality degrades far enough due to age- I do not want to buy a replacement simply because the manufacturer thinks I should after "x" period of time.
How is an online store selling a product for a lower price a "REAL problem"? It's called competition. Last time I checked, competition was generally a good thing. It's not like there's a whole lot of local competition in most places, so a local gaming store is free to pretty much do what they want in most cases. Adding in the online stores to the mix at least brings some pressure on the gaming stores to either lower prices or offer other benefits that online stores can't. Besides, you can't beat a local store for "impulse buying" anyway...
As for not using a gaming store if you don't buy from them, well, I usually don't. The vast majority of the gaming sessions I'm involved in are held at my house. I'm lucky enough to have a decent sized gaming table and an understanding wife who lets me play pretty much as much as I want. The group I game with are all decent people that I don't mind inviting to my home. I will occasionally play at the local store, but those are games that I did not organize. By buying most of my gaming stuff online the last couple of years, I've saved about $1000 off of MSRP. That's not an insignificant amount for this hobby!
Maybe you know details I don't, but how is attacking a military force, in a justified military action, criminal? Last time I checked, the UN and most of the world's nations agreed with the Gulf War. Just because the forces were in retreat does not mean they are not a legitimate military target. What should the Coalition have done- let all that equipment and military personnel just go back across the border so that Iraq could still threaten it's neighbors with them?
(Troops + Weapons) in (invaded country) = (legitimate military target) for (invaded country's defenders)
Although my price range is a tad lower, say a max of $700. I'd prefer one that's motorized, but that's not a necessity as long as there's a good way to get it pointed in the right direction. If it is motorized, being Mac-compatible would be a *big* plus...
I updated to 10.2.4 via Software Update this morning, and the only thing that happened was that I had some icons added to the dock for iTunes, iMovie, etc. I removed the icons from the dock before, since I only want the dock to show running apps, and it was no big deal to just drag the icons off the dock.
I haven't had any time problems, no cryptic error messages, and no other problems that I'm aware of.
Oh, I did have to move iPhoto and iMovie (which I updated via Software Update at the same time that I got 10.2.4). The updaters for them placed them in the Applications directory, and I like to keep my apps a little more organized than that. Just a simple drag and replace and everything was back to how I had it.