Which I already noted. My point is that there are no limitations placed on voice or texts other than the laws of physics. If at a fixed price voice/texts are too cheap to meter but data is worth metering, then the data is more expensive relative to voice and texts.
When air traffic control seems an altitude of 60,000 feet. that is almost always an incorrect value. On rare occasions it is a very fancy plane.
If you treat the fancy-plane situation as an incorrect value you create an inconvenience. If you treat the incorrect-value situation an a fancy plane you create a fatality. Which way are you going to bias your exception handling?
The deniers can be satisfied just by disrupting the opposing position, rather than advancing any position of their own. That frees them from the requirements to make consistent or even logical arguments.
"wait until these geniuses start trying to fly drones into the aircrafts' flight paths." No need to wait. The article says that also happened in this case.
There is a certain subset of nerd that cannot cope with the idea that the problems that nerds face in life are a lot like the problems that non-nerds face.
On the user side, all cards are not only backwards compatible with not only magnetic stripe but mechanical impression on carbon paper.
On the processor side, presumably Square will have a new unit next year that can read the chip unless they want to absorb the costs of chargebacks themselves.
Every single time I've seen "tool experts" complain that the user interface is excluding experts, it ends up that the so-called expert can be objectively measured to be doing things unproductively.
The actual articles says *nothing* about US agencies gaining physical access purely on the basis of a US warrant.
From the actual article: "A search warrant for email information, he said, is a "hybrid" order: obtained like a search warrant but executed like a subpoena for documents. Longstanding U.S. law holds that the recipient of a subpoena must provide the information sought, no matter where it is held, he said."
So the instrument really is more like a subpoena in that it forces action on the recipient, in this case to retrieve the data from the foreign location. It does not authorize any US official to seize the data from the foreign location without the involvement of the foreign authorities.
This ruling literally does NONE of the things you accuse it of.
Slashdot Mirror
They are comparing against transistors made directly on the amorphous silicon of the display, which are really shitty but transparent..
Skeptical about climate change: good
Skeptical about SpaceX: bad.
Got it, thanks!
Why try to explain actual engineering to a bunch of typists?
"It's throttled after 5GB/month. "
Which I already noted. My point is that there are no limitations placed on voice or texts other than the laws of physics. If at a fixed price voice/texts are too cheap to meter but data is worth metering, then the data is more expensive relative to voice and texts.
"Data plans are no longer expensive"
Compared to voice they are. In *your very own example*, voice and text are unlimited while data is throttled.
This is an op-ed column, not a news article. Many news organization disclaim all fact-checking on op-eds; I don't know Forbes' specific policy.
Ask South Carolina. They did not even bother with a plebiscite.
In which case you are no worse off than without the VR system.
The Show-me Canuck objects to being shown?
When air traffic control seems an altitude of 60,000 feet. that is almost always an incorrect value. On rare occasions it is a very fancy plane.
If you treat the fancy-plane situation as an incorrect value you create an inconvenience. If you treat the incorrect-value situation an a fancy plane you create a fatality. Which way are you going to bias your exception handling?
How often is an altitude of 60,000 feet not an error in reporting equipment (either altimiter or transponder)?
The deniers can be satisfied just by disrupting the opposing position, rather than advancing any position of their own. That frees them from the requirements to make consistent or even logical arguments.
Clearly, you have patched your browser to only show IP numbers in URL instead of domain names.
"Libertarians do not believe markets should be totally unregulated."
Explain the existence of the Dallas Accord in the face of this statement.
"wait until these geniuses start trying to fly drones into the aircrafts' flight paths."
No need to wait. The article says that also happened in this case.
From http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft...
"5. Header Syntax
The Do Not Track HTTP header, "DNT", must take one of two values: "1" ...
("opt out") or "0" ("opt in"). All other values are reserved.
6.3. Default
A user agent MAY adopt NO-EXPRESSED-PREFERENCE or OPT-OUT by default.
It MUST NOT transmit OPT-IN without explicit user consent."
The standard explicitly allows opt-out as a default
Clearly, Belinda Padilla is single-handedly re-writing the laws of New Jersey.
"The kind with laughtracks?"
The quantity of people lying about there being a laugh track on TBBT is so vast it's hard to resist wondering if there is some coordinating power.
My theory has always been that Sheldon isn't aspie, he's just an asshole.
There is a certain subset of nerd that cannot cope with the idea that the problems that nerds face in life are a lot like the problems that non-nerds face.
One of the most popular seems to "trusting remotely entered data".
Even Alfred Laffer does not think were are on the right-hand side of the Laffer Curve, and has never been able to prove that the US ever was.
On the user side, all cards are not only backwards compatible with not only magnetic stripe but mechanical impression on carbon paper.
On the processor side, presumably Square will have a new unit next year that can read the chip unless they want to absorb the costs of chargebacks themselves.
Every single time I've seen "tool experts" complain that the user interface is excluding experts, it ends up that the so-called expert can be objectively measured to be doing things unproductively.
Stop lying.
The actual articles says *nothing* about US agencies gaining physical access purely on the basis of a US warrant.
From the actual article:
"A search warrant for email information, he said, is a "hybrid" order: obtained like a search warrant but executed like a subpoena for documents. Longstanding U.S. law holds that the recipient of a subpoena must provide the information sought, no matter where it is held, he said."
So the instrument really is more like a subpoena in that it forces action on the recipient, in this case to retrieve the data from the foreign location. It does not authorize any US official to seize the data from the foreign location without the involvement of the foreign authorities.
This ruling literally does NONE of the things you accuse it of.