Watch just how fast the cost would drop by eliminating channels you don't watch. As a Nerd ("Slashdot, News for Nerds...") you wouldn't watch ESPN; which is one of the most "expensive" free channels out there. If I didn't pay for it, others (Jocks) would; as it would then be a 'premium channel'.
There is more to this than just hooking up one line. True basic cable is only $15 / month. Why is my basic cable bill $50 / month; in which I'm required to support (pay for) channels that I don't want -- and won't use?
Why do I need to pay for others to have 50 sport channels? The SciFi (et al) channel works just fine for me, I don't want to have ESPN; which by talking to the cable companies is one of the most expenive "free" channels out there.
At a state level (We could never get our Fed legislative critter to do something for the people) have a 'data protection' right. Bottom line: You lose data: you pay the people who's data you had. You fail to notify the people you pay double. If the information is actually used, damages are double plus ACTUAL / ON GOING losses.
Bottom line: Lock up your data!. We learned this back in the days of the wild west. Now we must - relearn; reinvent the safe for the 21st century data.
Initially, one one think that oh, we are not going to have a warming trend, or there is a conspiracy theory, or....
Import the data (ignore the column "5-year_Mean"; you can generate your own)
Use the Excel feature of "Trend Line", and look which direction it's going. (All trend lines show the same thing. And most important: Note the RATE that it's changing!
Actually, this is just an excuse. I had software, and tried to sell it. It was blown off eBay by the manufacturer, as a pirated copy, even though the pictures clearly showed that it was original. (and this was YEARS ago!) The companies want to put a good spin on the money that they might lose, and you bought it; hook line and sinker.
After reading the comments thus far (about 30), many/. readers don't seem to get this story. First, this is not about the buyer and the seller, this is about the company that makes the product and the person(s) selling the product new on eBay. The case has already been to the Supreme Court, and "we" (aka the people) lost, the business have won. The test case was for a first (retail) sale, not an owner of the product trying to resell it. But that issue is being abused as well (again, what the article is trying to say). Also incase you were wondering -- the decisions were split along party lines: Democratic and Republican representatives. The Republican representatives had the majority. (Yes, I know that the justices are not Democrats or Republicans, but the justices were appointed by them).
Actually, if they go through their records -- they might be able to determine if they are affected...
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/30298prs200 70628.html As anyone been denied enterence to a Bush actvity after sending email or talking on the phone?
Choices include: #1 Anyone else.... #2 No one else.... #3 Your legal body.......3.a break up the monopoly...3.b to stop the activities that are in question
If EVERYONE contacts their legislative critter, they won't be able to contact the person who is bribing them.
Again, actually they do. Take their losses, and go with the company that will give the 'proper' service. (Proper here is defined as what the customer wants)
Question: Can mobile companies successfully crush VOIP competitors like this?
Answer: Yes
Question: Can mobile companies successfully crush VOIP competitors like this LEGALLY?
Answer: The courts can decied
- or -
The customers and decide.... (for or against!)
Not the point. The point is - the cable companies will be able to say "Look you can buy it, we don't set the price". The fact that it doesn't work, ties your hands, is VERY espensive - isn't their problem (anymore). It's 'your problem' now.
... I have friends in law enforcement who become furious at having to let known criminals walk on technicalities, and know people in the intel and counter-terror community that have to hold their noses while very, very bad people do very, very bad things just out of reach of the boundaries within which they have to operate.
Actually, it isn't the sound of crickets chirping. It is the lack of people paying attention. Eliminate the "cyber" crime, to "any crime", change "denying them use of computer" to "denying them civil liberties"....
Let's see:
1. Any "sex offender" in the US. (Don't like them, but that isn't the point)
2. Enter a home w/o warrant or probable cause
3. Try to make a phone call lately?
4. Have you ever been through, or looked at our so called "justice" system? Once you have, you'll find out that it is a bad joke. (officers that fail to interview witnesses, delays that cause critical evidence to be destroyed, complaints taken over the phone given by junkies, evidence suppressed that would exonerate, perjury, forgery - What more on this one?)
The biggest shame is the people like you are just along for the ride.
Modern DB's don't have an internally fixed width (zero fill); that went with dBase. Also anyone that programs with 11 spaces for SSN is a moron. Oh, we are talking about the government here... Guess you are right on both accounts.
Try 504MB (Assuming 11 char name - average, and 9 digit SSN). Even a MS Access DB wouldn't use THAT much space. Or rather, a MS Access DB would use that much space
Slashdot Mirror
Laptops, cars etc?
Watch just how fast the cost would drop by eliminating channels you don't watch. As a Nerd ("Slashdot, News for Nerds...") you wouldn't watch ESPN; which is one of the most "expensive" free channels out there. If I didn't pay for it, others (Jocks) would; as it would then be a 'premium channel'.
There is more to this than just hooking up one line. True basic cable is only $15 / month. Why is my basic cable bill $50 / month; in which I'm required to support (pay for) channels that I don't want -- and won't use?
Why do I need to pay for others to have 50 sport channels? The SciFi (et al) channel works just fine for me, I don't want to have ESPN; which by talking to the cable companies is one of the most expenive "free" channels out there.
.... ok, off topic, but: Driving down prices with products imported from China is not a good thing. Putting people out of business who are just barley earning a living is not a good thing. Shutting down an entire store just because they voted for a union is not a good thing.
Spoken like a true "Pro-Wallmart" placement!
I still can't say anything nice about them...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20367400/?GT1=10252
http://www.walmartmovie.com/
http://wakeupwalmart.com/
At a state level (We could never get our Fed legislative critter to do something for the people) have a 'data protection' right. Bottom line: You lose data: you pay the people who's data you had. You fail to notify the people you pay double. If the information is actually used, damages are double plus ACTUAL / ON GOING losses.
Bottom line: Lock up your data!. We learned this back in the days of the wild west. Now we must - relearn; reinvent the safe for the 21st century data.
See: http://www.viksoe.dk/code/gmail.htm
Read the story above, which links to revised data:t
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.tx
Initially, one one think that oh, we are not going to have a warming trend, or there is a conspiracy theory, or....
Import the data (ignore the column "5-year_Mean"; you can generate your own)
Use the Excel feature of "Trend Line", and look which direction it's going. (All trend lines show the same thing. And most important: Note the RATE that it's changing!
Actually, this is just an excuse. I had software, and tried to sell it. It was blown off eBay by the manufacturer, as a pirated copy, even though the pictures clearly showed that it was original. (and this was YEARS ago!) The companies want to put a good spin on the money that they might lose, and you bought it; hook line and sinker.
After reading the comments thus far (about 30), many /. readers don't seem to get this story.
First, this is not about the buyer and the seller, this is about the company that makes the product and the person(s) selling the product new on eBay.
The case has already been to the Supreme Court, and "we" (aka the people) lost, the business have won. The test case was for a first (retail) sale, not an owner of the product trying to resell it. But that issue is being abused as well (again, what the article is trying to say).
Also incase you were wondering -- the decisions were split along party lines: Democratic and Republican representatives. The Republican representatives had the majority. (Yes, I know that the justices are not Democrats or Republicans, but the justices were appointed by them).
And God help you if you tell them that you have a CCW and/or are carrying!
Actually, if they go through their records -- they might be able to determine if they are affected... http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/30298prs200 70628.html As anyone been denied enterence to a Bush actvity after sending email or talking on the phone?
Anyone notice that the "year ago" was a video of "Boeing 777 Wing Ultimate Load Test"
Anyone notice that the date on the file is 1/14/1995?
The implication that this was a 787 wing in test a year ago - is in error....
Choices include: ...3.a break up the monopoly ...3.b to stop the activities that are in question
#1 Anyone else....
#2 No one else....
#3 Your legal body....
If EVERYONE contacts their legislative critter, they won't be able to contact the person who is bribing them.
Again, actually they do. Take their losses, and go with the company that will give the 'proper' service. (Proper here is defined as what the customer wants)
Question: Can mobile companies successfully crush VOIP competitors like this?
Answer: Yes
Question: Can mobile companies successfully crush VOIP competitors like this LEGALLY?
Answer: The courts can decied
- or -
The customers and decide.... (for or against!)
Lets kill it!
Not the point. The point is - the cable companies will be able to say "Look you can buy it, we don't set the price". The fact that it doesn't work, ties your hands, is VERY espensive - isn't their problem (anymore). It's 'your problem' now.
All that hard drvie space could be used for porn!
...
I have friends in law enforcement who become furious at having to let known criminals walk on technicalities, and know people in the intel and counter-terror community that have to hold their noses while very, very bad people do very, very bad things just out of reach of the boundaries within which they have to operate.
Cool, you support my position!
Actually, it isn't the sound of crickets chirping. It is the lack of people paying attention. Eliminate the "cyber" crime, to "any crime", change "denying them use of computer" to "denying them civil liberties"....
Let's see:
1. Any "sex offender" in the US. (Don't like them, but that isn't the point)
2. Enter a home w/o warrant or probable cause
3. Try to make a phone call lately?
4. Have you ever been through, or looked at our so called "justice" system? Once you have, you'll find out that it is a bad joke. (officers that fail to interview witnesses, delays that cause critical evidence to be destroyed, complaints taken over the phone given by junkies, evidence suppressed that would exonerate, perjury, forgery - What more on this one?)
The biggest shame is the people like you are just along for the ride.
They call it "Homeland Security"
-- I'm astounded by the number of people that don't have a problem with what the government is doing.
Modern DB's don't have an internally fixed width (zero fill); that went with dBase. Also anyone that programs with 11 spaces for SSN is a moron. Oh, we are talking about the government here... Guess you are right on both accounts.
Try 504MB (Assuming 11 char name - average, and 9 digit SSN). Even a MS Access DB wouldn't use THAT much space. Or rather, a MS Access DB would use that much space
Google management: Well, we had to drop something...