I almost guarantee it was stolen from physically using it rather than a hacked website. You know when you pay for a meal at a sit down restaurant and they take the card into the back?
Actually at the time that this happened, I hadn't ever used a credit card to pay for a meal in this manner (I was always eating fast food back then, and the card never left my posession.) I have recently though, but haven't had any incidents of unauthorized use recently either.
It could even be stolen via someone putting a skimmer over the magreader and keypad at a gas station. I've seen pictures of the things in action.
No chance of that. I have a separate card I use for gas, and it hasn't ever been compromised.
I've had my credit card information stolen maybe 5 times (probably from a hacked website as I never lost my card.) The first time somebody used it to buy 6 months of yahoo personals, donated $50 to some cancer charity, and what sent the red flag was when they tried to buy some kind of big sports thing from ESPN for about $800.
The whole ordeal didn't cost me anything except for the inconvenience of going a week without my card.
I couldn't care less about ESPN or yahoo's misfortunes, but I suspect the cancer charity had to pay a chargeback fee.
And yeah, I was a bit annoyed that first time. I felt like I wanted to take a bulldozer to whatever house this guy lived in, but after about the forth time it happened I stopped caring, because apparently the bank doesn't think it's a big deal because I guess MasterCard assumes liability.
Raising the middle finger is not unethical. You aren't doing something wrong to somebody if you do that, rather you're expressing yourself. Raising the middle finger it isn't defrauding somebody, it isn't lying to somebody, it isn't stealing, and it isn't harming them in any way, rather it's just another way of expressing yourself similar to words.
If all negative expressions are unethical, then democracy itself is unethical.
Drawing Mohammed is basically just raising the middle finger to Islam. Islam isn't wronged in any way by drawing Mohammed, rather a bunch of fanatics get pissed off about it because they're just a bunch of fanatics. You know what else they get pissed off about? Homosexuals, interest bearing credit cards, and people who don't fast for Ramadan.
If two lesbians fingered one another, is that unethical? It seems to make them happy, doesn't harm anybody else...how is it unethical? Yet it pisses off the fanatics just as much as drawing Mohammed.
As for the two idiots that showed up to wage a jihad, the result was a good thing. Why? Because both of them had a history of showing that they wanted to be martyrs to get the 72 virgins and whatnot. If they hadn't done it here, they would have surely done it elsewhere. The fact that they died before they could harm anybody else in a less protected setting is a good thing.
IE6 was a total joke, but IE7 didn't do much other than add tabs, IE8 and IE9 still retained broken web standards. IE10 still wasn't even feature complete for a web browser and it alone held several very good HTML5 standards (such as WebGL) from gaining widespread use.
It wasn't until IE11, in 2013, that Microsoft finally had a browser that wasn't incredibly far behind everybody else. A major fault of it though is that its support for things like addons suck dick. (Why do you think they are advertising compatibility with Chrome addons as a major feature in Spartan?)
Do you even know why Microsoft is creating a new browser? I'll tell you: It's because IE has a BIG reputation for being prone to security breach, in addition to being very uncooperative with web standards to the point of very badly breaking them.
Why do people insist on conflating Snowden's patriotic actions with the well-meaning but naively harmful actions of Assange and [wo]Manning?!
This.
TFS even states:
"the statue pays homage to three who said no to war, to the lies that lead to war"
What about the lie that Assange AND Manning both told to jump-start their egos? That is, the "collateral murder" video which was anything but murder. Assange himself later even admitted that they essentially lied about it. For those who don't know, it was the first piece released to wikileaks, and it was attempting to paint a narrative that US soldiers just casually and routinely openly fire on unarmed civilians. However if you examine the video, you can clearly see the people being fired at carrying weapons (specifically, an RPG and some sort of Kalashnikov.)
In the western world we know that children think and reason differently, don't oversee all consequences of their actions, and because of that we try them differently, in juvenile court. A 15 year old who did not perform on a test, panics and does something stupid.
We also know that it isn't quite this cut and dry. That is, somebody doesn't automatically mature at 18, and because they are 15 doesn't automatically mean they haven't matured. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and 18 is the normal boundary. But if somebody does something that is so obviously wrong that even by a child's reasoning it is easily established as wrong, then it is something they can and do face the full consequences for. The fact that you're under 18 isn't a license to play Grand Theft Auto in real life.
That would mean the poor already is middle class. Or at least, I think the government definitions of them are out of whack.
I can obviously afford a decent car and a 55" TV for my Ivy Bridge based PC with SSD and Geforce 970, which itself gets media from a NAS with a 12TB ZFS raid. Yet according to the government definition, I've been living in poverty most of my life. I'm not sure I understand why it's called poverty when I myself am able to live comfortably that way.
You want to see poverty? Go spend a week in the slums of Mexico City. THAT is poverty.
I don't think it's much of a luxury theater. Feels more like a restaurant that also happens to be a theater. Tickets are usually $9.50, which is more than most theaters, but they have groupon deals like all the time where the tickets are $5, which is a lot less than most theaters.
Pretty much the only moviegoing experience I actually enjoy is Studio Movie Grill. When people do those kinds of things there, it doesn't really bother, and I think the reason why is because there has to be plenty of room between seats so that the wait staff can do their jobs, so when people are being obnoxious they're so far removed from you that you don't notice, and the wait staff are really good at not interrupting your movie. That and when you need something you don't have to go out to the lobby (except to take a piss) and the food prices are about the same as any other restaurant.
I suspect the only thing better (besides being at home) would be a drive-in theater, but I've never been to one.
You mean a Colonel drives himself on official business?
Shit, even higher ranking enlisted people (E-8 and above) would be assigned a personal driver when I was in the Army, same with practically any Officer grade, but an O-6 in the Marine corps doesn't have one?
In the Army, the rationale for that is the higher ranking people usually have paperwork to take care of on the way, so somebody else does the work of driving while they get stuff done.
I can't help but feel it will be abused, no matter the purpose. What if you are chauffeuring somebody who is intoxicated in the back seat and slumped over, a kid, or a midget?
For example, your employer can't have you sign your federal, state/province, or constitutional rights away. Also, with my understanding of contract law, generally ambiguity benefits the person who didn't write the contract.
IANAL, but afaik that is correct on both counts. Namely, the person who didn't write the contract can easily misconstrue what was written, so the burden is on the party that wrote it to iron out those ambiguities.
That said, I could easily see a situation where ESPN left something out.
In the United States, contracts are understood by the letter, so if it isn't explicitly written, then it isn't enforceable (as opposed to say high context cultures, where there's strong enforcement of "implied" language.)
That said, it's entirely possible that Verizon's contract with ESPN is worded in such a way that they can get away with doing this. Verizon seems to think so, but ESPN seems to disagree. So that's where an impartial (theoretically) judge decides the result of how its worded, and how it will be enforced.
Forced inclusion of expensive channels that I never watch was the primary driver of me dropping my cable sub. I was thinking about doing Dish's Sling TV, but it has guess what as part of the base package? ESPN. I don't want to give that fucking company a dime, even if Sling TV is cheap.
Even if that is the case though, I rarely have aspartame. I honestly hate the way it tastes, and I don't like things that have it in general. This is the main reason I hate diet soda, and truth be told I probably consume even less of it than I do regular soda. Given the low quantity of aspartame I consume, it's extremely unlikely that it has anything to do with it.
And besides, googling it I don't see any research linking the two, only one NIH article that mentions people with NAFLD that also happen to consume diet soda, but they consume much more of other stuff that is known to trigger it.
Which by the way, "natural" fruit juice is among the list of things known to cause NAFLD, so from that standpoint alone, the traditional naturopathic medicine dogma that "natural juice" is healthy for you is actually false. In fact, every now and then you hear stories about people dying from consuming organic juice because the (rather insane) belief that pasteurizing it is "unnatural" and somehow bad for you.
I go to McDonalds somewhat often, and typically I order a spicy chicken sandwich off of the dollar menu with instructions to go light on the mayo (otherwise they glob it on there) and add mustard and a slice of tomato and a small fry with no salt. (The main purpose of asking for no salt is so they make it fresh rather than from the pile that's been sitting there. The sodium content otherwise doesn't bother me.) I also get a courtesy water cup.
Total is somewhere like $2.50 and typically leaves me satisfied. The spicy chicken in particular helps with that (I've always found that spicy foods help me feel sated.) I think in all its 400 calories, which is slightly higher than the chicken salads I get from subway even more often.
I guess I'm just one of those weirdos who doesn't go calorie crazy at fast food joints, nor do I eat sugary breakfasts (usually a 250 calorie Jimmy Dean turkey sausage, cheese, and egg biscuit.) But in my defense, I work in an office type environment with little physical activity (until I get home and then do a 6 mile daily bike ride, and then dinner always has less than 1,200 calories.)
And yes, this is all a part of my ongoing weight loss plan (which is succeeding rather well and has been ongoing for a year. Whoever says you can't diet and eat fast food is dead wrong.)
This message brought to you by the Aspartame industry and FOX News.
This message brought to you by the Organic Food Lobby, and the Church of Homeopathic Medicine.
Seriously, Aspartame is very safe. All of the anecdotes about it killing ants and whatnot are really just shitty science (somebody was able to repeat the same result using just a puddle of water, which also kills ants.) It's a non-nutrative sweetener, which means as far as your body is concerned, it is inert. There have already been decades of investigation into aspartame, and none have linked any kind of illness to it (except of course the bunk materials spread by the Church of Homeopathic Medicine.)
I still drink regular soda as part of my diet, but instead of once a day it's more like once a month. I can't stand diet soda, and will only occasionally have it.
But diet soda is certainly better from a nutrition standpoint. The sheer volume of sugar in regular soda I think is the reason I developed Non-Alchoholic Fatty Liver Disease, and is probably why my cholesterol/triglyceride count is so high without statin drugs. I'll be able to test that theory after another 6 months or so because I've been off of high sugar foods for about 6 months so far, and the cholesterol/triglyceride figures have already dropped even on a low dose of lovastatin.
Slashdot Mirror
Another reason I know this was because of a website getting hacked is because the bank themselves told me it was the case.
I almost guarantee it was stolen from physically using it rather than a hacked website. You know when you pay for a meal at a sit down restaurant and they take the card into the back?
Actually at the time that this happened, I hadn't ever used a credit card to pay for a meal in this manner (I was always eating fast food back then, and the card never left my posession.) I have recently though, but haven't had any incidents of unauthorized use recently either.
It could even be stolen via someone putting a skimmer over the magreader and keypad at a gas station. I've seen pictures of the things in action.
No chance of that. I have a separate card I use for gas, and it hasn't ever been compromised.
I've had my credit card information stolen maybe 5 times (probably from a hacked website as I never lost my card.) The first time somebody used it to buy 6 months of yahoo personals, donated $50 to some cancer charity, and what sent the red flag was when they tried to buy some kind of big sports thing from ESPN for about $800.
The whole ordeal didn't cost me anything except for the inconvenience of going a week without my card.
I couldn't care less about ESPN or yahoo's misfortunes, but I suspect the cancer charity had to pay a chargeback fee.
And yeah, I was a bit annoyed that first time. I felt like I wanted to take a bulldozer to whatever house this guy lived in, but after about the forth time it happened I stopped caring, because apparently the bank doesn't think it's a big deal because I guess MasterCard assumes liability.
Anything higher than 44.1/16 is scientifically proven to be wasteful.
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo...
The intention was to raise the middle finger to Islam. That doesn't harm anybody.
Raising the middle finger is not unethical. You aren't doing something wrong to somebody if you do that, rather you're expressing yourself. Raising the middle finger it isn't defrauding somebody, it isn't lying to somebody, it isn't stealing, and it isn't harming them in any way, rather it's just another way of expressing yourself similar to words.
If all negative expressions are unethical, then democracy itself is unethical.
Drawing Mohammed is basically just raising the middle finger to Islam. Islam isn't wronged in any way by drawing Mohammed, rather a bunch of fanatics get pissed off about it because they're just a bunch of fanatics. You know what else they get pissed off about? Homosexuals, interest bearing credit cards, and people who don't fast for Ramadan.
If two lesbians fingered one another, is that unethical? It seems to make them happy, doesn't harm anybody else...how is it unethical? Yet it pisses off the fanatics just as much as drawing Mohammed.
As for the two idiots that showed up to wage a jihad, the result was a good thing. Why? Because both of them had a history of showing that they wanted to be martyrs to get the 72 virgins and whatnot. If they hadn't done it here, they would have surely done it elsewhere. The fact that they died before they could harm anybody else in a less protected setting is a good thing.
It's ethically questionable to draw Mohammed?
IE6 was a total joke, but IE7 didn't do much other than add tabs, IE8 and IE9 still retained broken web standards. IE10 still wasn't even feature complete for a web browser and it alone held several very good HTML5 standards (such as WebGL) from gaining widespread use.
It wasn't until IE11, in 2013, that Microsoft finally had a browser that wasn't incredibly far behind everybody else. A major fault of it though is that its support for things like addons suck dick. (Why do you think they are advertising compatibility with Chrome addons as a major feature in Spartan?)
Even if it is, so what? They didn't do anything legally or ethically wrong.
Do you even know why Microsoft is creating a new browser? I'll tell you: It's because IE has a BIG reputation for being prone to security breach, in addition to being very uncooperative with web standards to the point of very badly breaking them.
Why do people insist on conflating Snowden's patriotic actions with the well-meaning but naively harmful actions of Assange and [wo]Manning?!
This.
TFS even states:
"the statue pays homage to three who said no to war, to the lies that lead to war"
What about the lie that Assange AND Manning both told to jump-start their egos? That is, the "collateral murder" video which was anything but murder. Assange himself later even admitted that they essentially lied about it. For those who don't know, it was the first piece released to wikileaks, and it was attempting to paint a narrative that US soldiers just casually and routinely openly fire on unarmed civilians. However if you examine the video, you can clearly see the people being fired at carrying weapons (specifically, an RPG and some sort of Kalashnikov.)
In the western world we know that children think and reason differently, don't oversee all consequences of their actions, and because of that we try them differently, in juvenile court. A 15 year old who did not perform on a test, panics and does something stupid.
We also know that it isn't quite this cut and dry. That is, somebody doesn't automatically mature at 18, and because they are 15 doesn't automatically mean they haven't matured. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and 18 is the normal boundary. But if somebody does something that is so obviously wrong that even by a child's reasoning it is easily established as wrong, then it is something they can and do face the full consequences for. The fact that you're under 18 isn't a license to play Grand Theft Auto in real life.
That would mean the poor already is middle class. Or at least, I think the government definitions of them are out of whack.
I can obviously afford a decent car and a 55" TV for my Ivy Bridge based PC with SSD and Geforce 970, which itself gets media from a NAS with a 12TB ZFS raid. Yet according to the government definition, I've been living in poverty most of my life. I'm not sure I understand why it's called poverty when I myself am able to live comfortably that way.
You want to see poverty? Go spend a week in the slums of Mexico City. THAT is poverty.
That's a male you replied to.
I don't think it's much of a luxury theater. Feels more like a restaurant that also happens to be a theater. Tickets are usually $9.50, which is more than most theaters, but they have groupon deals like all the time where the tickets are $5, which is a lot less than most theaters.
Pretty much the only moviegoing experience I actually enjoy is Studio Movie Grill. When people do those kinds of things there, it doesn't really bother, and I think the reason why is because there has to be plenty of room between seats so that the wait staff can do their jobs, so when people are being obnoxious they're so far removed from you that you don't notice, and the wait staff are really good at not interrupting your movie. That and when you need something you don't have to go out to the lobby (except to take a piss) and the food prices are about the same as any other restaurant.
I suspect the only thing better (besides being at home) would be a drive-in theater, but I've never been to one.
You mean a Colonel drives himself on official business?
Shit, even higher ranking enlisted people (E-8 and above) would be assigned a personal driver when I was in the Army, same with practically any Officer grade, but an O-6 in the Marine corps doesn't have one?
In the Army, the rationale for that is the higher ranking people usually have paperwork to take care of on the way, so somebody else does the work of driving while they get stuff done.
I can't help but feel it will be abused, no matter the purpose. What if you are chauffeuring somebody who is intoxicated in the back seat and slumped over, a kid, or a midget?
For example, your employer can't have you sign your federal, state/province, or constitutional rights away. Also, with my understanding of contract law, generally ambiguity benefits the person who didn't write the contract.
IANAL, but afaik that is correct on both counts. Namely, the person who didn't write the contract can easily misconstrue what was written, so the burden is on the party that wrote it to iron out those ambiguities.
That said, I could easily see a situation where ESPN left something out.
In the United States, contracts are understood by the letter, so if it isn't explicitly written, then it isn't enforceable (as opposed to say high context cultures, where there's strong enforcement of "implied" language.)
That said, it's entirely possible that Verizon's contract with ESPN is worded in such a way that they can get away with doing this. Verizon seems to think so, but ESPN seems to disagree. So that's where an impartial (theoretically) judge decides the result of how its worded, and how it will be enforced.
Forced inclusion of expensive channels that I never watch was the primary driver of me dropping my cable sub. I was thinking about doing Dish's Sling TV, but it has guess what as part of the base package? ESPN. I don't want to give that fucking company a dime, even if Sling TV is cheap.
Citation needed.
Even if that is the case though, I rarely have aspartame. I honestly hate the way it tastes, and I don't like things that have it in general. This is the main reason I hate diet soda, and truth be told I probably consume even less of it than I do regular soda. Given the low quantity of aspartame I consume, it's extremely unlikely that it has anything to do with it.
And besides, googling it I don't see any research linking the two, only one NIH article that mentions people with NAFLD that also happen to consume diet soda, but they consume much more of other stuff that is known to trigger it.
Which by the way, "natural" fruit juice is among the list of things known to cause NAFLD, so from that standpoint alone, the traditional naturopathic medicine dogma that "natural juice" is healthy for you is actually false. In fact, every now and then you hear stories about people dying from consuming organic juice because the (rather insane) belief that pasteurizing it is "unnatural" and somehow bad for you.
I go to McDonalds somewhat often, and typically I order a spicy chicken sandwich off of the dollar menu with instructions to go light on the mayo (otherwise they glob it on there) and add mustard and a slice of tomato and a small fry with no salt. (The main purpose of asking for no salt is so they make it fresh rather than from the pile that's been sitting there. The sodium content otherwise doesn't bother me.) I also get a courtesy water cup.
Total is somewhere like $2.50 and typically leaves me satisfied. The spicy chicken in particular helps with that (I've always found that spicy foods help me feel sated.) I think in all its 400 calories, which is slightly higher than the chicken salads I get from subway even more often.
I guess I'm just one of those weirdos who doesn't go calorie crazy at fast food joints, nor do I eat sugary breakfasts (usually a 250 calorie Jimmy Dean turkey sausage, cheese, and egg biscuit.) But in my defense, I work in an office type environment with little physical activity (until I get home and then do a 6 mile daily bike ride, and then dinner always has less than 1,200 calories.)
And yes, this is all a part of my ongoing weight loss plan (which is succeeding rather well and has been ongoing for a year. Whoever says you can't diet and eat fast food is dead wrong.)
This message brought to you by the Aspartame industry and FOX News.
This message brought to you by the Organic Food Lobby, and the Church of Homeopathic Medicine.
Seriously, Aspartame is very safe. All of the anecdotes about it killing ants and whatnot are really just shitty science (somebody was able to repeat the same result using just a puddle of water, which also kills ants.) It's a non-nutrative sweetener, which means as far as your body is concerned, it is inert. There have already been decades of investigation into aspartame, and none have linked any kind of illness to it (except of course the bunk materials spread by the Church of Homeopathic Medicine.)
I still drink regular soda as part of my diet, but instead of once a day it's more like once a month. I can't stand diet soda, and will only occasionally have it.
But diet soda is certainly better from a nutrition standpoint. The sheer volume of sugar in regular soda I think is the reason I developed Non-Alchoholic Fatty Liver Disease, and is probably why my cholesterol/triglyceride count is so high without statin drugs. I'll be able to test that theory after another 6 months or so because I've been off of high sugar foods for about 6 months so far, and the cholesterol/triglyceride figures have already dropped even on a low dose of lovastatin.