The scientist will tell you they performed experiments to confirm the results; that these experiments have been done repeatedly by different people; that their theories are backed up by evidence.
Only the scientist who has actually performed these experiments. That can't be said for most people...
The religious person will tell you it's true because of his wobbly interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago, or it's true because he claims "God said so". Also note how people following the "God said so" route cannot agree at all on anything; there are countless different contradictory religious viewpoints.
Too funny. The science-advocate will tell you that his beliefs are true because of his wobbly interpretation of what he's read in school or periodicals, or heard from his friends about wild (and not so wild) theories that were produced in an attempt to explain an environment whos complexity still eludes our ability to perfectly model. Or he'll tell you it's true because his professor said so. Also note how people following the science route cannot agree on anything, as theories change frequently; there are countless different contradictory scientific theories.
Now sure, it could be that there's a worldwide conspiracy where all the scientists are lying to us. But for those of us who don't subscribe to crackpot beliefs like that, the idea that the believing what scientists say is comparable to believing what one particular religious person says is absurd.
The funny thing is, it's not the scientists who are lying. A good scientist generally presents his or her ideas as a theory (with no misrepresentation involved). Unfortunately, when professors and the media pick it up, what gets presented to students and the public takes little regard for clarifying what is fact and what is a theory based on that fact. I personally find it easier to believe a level-headed religious leader than what gets distored by the news media.
The interesting thing is that it's only the Jesus-believers who seem to have a need to force their beliefs on random passerbys..
Yes, those against religious beliefs are generally more organized, instead showing up at odd moments to disrupt private conversations that they've been eavesdropping on just because they don't like or agree with what they are hearing.
...But this is not the same at all of more accepted and tested science (eg, quantum theory or relativity).
But see, this is the issue. If you truly understand science, you'll know that neither quantum theory nor relativity are actually correct. They are merely the closest we can come to a model that defines the universe based on what observations we've been able to make. These theories, while very valuable for making predictions, will undoubtedly fall prey to a newer and better theory sometime in the future. The best one can hope for is that new theories will merely add to or slightly adjust those that already exist.
I agree that there are a lot of nuts spouting religious beliefs to people who obviously don't want to hear. But there are many more who observe much more reasonable beliefs with some evidence to back them up, and a clear statement of faith where evidence fails.
And yet, all customers who sign up with Vonage get a copy of the letter below. Sorry, but these people were well-informed about how 911 dialing works for Vonage, and were just plain too lazy to set the service up. I want traditional 911 dialing on Vonage as much as the next person, but suing Vonage isn't the way to make it happen. I think the better path would be for Texas residents to sue the counties to get them to work with Vonage to provide a more functional service.
FROM: Vonage DigitalVoice Customer Care SUBJECT: 911 DIALING NOT YET ACTIVATED-IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ
Customer Name Customer Address Customer City, State, Zip
Dear Customer,
Thank you for requesting 911 Dialing for phone number xxxxxxxxxxxxx. Please read the following information carefully.
DIALING 911 IS NOT YET ACTIVATED ON YOUR PHONE LINE. THIS PROCESS MAY TAKE SEVERAL DAYS. DO NOT DIAL 911 FROM THIS PHONE LINE UNTIL YOU GET A CONFIRMATION EMAIL FROM US.
Please review these steps to better understand how Vonage DigitalVoice(tm) 's Dialing 911 feature works.
. Using the information you provided, we will map your address and telephone number to your area's nearest Public Safety Answering Point ("PSAP").
. This process will be completed within several days.
. We will email you a CONFIRMATION LETTER as soon as the 911 Dialing feature has been activated for XXXXXXXXXXXXX. (Note that if you have multiple Vonage DigitalVoice(tm) numbers you MUST activate 911 Dialing for each number separately.)
. When you dial 911 from your Vonage DigitalVoice(tm) phone, your call is routed from the Vonage DigitalVoice(tm) network over the Public Switch Telephone Network ("PSTN") to your PSAP's general number, where a trained professional will provide you with assistance.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT 911 DIALING IS DIFFERENT THAN TRADITIONAL 911. We encourage you to login to your Vonage DigitalVoice(tm) account and click on Features in your Account Dashboard to learn more.
Please contact us by:
Email: customercare@vonage.com Toll Free Phone: 1-VONAGE-HELP (1-866-243-4357) Fax: 1732-333-1353 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
however, what's really the point is that vonage let them believe that 911 would work perfectly - which it didn't.
This is complete and total hogwash. As a Vonage customer, I can assure you that Vonage makes accurate information about how their "version" of 911-dialing works. This includes an explanation of the differences. In fact, dialing 911 is no problem, but the call goes to a general number at the PSAP, and you have to provide information on your location. There are several reasons for this limitation, including, but not limited to incompatibilities between the VoIP systems and Emergency Response Centers, and also roadblocking by your regional Bell monopoly. The test market in RI has basically upgraded the equipment at the Emergency Reponse Center to work will with VoIP service, and if the government would backslap the local Bell monopolies and provide the SAME PUBLIC FUNDING THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE REGIONAL BELLS IN THE PAST, this service would be available quickly for everyone.
If you want more information about what Vonage provides, try their FAQ. While I don't think that the think tank at Vonage is all perfume and roses, please at least be informed and be critical of areas where criticism is due, like maybe not being especially forthcoming about the poor quality of FAX service.
However, although Hasbro has the copyright and trademark
Erm, can somebody more knowledgable about copyright law please chime in? I see that the original copyright was 1948. Under law at the time, copyrights held for 28 years, and could be renewed one time in the 28th year. That means that it must have been renewed in 1976 for an additional 28 years. The copyright act of 1976 that would allow extending the term to 47 years didn't take effect until 1978, so would therefore not apply. The only question I have concerns the 102-307, enacted in 1992, which would make renewal optional and also extend the term to 95 years. I can't tell if this work would fall under the terms of that law. If it doesn't, Hasbro's copyright expired last year. Can anybody clarify?
The problem is in debit mode you can be charged foreign ATM fees (by both your bank and the business processing the card).
The former is very easy to take care of. I refuse to do business with any bank that charges me fees for using my card in another network's ATM or at a business. For the latter, I avoid ATMs that charge fees (although that can be difficult), and I only shop once at a business that would charge me the fees they would normally have to pay themselves to process my CREDIT card.
and calling to a cellular phone from a landline costs generally more than if you called to it from another cellular phone.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in the United States, it's the recipient of a call to cellular phone who pays the extra charges. Maybe I just don't see the charges because every call I make to anywhere in the US or Canada is covered by my monthly fees... Maybe it's the fact that I'm a Vonage customer. Anyway, I don't ever recall paying extra for this even before my Vonage days, except when I was living in Germany.
You know, I tried to read it once, but like many old books, the first few tries died in the extremely boring begat first section, and then some later ones got bogged down in the non modern english.
First, try getting a translation that's in more modern English (NIV, or maybe one of the paraphrase editions like "The Message"). Then, try starting someplace other than the beginning, like maybe the New Testament in the book of Mark. Whether you believe what's in it or not, it's a good idea to try to work your way through it, at least for pure education value. But man, the geneaology sections can be a bit dry.
The difference between cell phone providers and cable companies is that the cable companies are local monopolies. In my area (and yours too) you have to buy from whichever cable company is in your market. I think it's entirely reasonable to expect some regulation in exchange for a protected market.
You know, I think this statement applies adequately to telephone service providers (the Baby Bells), but I'm not sure I feel the same way about the cable companies. The difference is that when the Bells (AT&T at the time) set up their infrastructure, they used taxpayers dollars for part of it. I don't believe the same is true for cable companies. Therefore, they've had to eat the cost of running cable to houses. Any other (even small) company could compete just fine with them, provided they are willing to bite the bullet and run the fiber...
I wonder why I've never heard that before. Is it really ancient, or really new?
It has actually been around since the days of USENET and dumb terminals, and is generally pretty well known. However, because of the phrasing of the sentence, I admit that I could have interpreted the emphasis itself to mean sarcasm... one of the problems with written rather than verbal communication...
Does anybody think that coupled with a pure IR source of light this item would be useful in catching would-be prowlers without alerting them? OK, probably a stupid idea...
While I disagree with him, why would it be a problem if he was arguing with a Firefox developer?
I mean, if it is a Firefox developer - he is probably going to be quite biased towards how "awesome" Firefox is and say anything necessary to believe him.
If the argument were about how awesome Firefox is, I'd agree. In this case, it's an argument of exactly what Firefox is and how it is constructed, and how it differs from Mozilla. It's just plain silly to argue with one of the developers who knows exactly what the differences are.
Somebody please mod the parent up. I didn't know the number of watts (at 100% efficiency) per square meter, but I was suspicious at 120w/in^2. Then when I did the math to see what the 10X14 foot sheet would produce, I knew it was wrong.
Definitely, though, if I can have 1.5KW for $500, I'm *highly* interested.
Why would you have to prove that? If the customer showed his ID and it was valid, the insurance company doesn't need proof that it's a valid license.
Have you ever dealt with an insurance agency? Do you know how difficult it is to get them to pay? You don't want to leave even the slightest technicality open for them to take advantage of.
mod this AC up. That is the reality. Anybody can get a certificate... it might take a simple forged document. These companies are about making money, so they will happily sell a certificate.
While this is true, I honestly can't say that I would trust certificates issued "for free", when I also have to import the CA certificate before my browser will recognize them. The fee charged for an SSL certificate is "supposed" to go towards the administration required to verify and record the identity of the host to whom it was issued. While I'm sure that certificate issuers do not really validate applications, at least it gives me a place to start hunting should my trust be violated. The certificate authority will be held at least partly responsible. I can't say the same thing for a "free" issuing authority. Sorry, but I feel that paying for an SSL certificate is just part of the price of doing business. Consider it like a "Business License" for the internet.
If you know the fingerprint of the host you are connecting to, you are more or less immune from man-in-the-middle attacks. If you have never communicated with the host before, nothing is going to stop a man-in-the-middle - especially if you have to magically share locations of "carbon paper" without the man-in-the-middle knowing about it.
It actually provides a technique of verifying th authenticity of a host with whom your computer has never communicated. The host, presumably, knows your password (or a salted-hash representation). The host either obtained this via connection with another computer at some time in the past, or by some information that you provided when signing up for whatever the service is (think bank). The host uses what it knows about your password to send you specially encoded information that, in combination with what *you* also know about your password can be used to verify that at the very least you aren't giving your password to a system that doesn't already have that information. You can also think of this method as a decent way to validate RSA fingerprints by a system that hasn't already been seeded with pre-shared keys.
There is nothing wrong with the lawyer. He's just doing his job, which is getting his client off the hook.
That would be true if the article were about a criminal trial, but this is a CIVIL suit. It's all about money. So, basically, the lawyer has no ethics and thinks there's money to be made.
the answer is clear. sue them. you know that is what they would do to you if you violated the End User Agreement.
Erm, no. The answer is NOT clear. You do realize of course that even the cheapest method of suing someone (small claims court) has fees that would most likely exceed the maximum you could get back (the amount paid for the CD), don't you? The only reason you'd go ahead and take such legal action is if you had the money to burn and wanted to take revenge or make some sort of a "statement." Somebody elses idea about writing letters to the attorney general, news media, BBB, etc would probably be better. I'd like to add to that "posting on Slashdot."
It's all about value. You don't necessarily have to reduce the IT costs if you can save money elsewhere. You can show how much value your organization adds by doing the following:
Look at maintenance costs for less critical software and consider replacing it with something that has lower costs
Look at business processes and see how IT solutions can streamline those processes and save money and time as a result. Typical things are workforce automation and reduction of time in the billing cycle. Set up very simple solutions that solve common problems.
Consider dropping services that don't provide enough "bang for the buck."
Reduce support efforts and costs by properly training employees and providing a self-help knowledge-base.
Transition to lower cost hardware where it makes sense. If you've got a server that is grossly over-sized for what it is used for, consider redeploying it the next time a project calls for a new server.
Combine servers so that you have multiple applications running on the same server.
These are just a few ideas. I'm sure you can think of more.
Slashdot Mirror
The scientist will tell you they performed experiments to confirm the results; that these experiments have been done repeatedly by different people; that their theories are backed up by evidence.
Only the scientist who has actually performed these experiments. That can't be said for most people...
The religious person will tell you it's true because of his wobbly interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago, or it's true because he claims "God said so". Also note how people following the "God said so" route cannot agree at all on anything; there are countless different contradictory religious viewpoints.
Too funny. The science-advocate will tell you that his beliefs are true because of his wobbly interpretation of what he's read in school or periodicals, or heard from his friends about wild (and not so wild) theories that were produced in an attempt to explain an environment whos complexity still eludes our ability to perfectly model. Or he'll tell you it's true because his professor said so. Also note how people following the science route cannot agree on anything, as theories change frequently; there are countless different contradictory scientific theories.
Now sure, it could be that there's a worldwide conspiracy where all the scientists are lying to us. But for those of us who don't subscribe to crackpot beliefs like that, the idea that the believing what scientists say is comparable to believing what one particular religious person says is absurd.
The funny thing is, it's not the scientists who are lying. A good scientist generally presents his or her ideas as a theory (with no misrepresentation involved). Unfortunately, when professors and the media pick it up, what gets presented to students and the public takes little regard for clarifying what is fact and what is a theory based on that fact. I personally find it easier to believe a level-headed religious leader than what gets distored by the news media.
The interesting thing is that it's only the Jesus-believers who seem to have a need to force their beliefs on random passerbys..
Yes, those against religious beliefs are generally more organized, instead showing up at odd moments to disrupt private conversations that they've been eavesdropping on just because they don't like or agree with what they are hearing.
But see, this is the issue. If you truly understand science, you'll know that neither quantum theory nor relativity are actually correct. They are merely the closest we can come to a model that defines the universe based on what observations we've been able to make. These theories, while very valuable for making predictions, will undoubtedly fall prey to a newer and better theory sometime in the future. The best one can hope for is that new theories will merely add to or slightly adjust those that already exist.
I agree that there are a lot of nuts spouting religious beliefs to people who obviously don't want to hear. But there are many more who observe much more reasonable beliefs with some evidence to back them up, and a clear statement of faith where evidence fails.
This is complete and total hogwash. As a Vonage customer, I can assure you that Vonage makes accurate information about how their "version" of 911-dialing works. This includes an explanation of the differences. In fact, dialing 911 is no problem, but the call goes to a general number at the PSAP, and you have to provide information on your location. There are several reasons for this limitation, including, but not limited to incompatibilities between the VoIP systems and Emergency Response Centers, and also roadblocking by your regional Bell monopoly. The test market in RI has basically upgraded the equipment at the Emergency Reponse Center to work will with VoIP service, and if the government would backslap the local Bell monopolies and provide the SAME PUBLIC FUNDING THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE REGIONAL BELLS IN THE PAST, this service would be available quickly for everyone.
If you want more information about what Vonage provides, try their FAQ. While I don't think that the think tank at Vonage is all perfume and roses, please at least be informed and be critical of areas where criticism is due, like maybe not being especially forthcoming about the poor quality of FAX service.
Erm, can somebody more knowledgable about copyright law please chime in? I see that the original copyright was 1948. Under law at the time, copyrights held for 28 years, and could be renewed one time in the 28th year. That means that it must have been renewed in 1976 for an additional 28 years. The copyright act of 1976 that would allow extending the term to 47 years didn't take effect until 1978, so would therefore not apply. The only question I have concerns the 102-307, enacted in 1992, which would make renewal optional and also extend the term to 95 years. I can't tell if this work would fall under the terms of that law. If it doesn't, Hasbro's copyright expired last year. Can anybody clarify?
Well, I don't think that price is the problem...
What credit union is this?? Any requirements for becoming a member?
The former is very easy to take care of. I refuse to do business with any bank that charges me fees for using my card in another network's ATM or at a business. For the latter, I avoid ATMs that charge fees (although that can be difficult), and I only shop once at a business that would charge me the fees they would normally have to pay themselves to process my CREDIT card.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in the United States, it's the recipient of a call to cellular phone who pays the extra charges. Maybe I just don't see the charges because every call I make to anywhere in the US or Canada is covered by my monthly fees... Maybe it's the fact that I'm a Vonage customer. Anyway, I don't ever recall paying extra for this even before my Vonage days, except when I was living in Germany.
First, try getting a translation that's in more modern English (NIV, or maybe one of the paraphrase editions like "The Message"). Then, try starting someplace other than the beginning, like maybe the New Testament in the book of Mark. Whether you believe what's in it or not, it's a good idea to try to work your way through it, at least for pure education value. But man, the geneaology sections can be a bit dry.
You know, I think this statement applies adequately to telephone service providers (the Baby Bells), but I'm not sure I feel the same way about the cable companies. The difference is that when the Bells (AT&T at the time) set up their infrastructure, they used taxpayers dollars for part of it. I don't believe the same is true for cable companies. Therefore, they've had to eat the cost of running cable to houses. Any other (even small) company could compete just fine with them, provided they are willing to bite the bullet and run the fiber...
It has actually been around since the days of USENET and dumb terminals, and is generally pretty well known. However, because of the phrasing of the sentence, I admit that I could have interpreted the emphasis itself to mean sarcasm... one of the problems with written rather than verbal communication...
Sorry, my fingers must have been thinking of Hardee's when I typed that. (Why on earth, I don't know). It should be burglar, not burgler.
Does anybody think that coupled with a pure IR source of light this item would be useful in catching would-be prowlers without alerting them? OK, probably a stupid idea...
You might want to switch to Mandarin.
I mean, if it is a Firefox developer - he is probably going to be quite biased towards how "awesome" Firefox is and say anything necessary to believe him.
If the argument were about how awesome Firefox is, I'd agree. In this case, it's an argument of exactly what Firefox is and how it is constructed, and how it differs from Mozilla. It's just plain silly to argue with one of the developers who knows exactly what the differences are.
Definitely, though, if I can have 1.5KW for $500, I'm *highly* interested.
Have you ever dealt with an insurance agency? Do you know how difficult it is to get them to pay? You don't want to leave even the slightest technicality open for them to take advantage of.
Wouldn't that be: "Eine kleine Nagetiermusik" ;)
Personally, I thought it tasted better with a little curry powder. ;)
Under which certificate authority are GoDaddy certs issued? I don't see any GoDaddy listing in the default CA entries in Firefox or IE 6.x.
While this is true, I honestly can't say that I would trust certificates issued "for free", when I also have to import the CA certificate before my browser will recognize them. The fee charged for an SSL certificate is "supposed" to go towards the administration required to verify and record the identity of the host to whom it was issued. While I'm sure that certificate issuers do not really validate applications, at least it gives me a place to start hunting should my trust be violated. The certificate authority will be held at least partly responsible. I can't say the same thing for a "free" issuing authority. Sorry, but I feel that paying for an SSL certificate is just part of the price of doing business. Consider it like a "Business License" for the internet.
It actually provides a technique of verifying th authenticity of a host with whom your computer has never communicated. The host, presumably, knows your password (or a salted-hash representation). The host either obtained this via connection with another computer at some time in the past, or by some information that you provided when signing up for whatever the service is (think bank). The host uses what it knows about your password to send you specially encoded information that, in combination with what *you* also know about your password can be used to verify that at the very least you aren't giving your password to a system that doesn't already have that information. You can also think of this method as a decent way to validate RSA fingerprints by a system that hasn't already been seeded with pre-shared keys.
That would be true if the article were about a criminal trial, but this is a CIVIL suit. It's all about money. So, basically, the lawyer has no ethics and thinks there's money to be made.
Erm, no. The answer is NOT clear. You do realize of course that even the cheapest method of suing someone (small claims court) has fees that would most likely exceed the maximum you could get back (the amount paid for the CD), don't you? The only reason you'd go ahead and take such legal action is if you had the money to burn and wanted to take revenge or make some sort of a "statement." Somebody elses idea about writing letters to the attorney general, news media, BBB, etc would probably be better. I'd like to add to that "posting on Slashdot."
- Look at maintenance costs for less critical software and consider replacing it with something that has lower costs
- Look at business processes and see how IT solutions can streamline those processes and save money and time as a result. Typical things are workforce automation and reduction of time in the billing cycle. Set up very simple solutions that solve common problems.
- Consider dropping services that don't provide enough "bang for the buck."
- Reduce support efforts and costs by properly training employees and providing a self-help knowledge-base.
- Transition to lower cost hardware where it makes sense. If you've got a server that is grossly over-sized for what it is used for, consider redeploying it the next time a project calls for a new server.
- Combine servers so that you have multiple applications running on the same server.
These are just a few ideas. I'm sure you can think of more.