I've looked at babble, and the service seems fine. I don't see it as *much* cheaper though, and Skype has the added benefit (to me, YMMV) of allowing me to make use of funds I have otherwise tied up in Moneybookers and Paypal.
I live in the UK and have family in the US. I now have a US based SkypeIn #, unfortuately not in the state in which my family live. I pay the (15% VAT inclusive) 11.50 euro for three months, they pay for calls to my US number. I also use SkypeOut to call them at 1.7 eurocents/minute.
To quote from Skype's own help pages "The SkypeIn number is a regular phone number so any charges that might regularly occur from calling a number in that location still apply."
So, no premium calling, no extension number , mo hassle:)
Surely, unless you knew for certain that individual sensor results could be trusted, and possibly not even then, you would sample several devices in, or near, the location of interest.
> Is it right that teenagers get sent to jail for "hacking"
That was a good question, and you were doing fine up until
> when the state of IT security is so poor?
Where on earth did you pick up that warped morality? Surely we don't have to explain what is wrong with "I didn't rape her, she was (drunk/dressed provocatively/in the wrong area/whatever)"? Although the gravity of the offences are on completely different levels, there is no difference in the crassness of the proposed defences.
>The war could be wrong... >And terrorism is of course wrong...
Why the distinction in certainties? 'War' and 'terrorism' are only the labels used to apply value judgements to activities.
Terrorism is defined as such by the attacked party. Instigators of an 'armed struggle' refer to it in terms of fighting either for their rights, or against their oppressors.
I'm not defending, or attacking, any particular actions. But the label it is given does depend on which side is providing the view.
I can just about see a lack of prior intent if I was to be approached in the street and offered the descrambler there and then for a fee.
Receiving a spam email for that same product doesn't let me off the hook. That would be no different to having been offered a leaflet describing how I could visit a website to purchase one, rather than being offered the product itself. If I have no intent, I dispose of the leaflet. Any other action surely has to not just imply, but pretty much be, convincing evidence of my intent.
Slashdot Mirror
I've looked at babble, and the service seems fine. I don't see it as *much* cheaper though, and Skype has the added benefit (to me, YMMV) of allowing me to make use of funds I have otherwise tied up in Moneybookers and Paypal.
I live in the UK and have family in the US. I now have a US based SkypeIn #, unfortuately not in the state in which my family live. I pay the (15% VAT inclusive) 11.50 euro for three months, they pay for calls to my US number. I also use SkypeOut to call them at 1.7 eurocents/minute.
:)
To quote from Skype's own help pages "The SkypeIn number is a regular phone number so any charges that might regularly occur from calling a number in that location still apply."
So, no premium calling, no extension number , mo hassle
I suspect that the stress was on the word 'American', not on the word 'most'.
TPS, for the UK, is the Telephone Preference Service.
Surely, unless you knew for certain that individual sensor results could be trusted, and possibly not even then, you would sample several devices in, or near, the location of interest.
> How do you prove that the dob is not false.
Honestly, I'm not, but you're really gonna have to just trust me on that one.
> Is it right that teenagers get sent to jail for "hacking"
That was a good question, and you were doing fine up until
> when the state of IT security is so poor?
Where on earth did you pick up that warped morality? Surely we don't have to explain what is wrong with "I didn't rape her, she was (drunk/dressed provocatively/in the wrong area/whatever)"? Although the gravity of the offences are on completely different levels, there is no difference in the crassness of the proposed defences.
>The war could be wrong ... ...
>And terrorism is of course wrong
Why the distinction in certainties? 'War' and 'terrorism' are only the labels used to apply value judgements to activities.
Terrorism is defined as such by the attacked party. Instigators of an 'armed struggle' refer to it in terms of fighting either for their rights, or against their oppressors.
I'm not defending, or attacking, any particular actions. But the label it is given does depend on which side is providing the view.
You don't really believe that, do you?
I can just about see a lack of prior intent if I was to be approached in the street and offered the descrambler there and then for a fee.
Receiving a spam email for that same product doesn't let me off the hook. That would be no different to having been offered a leaflet describing how I could visit a website to purchase one, rather than being offered the product itself. If I have no intent, I dispose of the leaflet. Any other action surely has to not just imply, but pretty much be, convincing evidence of my intent.