And if you call ahead they can perform any needed exploratory surgery while processing you for security. Verify if that lump is cancerous, explosive or benign.
Don't know about that, but last year there was an assassination attempt on a Saudi Prince that used an internally carried bomb. It obviously killed the bomber, and made quite the mess, but the Prince was not harmed. So this has been tried at least once unsuccessfully. Not on an airplane, where the over-pressurization is an issue, but it has been done and recently.
I just wonder why the genius's at the TSA has taken more than a year to consider this a "Threat".
But you are neglecting the other side of the coin. It is in the best interest for the private firm to protect the data and transactions of it's customers. Failure to do so will result in being replaced in the marketplace by firms who do put that emphasis on protecting the information. There is risk in trying new more advanced security measures, but much greater risk in not trying such measures.
In the Government, the interest only goes as far as the current rules require it to go. There is ZERO incentive to take extra steps and measures to protect that data. If it's government run, failure just means a couple new regs will get passed, but they'll still be in business and still have their jobs. There is ZERO risk in not trying new security measures but plenty of risk in trying something new.
By and far your transactional data is far safer in private hands that have financial incentive to keep your business than it would be in government hands that have no incentive to keep your business because they can't lose it.
Just because formal charges have not been filed does not mean they are not guilty of breaking the law. Also such charges are rarely pressed against organizations. But Wikileaks is breaking US Law by knowingly publishing Classified Documents. Visa and MC are both headquartered in the US. It is in their best legal interest to not do any business with any organization that is blatantly violating our National Security laws.
You may disagree with those laws, but they exist and have full legal standing. We can't really prosecute Wikileaks, but we could (if we had the political will) most certainly prosecute any US Corp that conducts any business with them. So far we are not doing that, but we do reserve the right to do so. And should we decide to start doing so MC and Visa would have been at risk, after the news agencies who helped to publish the stuff.
MC and Visa are protecting their company's, and stockholders interests, by refusing to provide service to Wikileaks.
And lets share the cause of the flooding. Simply massive amounts of winter and spring snow, and a very long, wet and cold spring that kept building the snowpack into late may when normally it starts diminishing starting around the first of April. We got snow down to the 6000 ft level on Memorial day! And that capped the wettest May ever recorded.
Here in Utah, our water managers normally do a good job of managing the spring run-off, but when in early may they compared the Reservoir storage with the snowpack they found amounts of water ranging from six to nine times the total capacity of our reservoirs.
This massive amount of water was seen all across the northern rockies (sorry AZ you certainly could have used some.) If we'd had a normal spring it might have been manageable, but it stayed cold and wet clear into late may. Meaning all that snow was just sitting there instead of gradually melting. It could have been worse though. It stayed cooler into June, slowing the run-off. The last time we had snow anywhere like this was 1983, when it stayed cool until the last week of may and then jumped into the 90's and up bringing all the snow down in days. That was the year Salt Lake city turned one of it's main streets into a river to handle the flow from what is normally a small creek.
The Corps of Engineers and all the water managers have been pulling their hair out for months trying to figure out how to handle the massive amounts of water that was coming, and kept pulling and pulling as the snow kept piling higher and higher and spring refused to come and allow a normal gradual melt, that might have been slightly more manageable.
Just know that the only time military are supposed to be in uniform while traveling is coming home on leave or returning to a combat zone. So there is a reason for recognizing them. Otherwise traveling in uniform is highly discouraged as it makes you a target for any hijackers.
And you can be sure that if some lowlife scumbag decide to try to hijack a plane, those military personnel will be most glad to go to work on that lowlife scumbag. Even though they are on leave.
You realize that all laptop power supplies out there currently handle 120 to 240w already? That aspect is nothing new. You take your laptop overseas you only need a plug adapter. Not an expensive converter. The main thing this does is standardize the connector into the laptop, and build some circuitry to allow for differing power needs for different devices. But they can all already handle 240 just fine.
No this would be more akin to cell phone chargers for cars. You can pay $50 bucks for the official charger at the phone store, or you can go to Target and pay $19.99 each for one or more that matches your phone model. Except now instead of the store having to stock 15 or 20 different chargers, they can offer a couple different ones from different manufacturers. Perhaps with different features. This one has a couple USB sockets to allow for direct charging of gadgets without the computer trying to access them.
You are already seeing this convenience in cell phones and similar sized electronics. My cell and my nook use the same micro USB plug, so my car charger will charge both, and the wall warts and USB data cords for both are fully interchangeable. Also my car charger has a standard USB socket on the back so I bring out one of the other cables and I can charge both. And I bought one more Micro USB cord for use at work to charge the devices there if needed.
It's one of the false or Anti-Dukes that were spoken of in prophecy. The true Duke has not returned. Someday Duke Nukem Forever will be released and the gaming Rapture and Nirvana will occur.
No, because the three strikes laws only come into play on the third CONVICTION. Three arrests with one or more acquittals or lesser pleas won't qualify for a three strikes penalty.
So we use the new media. If every slashdotter who is concerned about this posted the link to the article (the real article not the/. link) to their facebook and other social networking sites, we can get the word out. Particularly if we introduce the link by making the point that according to this law, any of them could face jail time for any video clip they link to if they don't know it's legality.
Social Media has the ability to get around the paid media's blackouts.
How does a difference like this hurt you? The FTC is really there to prevent truly harmful practices. Bait and switch, dangerous items, devices that don't even begin to perform their advertised function.
Since usage is entirely reliant on how you actually use it, not some perfect world usage, that is virtually unachievable in real life. Unless you can prove that the real battery life is substantially different under similar identical conditions as advertised, there is nothing to protect against this.
But we are just as free to tweet about a neighbor who is having an affair as we are a famous person. If we are making it up we can rightfully be charged with libel or slander, but if it's true, sucks for them that they were caught. The difference? Just that nobody cares about the neighbor.
These athletes and other stars want to live in the limelight, they gotta deal with the costs of fame, and that means their life on display, every aspect analyzed and discussed by fans.
For those overpaid athletes: Don't want people tweeting about your affairs? Don't step out on your spouse. It's plain and simple. If they insist on being able to cheat on their wives then they should retire and leave the limelight so nobody will care.
Their fame naturally reduces their ability to live a private life. But they don't have to live that life, they could get a regular job and disappear into the crowd.
A few posters have said no to rating systems. Why no ratings?
While not perfect, does the MPAA rating scheme not give you at a glance a general idea as to how kid (or adult) friendly a movie is? Probably shouldn't be taking the kindergarten kids to see that R movie. Similar with the game rating system. Neither system is perfect. Stuff gets mis-rated all the time, but in a general sense they and the music system are all great for giving parents a good general idea as to what they will allow their children to see, play, listen too, or read if we extend to this new area of ratings.
As a parent I want to be able to tell at a glance, regardless of the name, whether or not I want my young kids to see it. A movie name, and often even the trailers can give very poor cues as to the maturity of the film.
Similarly I don't want to go see what I think is a good action adventure/spy film and find out after I've put down my money that it's a kids film, based around CGI newts. I'll take my young kids to G and maybe PG movies and my dates to PG-13 or R movies. Such a rating system would be great for books as well. Not all parents are avid readers. Some would rather chew their own foot off before reading a book. Even if it is to see if the content is allowable within their moral guidelines for their kids. A rating system would allow them to make fairly safe authorizations based on rating levels.
Not all subjects are fine at all ages. Reading some topics, or viewing some materials at too young an age really can harm a child psychologically, introduce them to concepts their mind isn't mature enough to handle yet and the results can be quite harmful.
A rating system is not censorship. The books are still published, and still available. A rating system allows those with moral or similar objections to some materials to avoid those materials, while still allowing those with no objections to the materials to enjoy them. Censorship is saying "I don't like that book, ban it so nobody can read it." This is saying "I don't like that book, and don't want that smut in my house. But thank you for giving me a way to determine it's content without having to subject my mind to it. But anyone else who wants to read it can." Yes this does allow for close minded people to avoid certain topics or materials, but it does not deny any other adults access to those same materials. And as for the children of the close minded adults, when they grow up they can choose to access the materials.
What happens to people producing products under that name and in that market before the Trademark was filed for? Such as folks at Zazzle selling ST6 T-Shirts for at least six months before Disney filed.
Unless you've had too much caffeine that morning. They the shaking of your over caffeinated hands may cause issues with accuracy. It'll pick the right key bbbbbuuuuttttt hhhhhiiiiitttt every letter multiple times.
Crap! too true. That means not only are they multiplying like jack rabbits but they are mutating in size and shape. Within a few years they will achieve the perfect 1:4:9 proportions and the apple iMonoliths will take over the galaxy.
So they include themselves in the suit, and settle thus avoiding going to court against themselves. This is a civil trial, the standards of proof are much much lower.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you call ahead they can perform any needed exploratory surgery while processing you for security. Verify if that lump is cancerous, explosive or benign.
Don't know about that, but last year there was an assassination attempt on a Saudi Prince that used an internally carried bomb. It obviously killed the bomber, and made quite the mess, but the Prince was not harmed. So this has been tried at least once unsuccessfully. Not on an airplane, where the over-pressurization is an issue, but it has been done and recently.
I just wonder why the genius's at the TSA has taken more than a year to consider this a "Threat".
But you are neglecting the other side of the coin. It is in the best interest for the private firm to protect the data and transactions of it's customers. Failure to do so will result in being replaced in the marketplace by firms who do put that emphasis on protecting the information. There is risk in trying new more advanced security measures, but much greater risk in not trying such measures.
In the Government, the interest only goes as far as the current rules require it to go. There is ZERO incentive to take extra steps and measures to protect that data. If it's government run, failure just means a couple new regs will get passed, but they'll still be in business and still have their jobs. There is ZERO risk in not trying new security measures but plenty of risk in trying something new.
By and far your transactional data is far safer in private hands that have financial incentive to keep your business than it would be in government hands that have no incentive to keep your business because they can't lose it.
Just because formal charges have not been filed does not mean they are not guilty of breaking the law. Also such charges are rarely pressed against organizations. But Wikileaks is breaking US Law by knowingly publishing Classified Documents. Visa and MC are both headquartered in the US. It is in their best legal interest to not do any business with any organization that is blatantly violating our National Security laws.
You may disagree with those laws, but they exist and have full legal standing. We can't really prosecute Wikileaks, but we could (if we had the political will) most certainly prosecute any US Corp that conducts any business with them. So far we are not doing that, but we do reserve the right to do so. And should we decide to start doing so MC and Visa would have been at risk, after the news agencies who helped to publish the stuff.
MC and Visa are protecting their company's, and stockholders interests, by refusing to provide service to Wikileaks.
You are absolutely right.
And lets share the cause of the flooding. Simply massive amounts of winter and spring snow, and a very long, wet and cold spring that kept building the snowpack into late may when normally it starts diminishing starting around the first of April. We got snow down to the 6000 ft level on Memorial day! And that capped the wettest May ever recorded.
Here in Utah, our water managers normally do a good job of managing the spring run-off, but when in early may they compared the Reservoir storage with the snowpack they found amounts of water ranging from six to nine times the total capacity of our reservoirs.
This massive amount of water was seen all across the northern rockies (sorry AZ you certainly could have used some.) If we'd had a normal spring it might have been manageable, but it stayed cold and wet clear into late may. Meaning all that snow was just sitting there instead of gradually melting. It could have been worse though. It stayed cooler into June, slowing the run-off. The last time we had snow anywhere like this was 1983, when it stayed cool until the last week of may and then jumped into the 90's and up bringing all the snow down in days. That was the year Salt Lake city turned one of it's main streets into a river to handle the flow from what is normally a small creek.
The Corps of Engineers and all the water managers have been pulling their hair out for months trying to figure out how to handle the massive amounts of water that was coming, and kept pulling and pulling as the snow kept piling higher and higher and spring refused to come and allow a normal gradual melt, that might have been slightly more manageable.
Just know that the only time military are supposed to be in uniform while traveling is coming home on leave or returning to a combat zone. So there is a reason for recognizing them. Otherwise traveling in uniform is highly discouraged as it makes you a target for any hijackers.
And you can be sure that if some lowlife scumbag decide to try to hijack a plane, those military personnel will be most glad to go to work on that lowlife scumbag. Even though they are on leave.
You realize that all laptop power supplies out there currently handle 120 to 240w already? That aspect is nothing new. You take your laptop overseas you only need a plug adapter. Not an expensive converter. The main thing this does is standardize the connector into the laptop, and build some circuitry to allow for differing power needs for different devices. But they can all already handle 240 just fine.
No this would be more akin to cell phone chargers for cars. You can pay $50 bucks for the official charger at the phone store, or you can go to Target and pay $19.99 each for one or more that matches your phone model. Except now instead of the store having to stock 15 or 20 different chargers, they can offer a couple different ones from different manufacturers. Perhaps with different features. This one has a couple USB sockets to allow for direct charging of gadgets without the computer trying to access them.
You are already seeing this convenience in cell phones and similar sized electronics. My cell and my nook use the same micro USB plug, so my car charger will charge both, and the wall warts and USB data cords for both are fully interchangeable. Also my car charger has a standard USB socket on the back so I bring out one of the other cables and I can charge both. And I bought one more Micro USB cord for use at work to charge the devices there if needed.
You are so very right.
It's one of the false or Anti-Dukes that were spoken of in prophecy. The true Duke has not returned. Someday Duke Nukem Forever will be released and the gaming Rapture and Nirvana will occur.
No, because the three strikes laws only come into play on the third CONVICTION. Three arrests with one or more acquittals or lesser pleas won't qualify for a three strikes penalty.
So you didn't fix anything.
So we use the new media. If every slashdotter who is concerned about this posted the link to the article (the real article not the /. link) to their facebook and other social networking sites, we can get the word out. Particularly if we introduce the link by making the point that according to this law, any of them could face jail time for any video clip they link to if they don't know it's legality.
Social Media has the ability to get around the paid media's blackouts.
How does a difference like this hurt you? The FTC is really there to prevent truly harmful practices. Bait and switch, dangerous items, devices that don't even begin to perform their advertised function.
Since usage is entirely reliant on how you actually use it, not some perfect world usage, that is virtually unachievable in real life. Unless you can prove that the real battery life is substantially different under similar identical conditions as advertised, there is nothing to protect against this.
But we are just as free to tweet about a neighbor who is having an affair as we are a famous person. If we are making it up we can rightfully be charged with libel or slander, but if it's true, sucks for them that they were caught. The difference? Just that nobody cares about the neighbor.
These athletes and other stars want to live in the limelight, they gotta deal with the costs of fame, and that means their life on display, every aspect analyzed and discussed by fans.
For those overpaid athletes: Don't want people tweeting about your affairs? Don't step out on your spouse. It's plain and simple. If they insist on being able to cheat on their wives then they should retire and leave the limelight so nobody will care.
Their fame naturally reduces their ability to live a private life. But they don't have to live that life, they could get a regular job and disappear into the crowd.
A few posters have said no to rating systems. Why no ratings?
While not perfect, does the MPAA rating scheme not give you at a glance a general idea as to how kid (or adult) friendly a movie is? Probably shouldn't be taking the kindergarten kids to see that R movie. Similar with the game rating system. Neither system is perfect. Stuff gets mis-rated all the time, but in a general sense they and the music system are all great for giving parents a good general idea as to what they will allow their children to see, play, listen too, or read if we extend to this new area of ratings.
As a parent I want to be able to tell at a glance, regardless of the name, whether or not I want my young kids to see it. A movie name, and often even the trailers can give very poor cues as to the maturity of the film.
Similarly I don't want to go see what I think is a good action adventure/spy film and find out after I've put down my money that it's a kids film, based around CGI newts. I'll take my young kids to G and maybe PG movies and my dates to PG-13 or R movies. Such a rating system would be great for books as well. Not all parents are avid readers. Some would rather chew their own foot off before reading a book. Even if it is to see if the content is allowable within their moral guidelines for their kids. A rating system would allow them to make fairly safe authorizations based on rating levels.
Not all subjects are fine at all ages. Reading some topics, or viewing some materials at too young an age really can harm a child psychologically, introduce them to concepts their mind isn't mature enough to handle yet and the results can be quite harmful.
A rating system is not censorship. The books are still published, and still available. A rating system allows those with moral or similar objections to some materials to avoid those materials, while still allowing those with no objections to the materials to enjoy them. Censorship is saying "I don't like that book, ban it so nobody can read it." This is saying "I don't like that book, and don't want that smut in my house. But thank you for giving me a way to determine it's content without having to subject my mind to it. But anyone else who wants to read it can." Yes this does allow for close minded people to avoid certain topics or materials, but it does not deny any other adults access to those same materials. And as for the children of the close minded adults, when they grow up they can choose to access the materials.
This is obviously not true. They all land.
Yup. It's taking off that's optional. ;)
As is as surviving the landing. ;P
You could, but last month I filed a patent on trademarking the dictionary and every possible combination in it.
Hmm, doesn't that somehow make it Paramout IP first? :)
What happens to people producing products under that name and in that market before the Trademark was filed for? Such as folks at Zazzle selling ST6 T-Shirts for at least six months before Disney filed.
How about Prior art for T-shirts http://www.zazzle.com/seal_team_6_motto_tshirt-235772284366239824 or http://www.zazzle.com/osama_bin_laden_dead_shirt-235715864026736127 The first one is dated from last year. The second one claims a created date one day before the Disney Filing. Both are directly for clothing.
Unless you've had too much caffeine that morning. They the shaking of your over caffeinated hands may cause issues with accuracy. It'll pick the right key bbbbbuuuuttttt hhhhhiiiiitttt every letter multiple times.
Hmm maybe I'll run out and reserve damnyoupsychickeyboard.com
Crap! too true. That means not only are they multiplying like jack rabbits but they are mutating in size and shape. Within a few years they will achieve the perfect 1:4:9 proportions and the apple iMonoliths will take over the galaxy.
Who pays $5 for a rental? Redbox it for a buck. A buck fifty if you want magic blu-ray powered disks.
So they include themselves in the suit, and settle thus avoiding going to court against themselves. This is a civil trial, the standards of proof are much much lower.