we shall now see the flood of the clueless that run around in circles screaming OMG SEE MACS HAVE BAD SECURITY TOO. To stamp out their fire before it gets beyond the first match I'd like to point out that even if they fixed 1000 things in this update, you can't compare apples (sorry) to oranges. The lion's share of vulns patched in say, Windows, I would classify "big trouble". Exploits that are in the wild (some of which have been running loose for months) that let remote attackers own your box. Even with that we see the antivirus companies coming out with many new patterns every week. Most are for viruses and spyware, but some are for remote code execution, which is arguably the worst thing you can have happen to your computer.
The number of patched remote code execution bugs that have been found and fixed on the mac recently are countable on one hand. Most (all?) of them are LAN originatable only. And it's not that Apple's not plugging existing holes... there weren't many to fix to begin with. The rest of the fixes, as pointed out by an earlier poster, are for things where someone emails you an attachment and you run it. Sorry but if you are assisting the viruses you really shouldn't hold the computer accountable anyway, but Apple still does its best to bulletproof you even in your stupidity. Their main concern there I believe is that you could send the evil attachment to an unprivileged user and that could lead to elevated privileges for that user or to execute code beyond that user's privs.
Any OS that has so many holes to fix that it can justify a weekly scheduled security fix is clearly in a class by itself.
We discussed this the other day at work (apple product retailer) and agreed that the name alone would not be infringing. Selling an ipod-related or ipod-knockoff under that name maybe infringing because at that point you are trying to confuse the consumer as to the brand. Everyone agreed however, that the silhouette ad all by itself was infringing, and that, in combination with the name and the product, made it an airtight case.
Apple doesn't usually go after someone for trademark unless (1) they are making an obvious attempt to confuse the consumer as to the brand, and (2) they are pulling something that clearly WILL confuse the consumer. (i.e. they're violating brand, and doing a good job of it) The cocky response from the iGasm rep indicates they know what they are doing and are stupid enough to think they will somehow get away with it. I will find great entertainment in watching Apple's lawyers wipe the smirk off his face.
Just because someone offers you a deal doesn't mean it's fair. This is the RIAA's style. Look at all the people they sue for absurd amounts, many of whom are innocent, and then offer them a "deal" to pay some large sum to make them go away. "Almost extortion" is the name I would give it. This is no better. I feel like they are saying "we realize we don't deserve any of this, so what we are going to do is ask for a completely ridiculous amount, then offer a second, smaller (but equally unjustified) "deal" to show our generosity".
If the guy in the ski mask takes only $50 out of your wallet and leaves you with the rest of the wallet, you were still mugged. There is no such thing as a "generous mugger". If you were not entitled to anything and only took a small amount when you might have taken more, you are still stealing.
Sometimes it does. A friend brought over a handheld thing, looked like a giant palm pilot. It uses e-ink, and he has many books loaded on it, reads them on the plane. It has a backlight. It's very easy to read and very sharp and crisp when in light, but if there is no light in the room (or it's dark on the plane on a long flight) he has to turn on the backlight to a low level to read it.
In that respect, e-ink seems to behave a lot like calculator or watch LCD screens - they are very readable in most lighting conditions, but are not self-illuminating and require a backlight when there is too little ambient light.
His unit was a much better backlight design than say on a wristwatch. The light was even and well-diffused, a lot like a photographer's light panel for viewing film negatives. Probably was a backlight screen panel like what laptop computers use.
Computer LCD screens are negative color, and are backlit, so you see positive color and b&w, and if you view them in bright light with the backlight off, the image is negatived. With his unit, it works the same in ambient light as it does in backlight. Since his screen was only B&W, what it was doing is when the backlight was turned on, the screen would negative itself, and the negative effect of the backlight then reversed and was viewed normally. There was a very brief delay as it switched, you could see the screen flip negative just before the backlight turned on and corrected the view.
I was surprised at how crisp the text was. The screen must have been very high resolution, because it could be mistaken for typed or pen-written text. All the older units I've seen were very low resolution (400x300-ish?) and you could clearly see the individual pixels and diagonal lines were not smooth, but his unit was very nice.
is a video of this display in action. I'd like to see someone bending and flexing the panel while playing Terminator on it or something,
Also, I did not notice mention of how the panel is lit. Is this like a color LCD display that requires a backlight, or is it self-luminescent? There's no point to a flexible panel if it has to be backlit by an inflexible light source. The e-ink I have seen in the past requires a backlight.
At least on the apple ][, they were "image intensifier" goggles. With them the slimer was easy to see and was animated the same as the men. Without the goggles, the slimer was only drawn lightly, and very intermittently, as a flicker around on the screen. He frequently disappeared for several seconds at a time. It was still possible to catch him without the goggles, but they definitely made it easier. You ony had one shot to trigger the trap, and if you missed, one of your men got slimed. Strictly speaking not necessary, but it was a cheap option and made the game a lot easier, so a good buy.
I played this one on the Apple II and it was fairly entertaining. Not sure why you would have such a hard time with getting some action. All you had to do was drive to any house that was flashing (indicating it was being haunted) and trap the ghost. Take ghosts back to GBHQ and go get another. Rinse and repeat.
There were quite a few options you could get, but bait was basically required. If you didn't have bait and the marshmallow alert went off staypuft would trash a building and you would get charged. The portable laser confinement system was nice to have but so expensive you could not afford anything else. If you had the vacuum, any of the four ghosts that comes in from the corners that you crossed while driving, you sucked up, and this slowed the PK rise and let you catch more ghosts before the final battle. The goggles did help with ghost catching but were not required. I don't remember what the other options were.
When PK energy maxed you were pulled to the middle to battle staypuft. To do this you had to get two of your three men to run under the hopping staypuft, which only required timing.
There are currently 72 pages of posts to that complaint thread. I don't feel like wading through it all to find out if anyone has answered anyone. Can anyone summarize?
ICQ was my first IM client many years ago. Back then I suppose it was the only IM client that any number of people were using. You emailed, IRC'd, or ICQ'd and that was about it. ICQ had the appeal of immediate contact while (at the time) being more or less universal.
My ICQ number is seven digits, which I don't know if that's like having a pre-1000 slashdot ID or what, but I've had it a long time. I never use it though. There are too many IM protocols available now.
I had to deal with most of these recently as I am trying to hook a student in Germany up with their old class in the USA, and we are having seemingly endless coordination problems. From what I have seen, AIM is the most "clever" at getting around strange network problems, particularly when there is a firewall at one or both ends. The iChat AIM client is particularly talented at establishing audio and video chat through firewalls and routers. Skype's audio quality blows iChat away but it's video is lacking. (skype has chat too but does anyone use it?) IRC appears to be the best choice for meeting with a large (or very large!) group of people. I have not used MSN or Yahoo enough to discover anything useful about them. ICQ has the advantage of leaving messages for offline users which is something I wish AIM did.
So each of them seems to have an advantage. A few people I know use a chat client (GAIM?) that appears to handle most or all of these protocols at once, and I may try it. It would greatly simplify my being able to contact people, regardless of what chat client they happen to prefer. It would be so much easier if there were just one that met all the needs at once.
I work mainly in customer service business, I actually work two jobs that give me a variety that is without equal. But in both cases I find there is only one way to motivate the people that are at least two levels above you. You must demonstrate client impact. No one cares if someone did something that ruined your week. They may not even care if you fried a $2k piece of hardware. But if the client's image of your company is tarnished or threatened, this is big news.
On many occasions I have ran into a problem that was making my life miserable and despite all the noise I made, no one would lift a finger to help me. But when I reworded my email to focus entirely on the impact to the client instead of the impact to me, things alawys happend.
The ads that bother me the most are those irritating long or tall shockwave flash animated ads. "punch the monkey and win a prize" or some other such nonsense. Nothing like a crosshairs bouncing around on your screen to distract you from the article you came to read. Those get blocked in my hosts file. In my case, the advertisers are losing out... if they had not made such an obnoxious annoying animated ad, I would not have bothered to host it out and they would have gotten their "impressions". But now I will never see that ad again. I wonder if they realize how their methods are actually lowering the number of impressions they get?
What's truly annoying is when I have to use someone else's box for something on the web and get innundated with animated ads that I have not seen for months. Makes sites like/. look like crap until I am safe back at home. I don't know how anyone puts up with that.
I can only assume the advertisers realize some of their targets are like me and they are losing out with the ads, but yet they persist, so as the law of marketing goes, there must be enough suckers out there that put up with the ads to make it worth their while.
Makes you wonder just how insecure ths monarch is if he has to outlaw anyone messing with his image.
But yes you do seem to be right, I can't think of any dictator/monarch/president-for-life that is not protected by such a statute.
So I suppose by that logic, all monarchs are insecure? I wonder how much that "universally loved" thing in the OP is true and how much of it is "say you don't like him and we will beat you / imprison you disappear you"?
I believe they are making an argument for "criminal trespass" on a network in the united states maybe? Nowadays, logging into a server in another country is often viewed as actually BEING there, and they try to hold you accountable by their laws for anything you do while logged into that server. Then extradition treaties kick in and you find yourself on an airplane in cuffs.
It's as though you hopped on a plane, went to the US, broke a law, (for which there is an extradition treaty) and then flew back to AU.
Although I question the sensibility of considering logging into a server as "criminal trespass" and also question the necessity of cybercrime being part of an extradition treaty.
Nowadays it appears that the inclusion of a crime in extradition treaties depends not on the severity of the crime, but in the amount of money some powerful people stand to lose.
Despite this, your proposed market system here is still discriminatory. People, for no other reason than an insistence upon privacy, would have to pay higher rates. Forcing people to disclose their DNA in order to be insured is highly invasive and contradictory to basic civil liberties.
Privacy always has, and always will, have a price tag attached to it. Nothing new here. Once you are in public you have no right to privacy. Doing business with someone is being out in public.
Despite this, your proposed market system here is still discriminatory. People, for no other reason than an insistence upon privacy, would have to pay higher rates. Forcing people to disclose their DNA in order to be insured is highly invasive and contradictory to basic civil liberties.
I do not consider privacy of my DNA a civil liberty any moreso than my fingerprints. We already had that argument, remember? (you lost)
Just another case of where the people that have something to lose are making a lot of groundless noise.
This all reminds me of those idiots that have some major disability, like missing an arm, and they want to be lifeguards or construction workers or other such nonsense and are screaming about discrimination. People have a right to treat you differently if there are differences that are important to them, certainly if it has a financial impact on them. People are different. Everyone is different. I have a terrible memory, should I fight to get a job as a stock trader? Of course not. If someone refuses to hire me as a stock broker due to my memory, It's not discrimination, it's common sense, and they should have that right. If there is a genetic test for memory and they are looking to hire someone with a good memory, and they want me to take a DNA test to see if I should have a good memory, good for them, go for it. "But that's different..." No it's not. The only difference is that here I have something to gain (a job opportunity) and in the discussion here people instead have something to lose. The world does not have to favor helping you and disfavor hindering you.
By that same token, if I walk into an insurance company and I weigh 400 lbs I expect them to rip me on health insurance. Is it discrimination? No, I'm obese and a serious health risk, my fatness is not a privacy issue, and it's clearly going to affect our business relationship, and I will expect a high rate. Why is this any different if I have some hidden risk like a high CAG count for the Huntington's Disease trait? It's bad enough if you don't want to know if your genetic deck is stacked poorly and want the insurance company to take a blind chance on you, but it's downright dirty to know you have a high CAG and try to hide it while shopping for insurance.
People like that are at a disadvantage, but instead of just saying "that's how life goes", they instead want the world to give them things because they feel the world "owes them". Because life should be fair to them.
Too many people look at insurnace as a charity, and that everyone should be entitled somehow to cheap insurance. That's not what it is. There are two reasons to take out insurance. (1) if you believe the odds of cashing in on policy x the value of the policy exceeds the cost of the loss x the chance of the loss, or (2) if the harm caused by the event uninsured is unacceptable regardless of the low odds of it occurring. We take out auto insurance for the second reason, not because we believe we are going to run into someone, but because they could sue us for $2M and that would financially ruin us. The insurance companies carefully calculate the odds for the first situation, and you can bet every penny that they have determined that statistically they will come out ahead. This is how they determine the cost of policies, and this is why they need as much information on the details of the insured before they can come up with a policy cost. Buying insurance for this reason is like gambling... the house always wins. The margin may be low, but they DO always win in the end.
If you go into a policy with a "prior condition" that changes the odds dramatically, and they have to adjust the cost of your policy accordingly to keep in the black on the average. This is not unexpected and not unfair. If they are fairly sure they are going to have to pay out on you, your rates are higher because on the average, your payout will be higher than their average customer. The rest of their customers do not want to have to pay for your increased risk
Of course with unknown preexisting conditions like say, a congenitcal heart defect, they won't win that bet, but they can't know. So they raise *everyone's* rates a hair to make up for the unknown.
What these ppl here want to do is to take what should be a higher policy rate for them, and dump it onto all the rest of us, a little bit for everyone. That's NOT how it's supposed to work, and I really don't feel like helping you to pay for your insurance policy.
IMHO, insurance companies should be allowed to conduct any test they want on you. Companies with more tests or more invasitve tests will get less customers so free market will keep the abuses in check. If you don't want to submit to tests, you will probably have to get a different, more expensive policy, and that is to be expected. Though if you pass their tests you get a lower rate than you would have otherwise. Fail the tests and owell, high rates. Quit crying, it's not their fault, that's how life works. Go blame god or something, don't hike MY rates.
I suppose in this respect AT&T is doing us a favor. They could be finding a way to wiretap our VIOP and continuing service. But instead they are rudely disconnecting users. This may sound cruel, but it accomplishes several things
(1) they get a piece of that "do no evil" thing that's in vogue nowadays (see "google") (2) they are actually being very polite in not slamming people for the actual reason they are refusing to go with this (I would not be so kind!) (3) the abrupt manner of their disconnect both meets their goals AND causes a big public stink that thrusts the issue again into the daylight for all to see
This is AT&T fighting it the only way they can. We could really not ask for any better. If you're a VOIP customer, sorry this is not going to be pleasant, but would you really prefer the alternative?
All Apple CMOS batteries are under the logic board.
Do I have to get you some more pictures?
If you know what you're doing and have experience, you can probably change that battery in 25 minutes without being reckeless. But then Joe at the garage can rebuild my carburator in about that much time too I bet. I sure can't. You should not make it sound like the average reader here can do this. Of the limited number here that would tear their laptop into 30 pieces to fix something minor, most of them would take a good hour to do it.
What's yor GSX Tech ID? I am curious to look at your certifications.
Please tell me about this "common repair trick" of unplugging the "CMOS battery". Hint: it's under the logic board. Please take a look http://vftp.net/virtual1/temp/techchat/MBLB.jpg, that's a picture of the underside of the mlb.
Is cutting a hole in the bottom of a macbook a "common repair trick" for you?? Or do you mean removing what, 30 screws to pull the board?
The purpose of copyright and trademark is not to provide a perpetual monopoly, it's to provide a limited monopoly, to ensure entremeneurs are able to proffit from their work before it passes into public domain, a process that encourages innovation and provides a reasonable guarantee that there will be a reward for their innovation. Disney has abused this system and has even been made an exception to the already generous durations. Look into Mickey Mouse, disney's protected status on that has been extended what, twice now? Once a business has reaped the rewards of their innovation, it's time for the rest of the world to benefit from their idea, not keep paying for it for decades to come. Disney has had plenty of time to cash in on their innovations and has made very effective use of that time. Now they need to give it up to the rest of the world.
FYI, all intel macs have a bios battery attached to their logic board. unplugging it, shutting it off, even removing the battery, do not totally remove power from the system. Liquid that gets in can still total the machine with no apparent power since there is always power.
Methinks macbook owners are going to be mighty pissed in about 5 yrs when those lithium batteries start dying, they will not be cheap to replace. They are on the UNDERside of the macbook's logic board, and you can imagine what it would take for a user to remove that board.
That does look like a manufacturing defect, but it's not common. I have worked on hundreds of macs this year and I have only seen maybe one or two ibook G4s that had dead displays. It's not anywhere near the scale that I would say deserves a recall. If every 1 unit in 200 is bad, the model is not defective. Now if we are talking 1 in 10 maybe we can start saying there is a problem.
what I would do is demand they sign a waiver saying that installing the software is a requirement of my job and that either they have licenses enough to cover the installations or they are accepting full responsibility for any infringement that results from your actions.
If they refuse to sign it, don't do it. If they fire you, you will have a fun time with them in court. Maybe not the most solid legal ground, but good enough for me I think.
A widely-held opinion about software is that people install pirated software because they would never buy it if pirating were not an option. These people can somewhat justify their decision because the company has not lost anything by your action. (commonly cited, "copyright infringement is NOT theft") Businesses on the other hand usually have a budget limited only by what the mangement deems is acceptable expense, so they cannot fall into that category in most cases. For this reason I expect businesses to pony up for their software, and I perfer to follow the "try before you buy" model for my personal software. I own several licenses of software I have deemed worth the asking price and useful, and several other titles I am still deciding on. I've reviewed waaay too much crap and have been extremely thankful to not be out my "software is non returnable" $49.95 each time they bait me into garbage.
Slashdot Mirror
Why didn't this get tagged with "haha" ?
we shall now see the flood of the clueless that run around in circles screaming OMG SEE MACS HAVE BAD SECURITY TOO. To stamp out their fire before it gets beyond the first match I'd like to point out that even if they fixed 1000 things in this update, you can't compare apples (sorry) to oranges. The lion's share of vulns patched in say, Windows, I would classify "big trouble". Exploits that are in the wild (some of which have been running loose for months) that let remote attackers own your box. Even with that we see the antivirus companies coming out with many new patterns every week. Most are for viruses and spyware, but some are for remote code execution, which is arguably the worst thing you can have happen to your computer.
The number of patched remote code execution bugs that have been found and fixed on the mac recently are countable on one hand. Most (all?) of them are LAN originatable only. And it's not that Apple's not plugging existing holes... there weren't many to fix to begin with. The rest of the fixes, as pointed out by an earlier poster, are for things where someone emails you an attachment and you run it. Sorry but if you are assisting the viruses you really shouldn't hold the computer accountable anyway, but Apple still does its best to bulletproof you even in your stupidity. Their main concern there I believe is that you could send the evil attachment to an unprivileged user and that could lead to elevated privileges for that user or to execute code beyond that user's privs.
Any OS that has so many holes to fix that it can justify a weekly scheduled security fix is clearly in a class by itself.
We discussed this the other day at work (apple product retailer) and agreed that the name alone would not be infringing. Selling an ipod-related or ipod-knockoff under that name maybe infringing because at that point you are trying to confuse the consumer as to the brand. Everyone agreed however, that the silhouette ad all by itself was infringing, and that, in combination with the name and the product, made it an airtight case.
Apple doesn't usually go after someone for trademark unless (1) they are making an obvious attempt to confuse the consumer as to the brand, and (2) they are pulling something that clearly WILL confuse the consumer. (i.e. they're violating brand, and doing a good job of it) The cocky response from the iGasm rep indicates they know what they are doing and are stupid enough to think they will somehow get away with it. I will find great entertainment in watching Apple's lawyers wipe the smirk off his face.
Just because someone offers you a deal doesn't mean it's fair. This is the RIAA's style. Look at all the people they sue for absurd amounts, many of whom are innocent, and then offer them a "deal" to pay some large sum to make them go away. "Almost extortion" is the name I would give it. This is no better. I feel like they are saying "we realize we don't deserve any of this, so what we are going to do is ask for a completely ridiculous amount, then offer a second, smaller (but equally unjustified) "deal" to show our generosity".
If the guy in the ski mask takes only $50 out of your wallet and leaves you with the rest of the wallet, you were still mugged. There is no such thing as a "generous mugger". If you were not entitled to anything and only took a small amount when you might have taken more, you are still stealing.
sounds like someone needs an Apple TV. :D
It's stupid things like this that will eventually drive everyone away from MS.
Sometimes it does. A friend brought over a handheld thing, looked like a giant palm pilot. It uses e-ink, and he has many books loaded on it, reads them on the plane. It has a backlight. It's very easy to read and very sharp and crisp when in light, but if there is no light in the room (or it's dark on the plane on a long flight) he has to turn on the backlight to a low level to read it.
In that respect, e-ink seems to behave a lot like calculator or watch LCD screens - they are very readable in most lighting conditions, but are not self-illuminating and require a backlight when there is too little ambient light.
His unit was a much better backlight design than say on a wristwatch. The light was even and well-diffused, a lot like a photographer's light panel for viewing film negatives. Probably was a backlight screen panel like what laptop computers use.
Computer LCD screens are negative color, and are backlit, so you see positive color and b&w, and if you view them in bright light with the backlight off, the image is negatived. With his unit, it works the same in ambient light as it does in backlight. Since his screen was only B&W, what it was doing is when the backlight was turned on, the screen would negative itself, and the negative effect of the backlight then reversed and was viewed normally. There was a very brief delay as it switched, you could see the screen flip negative just before the backlight turned on and corrected the view.
I was surprised at how crisp the text was. The screen must have been very high resolution, because it could be mistaken for typed or pen-written text. All the older units I've seen were very low resolution (400x300-ish?) and you could clearly see the individual pixels and diagonal lines were not smooth, but his unit was very nice.
is a video of this display in action. I'd like to see someone bending and flexing the panel while playing Terminator on it or something,
Also, I did not notice mention of how the panel is lit. Is this like a color LCD display that requires a backlight, or is it self-luminescent? There's no point to a flexible panel if it has to be backlit by an inflexible light source. The e-ink I have seen in the past requires a backlight.
At least on the apple ][, they were "image intensifier" goggles. With them the slimer was easy to see and was animated the same as the men. Without the goggles, the slimer was only drawn lightly, and very intermittently, as a flicker around on the screen. He frequently disappeared for several seconds at a time. It was still possible to catch him without the goggles, but they definitely made it easier. You ony had one shot to trigger the trap, and if you missed, one of your men got slimed. Strictly speaking not necessary, but it was a cheap option and made the game a lot easier, so a good buy.
I played this one on the Apple II and it was fairly entertaining. Not sure why you would have such a hard time with getting some action. All you had to do was drive to any house that was flashing (indicating it was being haunted) and trap the ghost. Take ghosts back to GBHQ and go get another. Rinse and repeat.
r 12_36.htm
There were quite a few options you could get, but bait was basically required. If you didn't have bait and the marshmallow alert went off staypuft would trash a building and you would get charged. The portable laser confinement system was nice to have but so expensive you could not afford anything else. If you had the vacuum, any of the four ghosts that comes in from the corners that you crossed while driving, you sucked up, and this slowed the PK rise and let you catch more ghosts before the final battle. The goggles did help with ghost catching but were not required. I don't remember what the other options were.
When PK energy maxed you were pulled to the middle to battle staypuft. To do this you had to get two of your three men to run under the hopping staypuft, which only required timing.
Here you go, http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jg27paw4/yr12/y
There are currently 72 pages of posts to that complaint thread. I don't feel like wading through it all to find out if anyone has answered anyone. Can anyone summarize?
ICQ was my first IM client many years ago. Back then I suppose it was the only IM client that any number of people were using. You emailed, IRC'd, or ICQ'd and that was about it. ICQ had the appeal of immediate contact while (at the time) being more or less universal.
My ICQ number is seven digits, which I don't know if that's like having a pre-1000 slashdot ID or what, but I've had it a long time. I never use it though. There are too many IM protocols available now.
ICQ
Yahoo Messenger
AOL Instant Messenger
MSN Messenger
Skype
IRC
I had to deal with most of these recently as I am trying to hook a student in Germany up with their old class in the USA, and we are having seemingly endless coordination problems. From what I have seen, AIM is the most "clever" at getting around strange network problems, particularly when there is a firewall at one or both ends. The iChat AIM client is particularly talented at establishing audio and video chat through firewalls and routers. Skype's audio quality blows iChat away but it's video is lacking. (skype has chat too but does anyone use it?) IRC appears to be the best choice for meeting with a large (or very large!) group of people. I have not used MSN or Yahoo enough to discover anything useful about them. ICQ has the advantage of leaving messages for offline users which is something I wish AIM did.
So each of them seems to have an advantage. A few people I know use a chat client (GAIM?) that appears to handle most or all of these protocols at once, and I may try it. It would greatly simplify my being able to contact people, regardless of what chat client they happen to prefer. It would be so much easier if there were just one that met all the needs at once.
I work mainly in customer service business, I actually work two jobs that give me a variety that is without equal. But in both cases I find there is only one way to motivate the people that are at least two levels above you. You must demonstrate client impact. No one cares if someone did something that ruined your week. They may not even care if you fried a $2k piece of hardware. But if the client's image of your company is tarnished or threatened, this is big news.
On many occasions I have ran into a problem that was making my life miserable and despite all the noise I made, no one would lift a finger to help me. But when I reworded my email to focus entirely on the impact to the client instead of the impact to me, things alawys happend.
The ads that bother me the most are those irritating long or tall shockwave flash animated ads. "punch the monkey and win a prize" or some other such nonsense. Nothing like a crosshairs bouncing around on your screen to distract you from the article you came to read. Those get blocked in my hosts file. In my case, the advertisers are losing out... if they had not made such an obnoxious annoying animated ad, I would not have bothered to host it out and they would have gotten their "impressions". But now I will never see that ad again. I wonder if they realize how their methods are actually lowering the number of impressions they get?
/. look like crap until I am safe back at home. I don't know how anyone puts up with that.
What's truly annoying is when I have to use someone else's box for something on the web and get innundated with animated ads that I have not seen for months. Makes sites like
I can only assume the advertisers realize some of their targets are like me and they are losing out with the ads, but yet they persist, so as the law of marketing goes, there must be enough suckers out there that put up with the ads to make it worth their while.
Makes you wonder just how insecure ths monarch is if he has to outlaw anyone messing with his image.
But yes you do seem to be right, I can't think of any dictator/monarch/president-for-life that is not protected by such a statute.
So I suppose by that logic, all monarchs are insecure? I wonder how much that "universally loved" thing in the OP is true and how much of it is "say you don't like him and we will beat you / imprison you disappear you"?
I believe they are making an argument for "criminal trespass" on a network in the united states maybe? Nowadays, logging into a server in another country is often viewed as actually BEING there, and they try to hold you accountable by their laws for anything you do while logged into that server. Then extradition treaties kick in and you find yourself on an airplane in cuffs.
It's as though you hopped on a plane, went to the US, broke a law, (for which there is an extradition treaty) and then flew back to AU.
Although I question the sensibility of considering logging into a server as "criminal trespass" and also question the necessity of cybercrime being part of an extradition treaty.
Nowadays it appears that the inclusion of a crime in extradition treaties depends not on the severity of the crime, but in the amount of money some powerful people stand to lose.
Despite this, your proposed market system here is still discriminatory. People, for no other reason than an insistence upon privacy, would have to pay higher rates. Forcing people to disclose their DNA in order to be insured is highly invasive and contradictory to basic civil liberties.
Privacy always has, and always will, have a price tag attached to it. Nothing new here. Once you are in public you have no right to privacy. Doing business with someone is being out in public.
Despite this, your proposed market system here is still discriminatory. People, for no other reason than an insistence upon privacy, would have to pay higher rates. Forcing people to disclose their DNA in order to be insured is highly invasive and contradictory to basic civil liberties.
I do not consider privacy of my DNA a civil liberty any moreso than my fingerprints. We already had that argument, remember? (you lost)
Just another case of where the people that have something to lose are making a lot of groundless noise.
This all reminds me of those idiots that have some major disability, like missing an arm, and they want to be lifeguards or construction workers or other such nonsense and are screaming about discrimination. People have a right to treat you differently if there are differences that are important to them, certainly if it has a financial impact on them. People are different. Everyone is different. I have a terrible memory, should I fight to get a job as a stock trader? Of course not. If someone refuses to hire me as a stock broker due to my memory, It's not discrimination, it's common sense, and they should have that right. If there is a genetic test for memory and they are looking to hire someone with a good memory, and they want me to take a DNA test to see if I should have a good memory, good for them, go for it. "But that's different..." No it's not. The only difference is that here I have something to gain (a job opportunity) and in the discussion here people instead have something to lose. The world does not have to favor helping you and disfavor hindering you.
By that same token, if I walk into an insurance company and I weigh 400 lbs I expect them to rip me on health insurance. Is it discrimination? No, I'm obese and a serious health risk, my fatness is not a privacy issue, and it's clearly going to affect our business relationship, and I will expect a high rate. Why is this any different if I have some hidden risk like a high CAG count for the Huntington's Disease trait? It's bad enough if you don't want to know if your genetic deck is stacked poorly and want the insurance company to take a blind chance on you, but it's downright dirty to know you have a high CAG and try to hide it while shopping for insurance.
People like that are at a disadvantage, but instead of just saying "that's how life goes", they instead want the world to give them things because they feel the world "owes them". Because life should be fair to them.
no.
If she's cute, do you really prefer the porn on your screen?
Too many people look at insurnace as a charity, and that everyone should be entitled somehow to cheap insurance. That's not what it is. There are two reasons to take out insurance. (1) if you believe the odds of cashing in on policy x the value of the policy exceeds the cost of the loss x the chance of the loss, or (2) if the harm caused by the event uninsured is unacceptable regardless of the low odds of it occurring. We take out auto insurance for the second reason, not because we believe we are going to run into someone, but because they could sue us for $2M and that would financially ruin us. The insurance companies carefully calculate the odds for the first situation, and you can bet every penny that they have determined that statistically they will come out ahead. This is how they determine the cost of policies, and this is why they need as much information on the details of the insured before they can come up with a policy cost. Buying insurance for this reason is like gambling... the house always wins. The margin may be low, but they DO always win in the end.
If you go into a policy with a "prior condition" that changes the odds dramatically, and they have to adjust the cost of your policy accordingly to keep in the black on the average. This is not unexpected and not unfair. If they are fairly sure they are going to have to pay out on you, your rates are higher because on the average, your payout will be higher than their average customer. The rest of their customers do not want to have to pay for your increased risk
Of course with unknown preexisting conditions like say, a congenitcal heart defect, they won't win that bet, but they can't know. So they raise *everyone's* rates a hair to make up for the unknown.
What these ppl here want to do is to take what should be a higher policy rate for them, and dump it onto all the rest of us, a little bit for everyone. That's NOT how it's supposed to work, and I really don't feel like helping you to pay for your insurance policy.
IMHO, insurance companies should be allowed to conduct any test they want on you. Companies with more tests or more invasitve tests will get less customers so free market will keep the abuses in check. If you don't want to submit to tests, you will probably have to get a different, more expensive policy, and that is to be expected. Though if you pass their tests you get a lower rate than you would have otherwise. Fail the tests and owell, high rates. Quit crying, it's not their fault, that's how life works. Go blame god or something, don't hike MY rates.
I suppose in this respect AT&T is doing us a favor. They could be finding a way to wiretap our VIOP and continuing service. But instead they are rudely disconnecting users. This may sound cruel, but it accomplishes several things
(1) they get a piece of that "do no evil" thing that's in vogue nowadays (see "google")
(2) they are actually being very polite in not slamming people for the actual reason they are refusing to go with this (I would not be so kind!)
(3) the abrupt manner of their disconnect both meets their goals AND causes a big public stink that thrusts the issue again into the daylight for all to see
This is AT&T fighting it the only way they can. We could really not ask for any better. If you're a VOIP customer, sorry this is not going to be pleasant, but would you really prefer the alternative?
All Apple CMOS batteries are under the logic board.
Do I have to get you some more pictures?
If you know what you're doing and have experience, you can probably change that battery in 25 minutes without being reckeless. But then Joe at the garage can rebuild my carburator in about that much time too I bet. I sure can't. You should not make it sound like the average reader here can do this. Of the limited number here that would tear their laptop into 30 pieces to fix something minor, most of them would take a good hour to do it.
What's yor GSX Tech ID? I am curious to look at your certifications.
Please tell me about this "common repair trick" of unplugging the "CMOS battery". Hint: it's under the logic board. Please take a look http://vftp.net/virtual1/temp/techchat/MBLB.jpg, that's a picture of the underside of the mlb.
Is cutting a hole in the bottom of a macbook a "common repair trick" for you?? Or do you mean removing what, 30 screws to pull the board?
-1: confused
The purpose of copyright and trademark is not to provide a perpetual monopoly, it's to provide a limited monopoly, to ensure entremeneurs are able to proffit from their work before it passes into public domain, a process that encourages innovation and provides a reasonable guarantee that there will be a reward for their innovation. Disney has abused this system and has even been made an exception to the already generous durations. Look into Mickey Mouse, disney's protected status on that has been extended what, twice now? Once a business has reaped the rewards of their innovation, it's time for the rest of the world to benefit from their idea, not keep paying for it for decades to come. Disney has had plenty of time to cash in on their innovations and has made very effective use of that time. Now they need to give it up to the rest of the world.
FYI, all intel macs have a bios battery attached to their logic board. unplugging it, shutting it off, even removing the battery, do not totally remove power from the system. Liquid that gets in can still total the machine with no apparent power since there is always power.
Methinks macbook owners are going to be mighty pissed in about 5 yrs when those lithium batteries start dying, they will not be cheap to replace. They are on the UNDERside of the macbook's logic board, and you can imagine what it would take for a user to remove that board.
That does look like a manufacturing defect, but it's not common. I have worked on hundreds of macs this year and I have only seen maybe one or two ibook G4s that had dead displays. It's not anywhere near the scale that I would say deserves a recall. If every 1 unit in 200 is bad, the model is not defective. Now if we are talking 1 in 10 maybe we can start saying there is a problem.
what I would do is demand they sign a waiver saying that installing the software is a requirement of my job and that either they have licenses enough to cover the installations or they are accepting full responsibility for any infringement that results from your actions.
If they refuse to sign it, don't do it. If they fire you, you will have a fun time with them in court. Maybe not the most solid legal ground, but good enough for me I think.
A widely-held opinion about software is that people install pirated software because they would never buy it if pirating were not an option. These people can somewhat justify their decision because the company has not lost anything by your action. (commonly cited, "copyright infringement is NOT theft") Businesses on the other hand usually have a budget limited only by what the mangement deems is acceptable expense, so they cannot fall into that category in most cases. For this reason I expect businesses to pony up for their software, and I perfer to follow the "try before you buy" model for my personal software. I own several licenses of software I have deemed worth the asking price and useful, and several other titles I am still deciding on. I've reviewed waaay too much crap and have been extremely thankful to not be out my "software is non returnable" $49.95 each time they bait me into garbage.