In the face of opposition from airline employees, the TSA backed off allowing any new items onto plans - no hockey sticks, no knives, no change whatsoever.
Things like this make wonder if we really deserve everything we got with TSA. I mean, people actually protested against this change, and I believe cited the recent Boston tragedy (which was a bombing in the open street with very few knives or hockey sticks involved, mind you). Some people are just crazy...
of course it would be a proprietary cartridge based piece of shit.
but... but... these cartridges will helpfully warn you that you are running out at 50%-capacity and stop working at 30%-capacity. It is a very valuable service.
From their whois record, ru4.com claims to be X Plus One, an "enterprise" data-analytics company with a lot of finance-sector clients.
Yeah, and the fact that ru4.com does not seem to resolve or redirect (the WHOIS record points to http://www.aboutus.org/ru4.com) makes it sound very legitimate:)
So it seems reasonably plausible to me that Chase is contracting with them.
They can contract who they want, but the fact that a random analytics company has to execute javascript on my computer before I can even login to my Chase account galls me a bit.
I don't get why large companies don't bring these things at least under their own subdomains, though.
Yes! And I have chase.com in the whitelist already -- such a move would solve everyone's problem.
for instance, when you visit a page on the Sears website, your web browsing behavior is being collected by a company that sells ringtones
The NoScript list of blocked domains on many (even legitimate) websites is scary indeed. One of my favorites is Javascript from ru4.com required to be able login into your banking account on chase.com. Based on the name, it looks like a phishing website to me...
The thing I find particularly telling is that nobody involved is arguing that this is just. The argument is that a law was technically broken, so they have no choice but to charge her. So why doesn't that argument apply to both people?
Prosecutors have discretion to charge or not to charge. Anyone saying they "have no choice but to charge her" is lying.
Frankly, I am not even sure if they are required to charge for premeditated murder if they don't want to. Anything that can possibly qualify as an accident is definitely fair game. That is the problem with the system, by the way.
I know I am restating the obvious, but I find it interesting how no one is ever responsible for the security breach... Just got a note from LivingSocial -- they inform me of the fact and tell me to reset my password. Almost like this is a force of nature event and not a screw up on their part for having been breached. Perhaps at least repeat offenders should be held responsible?
How is it possible that copyright not only keeps being extended to prevent works of corporations from entering the public domain, but now other laws start stripping rights of the public for their own works for the benefit of corporations?
The article is rather vague on details, but I see no rules that make it exclusive to corporations. Wouldn't individuals be able to apply the same strategies??
the Act will permit the widespread commercial exploitation of unidentified work - the user only needs to perform a "diligent search". But since this is likely to come up with a blank, they can proceed with impunity.
I just performed a very short "diligent search" and Mickey Mouse does not appear to be owned by anyone. So... can I now use it commercially in UK?
Re:Great an image laundering scheme for big busine
on
UK Passes "Instagram Act"
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
With some luck, Google's "search similar images" function may make that scheme much harder
It's almost like you think corporations (that have interest in declaring the item "abandoned") will do a diligent search. Google "search similar images" function will be helpful if the searcher is trying to find the owner.
And if someone falsely declares an image to be "abandoned", what are the penalties, I wonder? Would the owner have to sue to recover his or her image ownership?
The abuse possibilities (for someone who has a legal department at ready) are practically endless!
You can obliterate the used market. You can force obsolescence. You can force time limits. You can force re-purchases for multiple devices.
Don't forget unskippable DVD ads (i.e. you can also force customers to watch other things first if they want to actually see their legitimately purchased content).
And you get to kick customers in the face by reminding them not to dare copy DVDs without permission.
Washington State AG is an idiot and should learn reading AND comprehension.
Bullshit.
You can be "technically" correct, yet absolutely and blatantly misleading (e.g., "unlimited" internet with low download caps, because unlimited refers to hypothetical download speed, not download amount). He is not saying "false advertising", which it is not. He is saying "deceptive advertising", which it is.
Customers are likely to misunderstand the statement, since people often associate "contract" with "pay termination fee" and will quite likely assume no contract means no-termination fee in this case.
Since AG has no power to re-educate all T-Mobile customers, he is trying to block deceptive advertisement, which is certain to mislead at least some people.
How many is enough? If they're meeting payroll, that's enough.
Indeed. When an unprofitable show gets cancelled -- that is totally understandable, networks are not charity organizations.
The real tragedy is when a show with low profit margin gets cancelled, because some executive decided to get a bigger bonus. That's why crap reality shows are all over the place - they are dirt cheap to make.
both parties are at fault. It takes the entirety of congress to agree to fuck over the public, not just a single party.
Even so, the negotiation between D and R was rather one-sided. Democrats kept proposing spending cut/raising taxes compromises and Republicans laughed at them because "tax increase > 0". You cannot negotiate with someone who won't actually budge from their position for any reason.
I am not exactly a fan of Democrats, but the sequestration blame goes mostly to Republicans.
Studies have shown that bluetooth headsets make no difference when it comes to preventing accidents.
I am pretty sure you mean "Studies have shown that talking on bluetooth headset is less safe than talking to passengers in the car"
Bluetooth headsets still make all the difference in preventing accidents, because using one is far safer to as compared to holding the phone up to your ear and driving with one hand.
Using the amazing "fingers" brain interface device.
Why don't they put their heads together and get the voice-activated commands working properly. I have not yet been able to get my new Android phone to follow any of my voice commands. It does something, but never what I ask for
Every time I see this "brain waive interface" promise, I wonder who's going to fix the voice-activated commands... Not as exciting, but perhaps more achievable (in short term).
The episodes are roughly 1 million dollars each, so I would estimate about $26 Million for another season.
Do you have any actual knowledge or are you just making stuff up?
I remember reading that FireFly episodes were $1M+/episode which was part of the problem, but being a space western with decent special effects, that made sense. Props and full-time actors are expensive. However, if a 22-minute animated series episode costs $1M, then I am sure some cutbacks can be made...
Years of delays, violating a court other many wondered what the heck was up with the TSA delaying this public comment.
Now it's clear: They were waiting for a terrorist attack.
Give them some credit.
They may also be looking for reasons to phase out millimeter-wave systems for super-duper-wave systems. These machines cost $250K/pop and don't do shit to detect anything. The contractors who made the first batch and then the replacement batch must be salivating already.
Where do I sign up to deliver machines without any quality control? I can do it much cheaper.
Key word, requirement. I am required to do so whether I want to or not. I don't need medical insurance. I can pay for my once-a-decade visit out of my own pocket without having to shell out the thousands of dollars in the interim.
If you sign away your right to be treated for free, ever -- fine. That would actually be fair
But something tells me that you will expect service if you have to go to emergency room. Or when you get older and out-of-pocket visit will occur once-a-month not once-a-decade.
You're just saying you don't need insurance NOW, so you don't want to pay for it until the day you need it?
First, pay will have to be cut dramatically - I believe the original founding fathers expected politicians to sacrifice themselves for political life.
This is not nearly as clever as it seems.
Frankly, it may be a good investment to do the exact opposite and increase the pay of congressmen. It would be a couple hundred million well spent, because I think some of them have to look for handouts for relative necessities (e.g. simply to maintain a 2nd house in DC).
Slashdot Mirror
In the face of opposition from airline employees, the TSA backed off allowing any new items onto plans - no hockey sticks, no knives, no change whatsoever.
Things like this make wonder if we really deserve everything we got with TSA. I mean, people actually protested against this change, and I believe cited the recent Boston tragedy (which was a bombing in the open street with very few knives or hockey sticks involved, mind you). Some people are just crazy...
of course it would be a proprietary cartridge based piece of shit.
but... but... these cartridges will helpfully warn you that you are running out at 50%-capacity and stop working at 30%-capacity. It is a very valuable service.
From their whois record, ru4.com claims to be X Plus One, an "enterprise" data-analytics company with a lot of finance-sector clients.
Yeah, and the fact that ru4.com does not seem to resolve or redirect (the WHOIS record points to http://www.aboutus.org/ru4.com) makes it sound very legitimate :)
So it seems reasonably plausible to me that Chase is contracting with them.
They can contract who they want, but the fact that a random analytics company has to execute javascript on my computer before I can even login to my Chase account galls me a bit.
I don't get why large companies don't bring these things at least under their own subdomains, though.
Yes! And I have chase.com in the whitelist already -- such a move would solve everyone's problem.
for instance, when you visit a page on the Sears website, your web browsing behavior is being collected by a company that sells ringtones
The NoScript list of blocked domains on many (even legitimate) websites is scary indeed. One of my favorites is Javascript from ru4.com required to be able login into your banking account on chase.com. Based on the name, it looks like a phishing website to me...
The thing I find particularly telling is that nobody involved is arguing that this is just. The argument is that a law was technically broken, so they have no choice but to charge her. So why doesn't that argument apply to both people?
Prosecutors have discretion to charge or not to charge. Anyone saying they "have no choice but to charge her" is lying.
Frankly, I am not even sure if they are required to charge for premeditated murder if they don't want to. Anything that can possibly qualify as an accident is definitely fair game. That is the problem with the system, by the way.
As enterprise BYOD programs proliferate, 38% of companies expect to stop providing devices to workers by 2016 and let them use their own
Do they get to monitor communications or wipe my own device now if anything goes wrong?
given you only have to take "reasonable steps" to secure customer data, there's not going to be too many $1.7 million repeat-offender fines meted out.
You also need higher penalties for not reporting the breach.
Or Australians will simply never hear about any data losses ever again...
I know I am restating the obvious, but I find it interesting how no one is ever responsible for the security breach...
Just got a note from LivingSocial -- they inform me of the fact and tell me to reset my password. Almost like this is a force of nature event and not a screw up on their part for having been breached. Perhaps at least repeat offenders should be held responsible?
How is it possible that copyright not only keeps being extended to prevent works of corporations from entering the public domain, but now other laws start stripping rights of the public for their own works for the benefit of corporations?
The article is rather vague on details, but I see no rules that make it exclusive to corporations. Wouldn't individuals be able to apply the same strategies??
the Act will permit the widespread commercial exploitation of unidentified work - the user only needs to perform a "diligent search". But since this is likely to come up with a blank, they can proceed with impunity.
I just performed a very short "diligent search" and Mickey Mouse does not appear to be owned by anyone. So... can I now use it commercially in UK?
With some luck, Google's "search similar images" function may make that scheme much harder
It's almost like you think corporations (that have interest in declaring the item "abandoned") will do a diligent search. Google "search similar images" function will be helpful if the searcher is trying to find the owner.
And if someone falsely declares an image to be "abandoned", what are the penalties, I wonder? Would the owner have to sue to recover his or her image ownership?
The abuse possibilities (for someone who has a legal department at ready) are practically endless!
You can obliterate the used market. You can force obsolescence. You can force time limits. You can force re-purchases for multiple devices.
Don't forget unskippable DVD ads (i.e. you can also force customers to watch other things first if they want to actually see their legitimately purchased content).
And you get to kick customers in the face by reminding them not to dare copy DVDs without permission.
Washington State AG is an idiot and should learn reading AND comprehension.
Bullshit.
You can be "technically" correct, yet absolutely and blatantly misleading (e.g., "unlimited" internet with low download caps, because unlimited refers to hypothetical download speed, not download amount). He is not saying "false advertising", which it is not. He is saying "deceptive advertising", which it is.
Customers are likely to misunderstand the statement, since people often associate "contract" with "pay termination fee" and will quite likely assume no contract means no-termination fee in this case.
Since AG has no power to re-educate all T-Mobile customers, he is trying to block deceptive advertisement, which is certain to mislead at least some people.
How many is enough? If they're meeting payroll, that's enough.
Indeed. When an unprofitable show gets cancelled -- that is totally understandable, networks are not charity organizations.
The real tragedy is when a show with low profit margin gets cancelled, because some executive decided to get a bigger bonus. That's why crap reality shows are all over the place - they are dirt cheap to make.
both parties are at fault. It takes the entirety of congress to agree to fuck over the public, not just a single party.
Even so, the negotiation between D and R was rather one-sided. Democrats kept proposing spending cut/raising taxes compromises and Republicans laughed at them because "tax increase > 0". You cannot negotiate with someone who won't actually budge from their position for any reason.
I am not exactly a fan of Democrats, but the sequestration blame goes mostly to Republicans.
A) A huge percentage of the people don't drive with both hands even if they are not doing anything else at the same time.
Yeah, I usually drive with one hand, but that is only until I need to show a turn signal (or actually turn). That's when you do need the second hand.
Studies have shown that bluetooth headsets make no difference when it comes to preventing accidents.
I am pretty sure you mean "Studies have shown that talking on bluetooth headset is less safe than talking to passengers in the car"
Bluetooth headsets still make all the difference in preventing accidents, because using one is far safer to as compared to holding the phone up to your ear and driving with one hand.
Using the amazing "fingers" brain interface device.
Why don't they put their heads together and get the voice-activated commands working properly. I have not yet been able to get my new Android phone to follow any of my voice commands. It does something, but never what I ask for
Every time I see this "brain waive interface" promise, I wonder who's going to fix the voice-activated commands... Not as exciting, but perhaps more achievable (in short term).
The episodes are roughly 1 million dollars each, so I would estimate about $26 Million for another season.
Do you have any actual knowledge or are you just making stuff up?
I remember reading that FireFly episodes were $1M+/episode which was part of the problem, but being a space western with decent special effects, that made sense. Props and full-time actors are expensive. However, if a 22-minute animated series episode costs $1M, then I am sure some cutbacks can be made...
Put you money where your mouth is.
They could probably pull in A LOT of money for rewards like:
a. Minor character designed in one's likeness
b. Small guest voice-role opportunity
Also, imagine how much money a guest voice role on Futurama could fetch!!
Years of delays, violating a court other many wondered what the heck was up with the TSA delaying this public comment.
Now it's clear: They were waiting for a terrorist attack.
Give them some credit.
They may also be looking for reasons to phase out millimeter-wave systems for super-duper-wave systems. These machines cost $250K/pop and don't do shit to detect anything. The contractors who made the first batch and then the replacement batch must be salivating already.
Where do I sign up to deliver machines without any quality control? I can do it much cheaper.
1) strict term limits for congress
...
7) outlaw lobbyists
I notice you forgot to include a bullet:
0) Don't go back on your promises once elected.
Key word, requirement. I am required to do so whether I want to or not. I don't need medical insurance. I can pay for my once-a-decade visit out of my own pocket without having to shell out the thousands of dollars in the interim.
If you sign away your right to be treated for free, ever -- fine. That would actually be fair
But something tells me that you will expect service if you have to go to emergency room. Or when you get older and out-of-pocket visit will occur once-a-month not once-a-decade.
You're just saying you don't need insurance NOW, so you don't want to pay for it until the day you need it?
Take what you believe and make that your party planks.
Also -- I would prefer a follow through for the given promises (instead of any position that will be discarded as soon as you come to power)
Political candidates should sign a contract, where violating more than X% (30%?) of your promises results in an automatic and immediate eviction.
First, pay will have to be cut dramatically - I believe the original founding fathers expected politicians to sacrifice themselves for political life.
This is not nearly as clever as it seems.
Frankly, it may be a good investment to do the exact opposite and increase the pay of congressmen. It would be a couple hundred million well spent, because I think some of them have to look for handouts for relative necessities (e.g. simply to maintain a 2nd house in DC).