He isn't talking about Non Science people. He is talking about Social Science people and Science Journalist people. Both of whom have educations.
So he is talking about Non Science people. Have you never read the output of a Science Journalist when they write about something you are familiar with?
"Hav[ing] an education" doesn't make one a scientist. Doing things the scientific way makes one a scientist.
Confirmation bias or simply 'yes-man-itis'?
on
Programmer Privilege
·
· Score: 1
... people would assume that I knew what I was doing (regardless of whether I did or not) and treat me accordingly. If I stared at someone in silence and nodded as they were talking, they would usually assume that I understood, not that I was clueless. Nobody ever talked down to me, and I always got the benefit of the doubt in technical settings.'
So if he did nothing but nod his head in agreement with someone else, they assumed he "knew what he was doing", and he got some "benefit of the doubt".
Gosh, you mean if you agree with everything everyone says, they'll believe you are smart? By doing nothing, you get the benefit of the doubt that you know what you are doing?
I was on the phone yesterday with a support person from a large computer company. I would tell her something about the problem I was having with their hardware and she'd respond "uh huh. okay". I started assuming she was listening and actually processing what I told her. After about the third time she "nodded" in approval and said "okay" and then continued by asking me a question that demonstrated that she hadn't heard a single word I had said I stopped giving her the benefit of the doubt, and by the time she'd asked me the same question nine times, getting the same answer each time, I decided this CS rep gets a zero rating should that company send me the traditional after-contact survey.
Therefore, as no Constitutional Amendment has thus far been passed that would negate the Fifth and Sixth, then the FISA court and all its decisions are de facto unconstitutional.
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!
The fifth and sixth are not relevant since the FISA court isn't holding anyone "to answer" or creating "double jeopardy", nor is it dealing with any criminal prosecution. Their decisions are not, thus, defacto unconstitutional based on the fifth or sixth amendments.
What the FISA courts do is issue warrants, so if you want to argue fourth amendment issues, ok.
As for the GP saying he's skeptical of court appointed advocates, well, the courts have a long history of appointing advocates. In fact, "if you cannot afford one, you will be appointed one prior to questioning." Miranda.
So an advocate would not benefit the process? Then the process is broken.
As it reports in the summary, adding an advocate that cannot do more than say "you shouldn't do this" would not benefit the process. It would be like having a defense attorney that couldn't speak to the defendent and couldn't investigate the alleged crimes. All he'd have to look at is the filing from the government, and the judges can already read that.
If they're against an adversarial process, that suggests that the FISA court is not a neutral party.
You didn't read the summary. They aren't against "an adversarial process", they're against a process that won't actually create the adversarial process that the proponents intend it to.
As it says in the summary, the judges believe that adding an "advocate" won't create an adversarial process and won't add any significant amount of information to be useful in the judicial process, because the person appointed to that role won't be able to do any investigations or even contact the suspect.
Here's a car analogy: you take your car into the shop because the brakes aren't working well. The mechanic says "your brakes aren't working well, I need to change your air filter and add a speed governor to your car so you can't go faster than 45 MPH". You say "no". What, are you against having working brakes? Of course not, you're against paying for "fixes" that don't fix the brakes.
Incandescent bulbs suck. They break easily, don't last long,
I have incandescent bulbs that have lasted twenty years without being changed. I have had CFLs that last a month, in the same socket that the previous incandescent lasted for years. YMMV.
When an incandescent bulb breaks, you release highly toxic nothing gas and some bits of tungsten. When a CFL breaks, you call in the hazmat team to deal with it.
When I turn an incandescent on, it is at full brightness in seconds. I turn on the CFL in my dining room and it's five minutes before they reach a usable light level. Yes, I know, I'm supposed to buy a whole new set of instant-on CFL for this fixture, properly disposing of the existing working CFL bulbs so I don't poison the environment.
Incandescents are lighter. CFL mean I have to tighten the screws on my swing-arm desk lamp to the point that it isn't swing-arm anymore. The flexible-arm lamp in my living room droops under the weight of the CFL and has no way to tighten up the flexibility.
The LED lamps I bought are heavier than the CFL, so they are worse where weight is an issue. They are larger than either the CFL or incandescent so they won't fit in many of my lamps at all.
OTOH, there are applications where I love the lower heat aspect of the CFL and the size/weight isn't an issue, so they're the bulb of choice for those lamps.
Waaaah people will be allowed to choose what works best for the application. That's the real cry of the douche. I say, if I want to pay more for a simple, cheap, light incandescent, that's my problem, not yours. You use the energy you buy for what you want, I'll use it for what I want and we'll both live happily ever after.
they draw roughly an order of magnitude less current.
The important measure is not current but wattage, since that's what is used in billing. According to this they use 1/3 to 1/5 as many watts.
Yes, I've been to a theater. I go in, they RIP the ticket (old style) or scan it to record the fact I've already come in. In either case, the ticket has been used. Does the theater you go to let people in who have just the stub left, or a ticket that has been scanned already? Wow. One ticket could get a dozen people into the theater. Just keep passing it back out to let the next person come in.
At sporting events the ticket stub doesn't get me back in, it takes a stamp on the way out.
In any case, this changes nothing about the events. He didn't go out to his car to get his gun, he went to find a manager.
How is getting the manager any different as far as self defense is concerned? If he was in fear for his life, he shouldn't have come back after leaving.
Maybe he wasn't in fear of his life until after he came back without a manager and tried to discuss the problem with the texting patron himself? We don't know, the reports don't have enough information to make any judgements.
As for the other comment that "throwing popcorn" isn't violence, well, it's a sign that things are getting physical and may have been only the tip of the iceberg. Once again, we don't know all that happened, but like I said, we do know it did start to get physical.
I don't need you to look to find me a solution. Nowhere did I say "how can I do this?" or ask for your help with anything.
I was pointing out that abandoning Gmail isn't an option for some people, which was the claim I replied to. "If only it was that easy for all", I believe was how I put it. The students at my University cannot simply abandon Gmail because the official University email system for them IS Gmail. And unless I want to abandon my ISP and change a well-entrenched email address I can't just walk away, either. And in neither case was the user making the decision to use Gmail in the first place.
If you would have taken the time to actually read the news you would have known that the shooter had to leave the theater to retrieve his gun from the car.
The article says nothing about him going to the car for anything, it says he went to find a manager. Managers don't typically hang out in my car, so I doubt this guy would think to go look for one there.
And "self defense" is what happens in the moment. Nowhere does it say he came back into the theater brandishing a weapon, just as nowhere does it say he had to deliberately go find one.
The fact is, there was an argument and it got physical. We'll have to wait for FACTS before we can judge the events, instead of making them up to justify our point of view.
The shooter got his feelings hurt and walked out of the theater, got his gun...
The NYT articles says nothing like that. He left to find a manager but returned without one. It says nothing about him walking out to get his gun. It is most likely that he had it with him the whole time since he would have had to leave the theater to go to his car and pay to get back in again.
So you couldn't delete mail on your old ISP's server.
Of course I could 'delete' mail on the ISP. At least it appeared to have been deleted.
And you couldn't delete mail on gmail.
As I've already said, I could "delete" it, but it popped back and forth between two folders.
Did you ever stop to think you might be doing something wrong?
Considered it, but it isn't supposed to be rocket science. Delete and it goes away, except it didn't.
So what client were you using and when?
A stock imap/pop client on my android tablet, about 9PM.
If this was ten years ago,
No, about a year.
do you think anyone really cares?
Apparently you do, but I don't know why.
This is not a problem I've ever seen in gmail.
This is the kind of useless statement I'm used to seeing every time someone reports a problem with something. "It works for me" doesn't help solve the problem of it not working for someone else. It only means you're using a different system that doesn't have the same problem.
Perhaps you confused archiving with deleting?
Nope. There was no "archive" option, only "delete".
It's not irrelevant,
Of course it is irrelevant. You're the only one talking about "links".
and user experience of myself and others suggests gmail does not have any difficulty deleting mail.
Using the webmail interface with your favorite web browser, that's true. That's not how everyone accesses it, and it wasn't what I had available at the time so I didn't use it. And that's where I came into this discussion, that your experience (and that of the GP) isn't the same for everyone. He said that one could simply stop using Gmail, and I pointed to two examples where the choice to use Gmail was made by other people, and the latter example (student email) doesn't give them any choice at all.
I didn't want to wait thirty days to get email that I had deleted two years ago out of Google's hands.
There's a prominent link to empty it now.
Not in the email client I was using to do this. Trash is just another folder to it.
No messages don't go back into "all mail" when you empty trash.
Yes, they did. Deleting messages from Trash sent them back to All Mail. Deleting them from All Mail sent them to Trash. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Are you suggesting Google should have made a fully featured webmail for links or w3m?
I know of a "lynx", but that's irrelevant. I think I am suggesting that when someone deletes an email it doesn't just move to another folder, especially when deleting from Trash. And I think I'm pointing out that the entire world doesn't use webmail when dealing with email.
Actually, many digital cameras will pick up infra-red.
A much more interesting use of the IR capability of a camera is to test the output of your green laser pointers. Green is produced by using a high power IR laser and frequency doubling it into green. The process is not 100% efficient, and if the company saves money by leaving out an IR filter you get a laser pointer that is dangerous in the IR yet invisibly so (except for the green part).
Here is a summary; This has a more complete diagram of the testing setup.
A filter removes a portion of something. You filter out things. Phone cameras don't use an RGB filter.
Actually, they do. The standard single-chip image color image sensor uses what is called a Bayer filter array of red, green, and blue color filters in a regular pattern, one filter per pixel. From this data, a color image is reconstructed by combining the color data from that pixel with the colors from the neighboring pixels. The dirty secret is that the resolution of a "megapixel" camera is thus much less because a nine by nine array of pixels is used to create the color data for each color output pixel.
Color sensitivity is often reported in the datasheet for the sensor. This is a datasheet for a typical CMOS sensor, and the color sensitivity is shown on page 11. The individual sensitivity is due to the filters, the MONO data is for the sensor sans filter. CCD spectral curves are quite similar. The Sony ICX285AQ is an example. If you compare data sheets, you'll notice that the ICX285AL is identical to the AQ with the exception of the color filters, and the AL version is the monochrome sensor.
It would be interesting and not that expensive to create a different color filter pattern on the sensor to include IR and UV filters, but the use would be limited. Those who want IR images typically use the monochrome sensor and external IR pass filters, and UV is usually excluded by normal users by the use of a skylight or other UV cut filter. The dyes in the RGB filters are sensitive to the UV and will decompose over time, changing the color capability of the camera.
Are you making this up? It's easy to delete large numbers of messages in gmail.
And then they move to another folder. And when you delete them from there, they move back. All Mail to Trash to All Mail to Trash to All Mail to Trash... At least those are the two folders I remember it being.
You can used the advanced search drop-down in the address bar
I don't recall my email client having a 'drop-down in the address bar'. You do realize that not all access to Gmail is through your favorite web browser, yes?
Took me a while to get there.
1.Click on your icon (top right on my browser) to go to Account settings.
2. Click on Google + Settings
Wait a minute. You have to use Google+ to set a Gmail account setting? I would never find that link because I deliberately do not use Google+. Yes, this is very easy to opt out of, sure.
I've already stopped using google search because they pushed too far. Gmail is next on the chopping block if they don't cut it out.
If only it were that easy for all.
My ISP has outsourced its email service to Gmail, and when it did so it sent them a couple of YEARS of DELETED email -- or at least email I thought I had deleted. And then I got stuck in the circle of trying to delete it from Gmail, and their asinine insults about "why do you want to delete anything when you've got so much space to keep it all?"
The University has now outsourced the undergraduate email system to Gmail. I'm expecting the staff email follows very soon, if the Uni can get around the public records/management of personal information laws that are currently keeping them from it.
Naturally some of their clients omitted the hyphen in the address and I received the emails instead, which I passed on to them.
Yes, doing anything beyond reading the errant email and laughing, and then deleting it, is begging for trouble. I used to have the.com version of an ISP's.net and it is remarkable the number of people who think the only TLD is.com. And that when they send their email to the wrong place, it's your fault for getting it.
That includes a rather large software/OS company located somewhere in Washington state, that kept sending me email they intended for a partner at the.net address.
While they can refuse to supply service at their discretion, where does it say they have the right to refuse to honor a request for a domain transfer?
It doesn't, and I didn't claim it did. I was answering the question "Why should the registrar be responsible for content?" Then someone made the claim that "the arbiters of whether you are breaking the law or not is the court", which is contradicted by the same terms.
You might also note that I am quoting the easyDNS terms. I would never expect anyone to read a quote from easyDNS terms and think it was a justification for PDR holding on to domains, so I am at a loss why you are trying to read such a justification into anything I've written.
Are you even following the chain of events here...
Yes, and you could see that by clicking on "parent" if the material I quote is not sufficient to give you the context. I'm certainly following them more than the people who are trying to make this a victory over the City of London.
or are you just making things up as you go?
I'm quoting from the actual ruling pdf and the easyDNS terms of service.
Right, so now they deny you service if you are breaking the law, but the arbiters of whether you are breaking the law or not is the court. Not themselves and not any other body.
Quoting the easyDNS terms of service:
Such determination on what constitutes a violation of the above or whether a domain has or is "likely" to violate the above is solely at the discretion of easyDNS.
"The above" includes "unlawful or illegal activities of any kind (this includes ponzi schemes and HYIPs)".
I don't know where you get the idea that "now" it has to be a court. That wasn't what the ICANN ruling dealt with. The ICANN ruling dealt with transfer of domains being held hostage by other registrars, not whether the City of London needs a court order to ask a registrar to review a customer's activities for a potential violation of the registrar's terms. They don't, and neither do I. Or you.
I've read the summary. I've read the ruling. Have you? The summary and ruling aren't directed at the City of London and say nothing about whether the City of London was incorrect in
asking easyDNS (or any other registrar) to review their terms for a possible breach. The summary and ruling deal with domain registrars who made the decision that the customer WAS in violation of their terms and thus shut them off, who then refused to release the domain name.
This should be clear from the very beginning of the ruling:
easyDNS Technologies Inc. v. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com
It's easyDNS vs. another registrar, not easyDNS vs. City of London.
I've also read the "takedown order", which is quoted in part in the ruling itself. Maybe you should read it. It is rather clear in asking the registrar to review the conduct of the customer to see if it violates the registrar's acceptable use policy, and for the registrar to make a decision what action is appropriate.
The City of London did NOTHING that you or I could not do, and I have done many times in the past when trying to get spammers and such shut down. I've even been more forceful by saying that the registrar SHOULD shut them off, not just that they ought to review the policy to see if they think the customer is breaching it.
Yeah, the CoL went further by asking the registrar, once they had made a decision to shut the domain off, to take certain steps that would help the CoL maintain evidence of the activity for later legal action. That's not out of line, either, and it still is based on the registrar making a decision, not a demand from the CoL.
The information is very well hidden in the FA, but this applies to Canada. The "City of London" will be the one in Ontario.
The "City of London" being referred to is the one in the UK. It says as much in the linked ruling:
On September 24, 2013, the City of London Police issued a Domain Name Suspension
Request regarding a large number of domain names, including the three at issue in this
case. The Request asked the relevant registrars to do the following:
We request that you review your processes to see if you provide a service for the
identified domain(s). If so, we would ask you to review the terms and conditions
on the basis of which that service is provided and withdraw or suspend the
service if you are satisfied that the terms and conditions have been breached.
This is the infamous "takedown order" that asks a registrar to review a customer's actions with respect to the registrar's own acceptable use policy and make their own decision. The ruling continues:
This request was for the following reason: "The owners of the aforementioned domains
are suspected to be involved in the criminal distribution of copyrighted material either
directly or indirectly and are liable to prosecution under UK law."
which makes it clear that it is the City of London in the UK. But this ruling actually has nothing to do with the City of London, it applies to domain registrars.
Slashdot Mirror
He isn't talking about Non Science people. He is talking about Social Science people and Science Journalist people. Both of whom have educations.
So he is talking about Non Science people. Have you never read the output of a Science Journalist when they write about something you are familiar with?
"Hav[ing] an education" doesn't make one a scientist. Doing things the scientific way makes one a scientist.
... people would assume that I knew what I was doing (regardless of whether I did or not) and treat me accordingly. If I stared at someone in silence and nodded as they were talking, they would usually assume that I understood, not that I was clueless. Nobody ever talked down to me, and I always got the benefit of the doubt in technical settings.'
So if he did nothing but nod his head in agreement with someone else, they assumed he "knew what he was doing", and he got some "benefit of the doubt". Gosh, you mean if you agree with everything everyone says, they'll believe you are smart? By doing nothing, you get the benefit of the doubt that you know what you are doing?
I was on the phone yesterday with a support person from a large computer company. I would tell her something about the problem I was having with their hardware and she'd respond "uh huh. okay". I started assuming she was listening and actually processing what I told her. After about the third time she "nodded" in approval and said "okay" and then continued by asking me a question that demonstrated that she hadn't heard a single word I had said I stopped giving her the benefit of the doubt, and by the time she'd asked me the same question nine times, getting the same answer each time, I decided this CS rep gets a zero rating should that company send me the traditional after-contact survey.
Therefore, as no Constitutional Amendment has thus far been passed that would negate the Fifth and Sixth, then the FISA court and all its decisions are de facto unconstitutional.
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!
The fifth and sixth are not relevant since the FISA court isn't holding anyone "to answer" or creating "double jeopardy", nor is it dealing with any criminal prosecution. Their decisions are not, thus, defacto unconstitutional based on the fifth or sixth amendments.
What the FISA courts do is issue warrants, so if you want to argue fourth amendment issues, ok.
As for the GP saying he's skeptical of court appointed advocates, well, the courts have a long history of appointing advocates. In fact, "if you cannot afford one, you will be appointed one prior to questioning." Miranda.
But their solution, to do nothing at all, is unacceptable.
If you read all the way to then end of the summary, you'll notice:
The Hill adds that Bates, "... recommended an advocate chosen by the court, rather than an independent authority, for only a limited number of cases.
That's not "do nothing" by a long shot. It's not what you want them to do, but to call it "nothing" is dishonest.
So an advocate would not benefit the process? Then the process is broken.
As it reports in the summary, adding an advocate that cannot do more than say "you shouldn't do this" would not benefit the process. It would be like having a defense attorney that couldn't speak to the defendent and couldn't investigate the alleged crimes. All he'd have to look at is the filing from the government, and the judges can already read that.
If they're against an adversarial process, that suggests that the FISA court is not a neutral party.
You didn't read the summary. They aren't against "an adversarial process", they're against a process that won't actually create the adversarial process that the proponents intend it to.
As it says in the summary, the judges believe that adding an "advocate" won't create an adversarial process and won't add any significant amount of information to be useful in the judicial process, because the person appointed to that role won't be able to do any investigations or even contact the suspect.
Here's a car analogy: you take your car into the shop because the brakes aren't working well. The mechanic says "your brakes aren't working well, I need to change your air filter and add a speed governor to your car so you can't go faster than 45 MPH". You say "no". What, are you against having working brakes? Of course not, you're against paying for "fixes" that don't fix the brakes.
Incandescent bulbs suck. They break easily, don't last long,
I have incandescent bulbs that have lasted twenty years without being changed. I have had CFLs that last a month, in the same socket that the previous incandescent lasted for years. YMMV.
When an incandescent bulb breaks, you release highly toxic nothing gas and some bits of tungsten. When a CFL breaks, you call in the hazmat team to deal with it.
When I turn an incandescent on, it is at full brightness in seconds. I turn on the CFL in my dining room and it's five minutes before they reach a usable light level. Yes, I know, I'm supposed to buy a whole new set of instant-on CFL for this fixture, properly disposing of the existing working CFL bulbs so I don't poison the environment.
Incandescents are lighter. CFL mean I have to tighten the screws on my swing-arm desk lamp to the point that it isn't swing-arm anymore. The flexible-arm lamp in my living room droops under the weight of the CFL and has no way to tighten up the flexibility.
The LED lamps I bought are heavier than the CFL, so they are worse where weight is an issue. They are larger than either the CFL or incandescent so they won't fit in many of my lamps at all.
OTOH, there are applications where I love the lower heat aspect of the CFL and the size/weight isn't an issue, so they're the bulb of choice for those lamps.
Waaaah people will be allowed to choose what works best for the application. That's the real cry of the douche. I say, if I want to pay more for a simple, cheap, light incandescent, that's my problem, not yours. You use the energy you buy for what you want, I'll use it for what I want and we'll both live happily ever after.
they draw roughly an order of magnitude less current.
The important measure is not current but wattage, since that's what is used in billing. According to this they use 1/3 to 1/5 as many watts.
Have you not ever been to a theater?
Yes, I've been to a theater. I go in, they RIP the ticket (old style) or scan it to record the fact I've already come in. In either case, the ticket has been used. Does the theater you go to let people in who have just the stub left, or a ticket that has been scanned already? Wow. One ticket could get a dozen people into the theater. Just keep passing it back out to let the next person come in.
At sporting events the ticket stub doesn't get me back in, it takes a stamp on the way out.
In any case, this changes nothing about the events. He didn't go out to his car to get his gun, he went to find a manager.
How is getting the manager any different as far as self defense is concerned? If he was in fear for his life, he shouldn't have come back after leaving.
Maybe he wasn't in fear of his life until after he came back without a manager and tried to discuss the problem with the texting patron himself? We don't know, the reports don't have enough information to make any judgements.
As for the other comment that "throwing popcorn" isn't violence, well, it's a sign that things are getting physical and may have been only the tip of the iceberg. Once again, we don't know all that happened, but like I said, we do know it did start to get physical.
... we would have looked to find you a solution.
I don't need you to look to find me a solution. Nowhere did I say "how can I do this?" or ask for your help with anything.
I was pointing out that abandoning Gmail isn't an option for some people, which was the claim I replied to. "If only it was that easy for all", I believe was how I put it. The students at my University cannot simply abandon Gmail because the official University email system for them IS Gmail. And unless I want to abandon my ISP and change a well-entrenched email address I can't just walk away, either. And in neither case was the user making the decision to use Gmail in the first place.
It's hardly self defense when you go out to your car to get a gun and come back.
This meme seems to be growing. You say "went to car to get gun", NYT says "went to get manager". Citation required.
If you would have taken the time to actually read the news you would have known that the shooter had to leave the theater to retrieve his gun from the car.
The article says nothing about him going to the car for anything, it says he went to find a manager. Managers don't typically hang out in my car, so I doubt this guy would think to go look for one there.
And "self defense" is what happens in the moment. Nowhere does it say he came back into the theater brandishing a weapon, just as nowhere does it say he had to deliberately go find one.
The fact is, there was an argument and it got physical. We'll have to wait for FACTS before we can judge the events, instead of making them up to justify our point of view.
The shooter got his feelings hurt and walked out of the theater, got his gun ...
The NYT articles says nothing like that. He left to find a manager but returned without one. It says nothing about him walking out to get his gun. It is most likely that he had it with him the whole time since he would have had to leave the theater to go to his car and pay to get back in again.
So you couldn't delete mail on your old ISP's server.
Of course I could 'delete' mail on the ISP. At least it appeared to have been deleted.
And you couldn't delete mail on gmail.
As I've already said, I could "delete" it, but it popped back and forth between two folders.
Did you ever stop to think you might be doing something wrong?
Considered it, but it isn't supposed to be rocket science. Delete and it goes away, except it didn't.
So what client were you using and when?
A stock imap/pop client on my android tablet, about 9PM.
If this was ten years ago,
No, about a year.
do you think anyone really cares?
Apparently you do, but I don't know why.
This is not a problem I've ever seen in gmail.
This is the kind of useless statement I'm used to seeing every time someone reports a problem with something. "It works for me" doesn't help solve the problem of it not working for someone else. It only means you're using a different system that doesn't have the same problem.
Perhaps you confused archiving with deleting?
Nope. There was no "archive" option, only "delete".
It's not irrelevant,
Of course it is irrelevant. You're the only one talking about "links".
and user experience of myself and others suggests gmail does not have any difficulty deleting mail.
Using the webmail interface with your favorite web browser, that's true. That's not how everyone accesses it, and it wasn't what I had available at the time so I didn't use it. And that's where I came into this discussion, that your experience (and that of the GP) isn't the same for everyone. He said that one could simply stop using Gmail, and I pointed to two examples where the choice to use Gmail was made by other people, and the latter example (student email) doesn't give them any choice at all.
Trash is automatically emptied after thirty days.
I didn't want to wait thirty days to get email that I had deleted two years ago out of Google's hands.
There's a prominent link to empty it now.
Not in the email client I was using to do this. Trash is just another folder to it.
No messages don't go back into "all mail" when you empty trash.
Yes, they did. Deleting messages from Trash sent them back to All Mail. Deleting them from All Mail sent them to Trash. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Are you suggesting Google should have made a fully featured webmail for links or w3m?
I know of a "lynx", but that's irrelevant. I think I am suggesting that when someone deletes an email it doesn't just move to another folder, especially when deleting from Trash. And I think I'm pointing out that the entire world doesn't use webmail when dealing with email.
Actually, many digital cameras will pick up infra-red.
A much more interesting use of the IR capability of a camera is to test the output of your green laser pointers. Green is produced by using a high power IR laser and frequency doubling it into green. The process is not 100% efficient, and if the company saves money by leaving out an IR filter you get a laser pointer that is dangerous in the IR yet invisibly so (except for the green part).
Here is a summary; This has a more complete diagram of the testing setup.
A filter removes a portion of something. You filter out things. Phone cameras don't use an RGB filter.
Actually, they do. The standard single-chip image color image sensor uses what is called a Bayer filter array of red, green, and blue color filters in a regular pattern, one filter per pixel. From this data, a color image is reconstructed by combining the color data from that pixel with the colors from the neighboring pixels. The dirty secret is that the resolution of a "megapixel" camera is thus much less because a nine by nine array of pixels is used to create the color data for each color output pixel.
Color sensitivity is often reported in the datasheet for the sensor. This is a datasheet for a typical CMOS sensor, and the color sensitivity is shown on page 11. The individual sensitivity is due to the filters, the MONO data is for the sensor sans filter. CCD spectral curves are quite similar. The Sony ICX285AQ is an example. If you compare data sheets, you'll notice that the ICX285AL is identical to the AQ with the exception of the color filters, and the AL version is the monochrome sensor.
It would be interesting and not that expensive to create a different color filter pattern on the sensor to include IR and UV filters, but the use would be limited. Those who want IR images typically use the monochrome sensor and external IR pass filters, and UV is usually excluded by normal users by the use of a skylight or other UV cut filter. The dyes in the RGB filters are sensitive to the UV and will decompose over time, changing the color capability of the camera.
Are you making this up? It's easy to delete large numbers of messages in gmail.
And then they move to another folder. And when you delete them from there, they move back. All Mail to Trash to All Mail to Trash to All Mail to Trash ... At least those are the two folders I remember it being.
You can used the advanced search drop-down in the address bar
I don't recall my email client having a 'drop-down in the address bar'. You do realize that not all access to Gmail is through your favorite web browser, yes?
Took me a while to get there. 1.Click on your icon (top right on my browser) to go to Account settings. 2. Click on Google + Settings
Wait a minute. You have to use Google+ to set a Gmail account setting? I would never find that link because I deliberately do not use Google+. Yes, this is very easy to opt out of, sure.
I've already stopped using google search because they pushed too far. Gmail is next on the chopping block if they don't cut it out.
If only it were that easy for all.
My ISP has outsourced its email service to Gmail, and when it did so it sent them a couple of YEARS of DELETED email -- or at least email I thought I had deleted. And then I got stuck in the circle of trying to delete it from Gmail, and their asinine insults about "why do you want to delete anything when you've got so much space to keep it all?"
The University has now outsourced the undergraduate email system to Gmail. I'm expecting the staff email follows very soon, if the Uni can get around the public records/management of personal information laws that are currently keeping them from it.
Naturally some of their clients omitted the hyphen in the address and I received the emails instead, which I passed on to them.
Yes, doing anything beyond reading the errant email and laughing, and then deleting it, is begging for trouble. I used to have the .com version of an ISP's .net and it is remarkable the number of people who think the only TLD is .com. And that when they send their email to the wrong place, it's your fault for getting it.
That includes a rather large software/OS company located somewhere in Washington state, that kept sending me email they intended for a partner at the .net address.
While they can refuse to supply service at their discretion, where does it say they have the right to refuse to honor a request for a domain transfer?
It doesn't, and I didn't claim it did. I was answering the question "Why should the registrar be responsible for content?" Then someone made the claim that "the arbiters of whether you are breaking the law or not is the court", which is contradicted by the same terms.
You might also note that I am quoting the easyDNS terms. I would never expect anyone to read a quote from easyDNS terms and think it was a justification for PDR holding on to domains, so I am at a loss why you are trying to read such a justification into anything I've written.
Are you even following the chain of events here...
Yes, and you could see that by clicking on "parent" if the material I quote is not sufficient to give you the context. I'm certainly following them more than the people who are trying to make this a victory over the City of London.
or are you just making things up as you go?
I'm quoting from the actual ruling pdf and the easyDNS terms of service.
Right, so now they deny you service if you are breaking the law, but the arbiters of whether you are breaking the law or not is the court. Not themselves and not any other body.
Quoting the easyDNS terms of service:
Such determination on what constitutes a violation of the above or whether a domain has or is "likely" to violate the above is solely at the discretion of easyDNS.
"The above" includes "unlawful or illegal activities of any kind (this includes ponzi schemes and HYIPs)". I don't know where you get the idea that "now" it has to be a court. That wasn't what the ICANN ruling dealt with. The ICANN ruling dealt with transfer of domains being held hostage by other registrars, not whether the City of London needs a court order to ask a registrar to review a customer's activities for a potential violation of the registrar's terms. They don't, and neither do I. Or you.
This should be clear from the very beginning of the ruling:
easyDNS Technologies Inc. v. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com
It's easyDNS vs. another registrar, not easyDNS vs. City of London.
I've also read the "takedown order", which is quoted in part in the ruling itself. Maybe you should read it. It is rather clear in asking the registrar to review the conduct of the customer to see if it violates the registrar's acceptable use policy, and for the registrar to make a decision what action is appropriate.
The City of London did NOTHING that you or I could not do, and I have done many times in the past when trying to get spammers and such shut down. I've even been more forceful by saying that the registrar SHOULD shut them off, not just that they ought to review the policy to see if they think the customer is breaching it.
Yeah, the CoL went further by asking the registrar, once they had made a decision to shut the domain off, to take certain steps that would help the CoL maintain evidence of the activity for later legal action. That's not out of line, either, and it still is based on the registrar making a decision, not a demand from the CoL.
The information is very well hidden in the FA, but this applies to Canada. The "City of London" will be the one in Ontario.
The "City of London" being referred to is the one in the UK. It says as much in the linked ruling:
On September 24, 2013, the City of London Police issued a Domain Name Suspension Request regarding a large number of domain names, including the three at issue in this case. The Request asked the relevant registrars to do the following: We request that you review your processes to see if you provide a service for the identified domain(s). If so, we would ask you to review the terms and conditions on the basis of which that service is provided and withdraw or suspend the service if you are satisfied that the terms and conditions have been breached.
This is the infamous "takedown order" that asks a registrar to review a customer's actions with respect to the registrar's own acceptable use policy and make their own decision. The ruling continues:
This request was for the following reason: "The owners of the aforementioned domains are suspected to be involved in the criminal distribution of copyrighted material either directly or indirectly and are liable to prosecution under UK law."
which makes it clear that it is the City of London in the UK. But this ruling actually has nothing to do with the City of London, it applies to domain registrars.