Will be. They will still be collecting everyone's information, but as with less staff could be less secure, and an external intrusion there will mean that even more people with bad intentions will be able to access your information, or get 0day vulnerabilities right from the source, or use the backdoored (by them) systems in all the world to do a test drive of the attack the NSA is preparing.
Point to you. I would reply that, perhaps I'm being too optimistic, but I'd like to think that such occurrences would serve to further discredit the NSA, making it more likely that such information gathering and intentional security breaches (backdooring being essentially that) would be curtailed. So, short run, sucks, but long run, better.
The idea being, people who can't be trusted with security, should have security taken away from them.
I'm not trying to justify what yahoo did -- it was scummy, and I hope they get prosecuted
What for?
"...any rights to your Yahoo! ID or contents within your account terminate upon your death."
Because they took money to provide a service (he'd paid some years ahead) and then reneged on that agreement. (presumably keeping the money) It may appear through their TOS they've given themselves permission to do this, but it remains to be seen whether this would hold up in court.
We could use your argument to make murder legal as long as the victim does not get to know about it.
Um, no we couldn't. The prosecution of and punishment for murder is of benefit to the living. Do you think we prosecute murder so that the victim's ghost can find peace? I suspect that only happens in television shows. No, we prosecute murder because it's a behavior that society wants to discourage. (Usually, for most societies. Although I'm beginning to wonder about Chicago.)
What a strange response, regardless of the reasoning behind Yahoo canceling the service (looks like they're pushing the ToS button). I see this as tantamount to somebody buying a burial plot and funeral services, and being dumped in the wilderness with the justification, "they'll never know, since they're dead!"
I'm not trying to justify what yahoo did -- it was scummy, and I hope they get prosecuted, if there's anyone who would do so. Just pointing out that for him, the important thing is believing up to the moment of death that the arrangements he had made would continue afterwards. Such arrangements are, usually, in a practical manner, for the benefit of people still alive.
He *thought* he had a website up for five years when he died. He'll never know the difference.
But because geeks always want to fix things... it seems to me that if he had the website in someone else's name, or even in a lawyer's name, it'd still be up.
It's those cheapass parents who bought storebrand sodapops, which taste like santorum. The kids understandably went ballistic 'cause they wanted a drink with some reasonable taste quality.
Right, because a different label makes them taste so much better. Sorry, they all taste like carp to me. The only difference appears to be in the effectiveness of the advertising.
Maybe people who allow their children to drink 4 or more sodas a day are simply bad parents who do not teach their children any discipline or self control.
There is something to this, but when one of the parents is also addicted to the stuff, the other parent doesn't have a lot of options that don't tear the family apart. (Speaking from experience.) We're not talking "clean up your room" here. Consuming sodas can become a real addiction.
Please tell my wife that. She pops a can of Pepsi right after dressing in the morning. It makes my stomach churn a little watching her. (I don't drink sodas at all (green tea is my morning beverage), and can't even imagine having one first thing in the morning.) She says it's caffeine and sugar in an easily handled container -- the perfect food. Gag.
Wife and daughter together average four to six cases a month. It's a chore to get them to police their cans, and when they finally bag them, I don't even bother collecting the deposit -- I just drop the bags off in front of the (usually out of order) deposit reclaim machines and let it be someone else's problem (or gold mine, as the case may be).
(My state won't give you the deposit back if you crush the cans ahead of time -- the machines need to read the barcode, are old, fragile (still run Windows 98, by the splash screen when they reboot) and the operation becomes a huge waste of time. I just consider the deposit an additional tax that goes directly to the stores.)
Awhile back, I convinced them to switch to Pepsi Throwback, so in theory they're not getting as saturated with HFCS, but I can't imagine that kind of volume is good for either of them. But wife is an adult, and daughter is over 18, and I'm not going to win that battle. It's an interesting study of addiction, though, both physical and mental.
I may see some light at the end of the tunnel. Like me, daughter also has a taste for tea, and I make her a cup every morning (including weekends) to try to encourage this.
It's not the sugar; that's an old-wive's tale. It's the caffeine and certain colorings.
It's the sugar and the caffeine. Test by: Give them sugary snacks that do not contain (or only contain minute amounts) of caffeine, observe that they still bounce off the walls and break things.
With caffeine and *not* sugar, they want to spin like a top but they don't have the energy.
Like any wildfire, you need both an accelerant and an ignition source.
I could go with a commercially available HUD in a car, on one condition -- any manufacturer who knowingly includes advertisements in a vehicle HUD will have their CEO summarily executed.
So, what then for cases like Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington? They both are reasonably sized cities which border each other on a state line, effectively creating a single metropolitan area. Many sleep in Vancouver, yet live their lives in Portland; and, of course, vice versa.
Isn't this an issue even without Amazon getting involved, since Oregon doesn't have a sales tax.
To a certain extent, although there are known ways to cope. For instance, in Washington, you don't get charged sales tax if you show an Oregon ID. I think the OP was speaking of the case where a Portland resident rents a book from Amazon, then (if I'm reading the article right) crosses over the river to go to work, and suddenly is required to buy the book.
commuting students or even students in where a nearby road is the boarder.
What, you mean, like Vancouver Washington, which has sales tax, and Portland, Oregon, which doesn't, both cities having residents who work in the other city? Seems to me, they're screwed. The law doesn't take into account that people live in areas where they often cross arbitrary state lines. Sorry...
> the reason they can offer such a cheap price all the time is that they dont have to have sales tax.
I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that. There are several reasons why Amazon can offer a cheap price, including *not* having to build, populate and maintain brick-and-mortar stores, plus doing things in volume, having centralized warehouses, and other savings. I suspect that the least of these is that they don't have to pay sales tax. (I'm pretty sure you meant *charge* sales tax, so I won't quibble that it's the consumers who actually pay the tax.)
Which as you well know is historically a very unusual price point for a Windows operating system. Windows 7 Pro is still $265 (Amazon) after Win8 has been out for some time.
I think the unusually low price (for Microsoft) of Windows 8 is an indication that they knew it would be a hard sell. I bought one. Installed it. Tried to use it. I agree, it's really a hard sell.
We have a roku box in one room and a blu-ray player that includes netflix in the other room, and an ANTENNA (remember those?) on the roof so wife can watch football, and we've been cable-free for almost three years now.
So, that means you are fans of the local (American) football team. Otherwise, you'd have to have cable or satellite to watch your favorite team (either NFL or college).
I have several TV antennas on my roof, and understand exactly what is really available via OTA, and it's not nearly as much as people think.
Me, woah, not ME. I detest football (American or otherwise) and very particularly the zombie it makes out of my wife during the season.
Not sure why you would have several antennas, except to point at different stations, perhaps. (That's actually not a bad idea -- it saves having to have a electro-mechanical rotor.) We have one farmhouse-style antenna (I kinda overdid it) pointed at a local mountain range that's covered with broadcasting antennas. We get thirteen free digital channels this way, including local access and shopping channels. I don't watch any of them, at all, ever. But they include the major networks, which contain the great majority of the US football programming, so wife is for the most part satisfied.
Probably the biggest part of this is no longer caring if we see a show when it first comes out.
My wife and I are the same, with our current watch queue including the first series of Hustle as we just discovered it. But, with both of us big sports fans, we need something more than OTA. In addition, Netflix and other services often don't offer the audio and video quality that we have come to expect, while OTA and HD from DirecTV do.
I think it depends in part on whether the content merits stellar HDTV quality. A series we're currently watching from early 2000's is not presented in anything I would call quality, but I'm mostly watching it for the dialog. For effects heavy content, Iron Man 3 for instance, I agree Netflix leaves something to be desired.
I think, though, that the base article is not talking about the way things are now (which is a jumbled up mess, frankly) but the direction things are going. I strongly suspect there will eventually be a solution for sports fans that doesn't require a satellite dish or $100/month cable.
We tried that -- Part time private tutoring on reading plus IEP program in the school. I'm not sure why the school was so hostile to me and my child -- maybe because I refused to consider their diagnosis of ADD? But we weren't getting anywhere and eventually I pulled her out and tutoring (essentially, homeschooling) became full time.
I have saved all the correspondence between me and the school administration during that time. *I* think it makes entertaining reading, and maybe my daughter will think so too, some day. It's in the pile of stuff labeled "for daughter".
Slashdot Mirror
Will be. They will still be collecting everyone's information, but as with less staff could be less secure, and an external intrusion there will mean that even more people with bad intentions will be able to access your information, or get 0day vulnerabilities right from the source, or use the backdoored (by them) systems in all the world to do a test drive of the attack the NSA is preparing.
Point to you. I would reply that, perhaps I'm being too optimistic, but I'd like to think that such occurrences would serve to further discredit the NSA, making it more likely that such information gathering and intentional security breaches (backdooring being essentially that) would be curtailed. So, short run, sucks, but long run, better.
The idea being, people who can't be trusted with security, should have security taken away from them.
> or they are simply going to be less effective once they've reduced their staff.
Which wouldn't be such a terrible thing.
I was immediately taken by how RINGS resembles a fictional spaceship.
I'm not trying to justify what yahoo did -- it was scummy, and I hope they get prosecuted
What for?
"...any rights to your Yahoo! ID or contents within your account terminate upon your death."
Because they took money to provide a service (he'd paid some years ahead) and then reneged on that agreement. (presumably keeping the money) It may appear through their TOS they've given themselves permission to do this, but it remains to be seen whether this would hold up in court.
We could use your argument to make murder legal as long as the victim does not get to know about it.
Um, no we couldn't. The prosecution of and punishment for murder is of benefit to the living. Do you think we prosecute murder so that the victim's ghost can find peace? I suspect that only happens in television shows. No, we prosecute murder because it's a behavior that society wants to discourage. (Usually, for most societies. Although I'm beginning to wonder about Chicago.)
What a strange response, regardless of the reasoning behind Yahoo canceling the service (looks like they're pushing the ToS button). I see this as tantamount to somebody buying a burial plot and funeral services, and being dumped in the wilderness with the justification, "they'll never know, since they're dead!"
And you think that doesn't happen?
I'm not trying to justify what yahoo did -- it was scummy, and I hope they get prosecuted, if there's anyone who would do so. Just pointing out that for him, the important thing is believing up to the moment of death that the arrangements he had made would continue afterwards. Such arrangements are, usually, in a practical manner, for the benefit of people still alive.
He *thought* he had a website up for five years when he died. He'll never know the difference.
But because geeks always want to fix things ... it seems to me that if he had the website in someone else's name, or even in a lawyer's name, it'd still be up.
Some parents are themselves addicted to the stuff. I'm pretty sure that wasn't accounted for either.
It's those cheapass parents who bought storebrand sodapops, which taste like santorum. The kids understandably went ballistic 'cause they wanted a drink with some reasonable taste quality.
Right, because a different label makes them taste so much better. Sorry, they all taste like carp to me. The only difference appears to be in the effectiveness of the advertising.
Maybe people who allow their children to drink 4 or more sodas a day are simply bad parents who do not teach their children any discipline or self control.
There is something to this, but when one of the parents is also addicted to the stuff, the other parent doesn't have a lot of options that don't tear the family apart. (Speaking from experience.) We're not talking "clean up your room" here. Consuming sodas can become a real addiction.
> (nobody drinks soda for breakfast)
Please tell my wife that. She pops a can of Pepsi right after dressing in the morning. It makes my stomach churn a little watching her. (I don't drink sodas at all (green tea is my morning beverage), and can't even imagine having one first thing in the morning.) She says it's caffeine and sugar in an easily handled container -- the perfect food. Gag.
Wife and daughter together average four to six cases a month. It's a chore to get them to police their cans, and when they finally bag them, I don't even bother collecting the deposit -- I just drop the bags off in front of the (usually out of order) deposit reclaim machines and let it be someone else's problem (or gold mine, as the case may be).
(My state won't give you the deposit back if you crush the cans ahead of time -- the machines need to read the barcode, are old, fragile (still run Windows 98, by the splash screen when they reboot) and the operation becomes a huge waste of time. I just consider the deposit an additional tax that goes directly to the stores.)
Awhile back, I convinced them to switch to Pepsi Throwback, so in theory they're not getting as saturated with HFCS, but I can't imagine that kind of volume is good for either of them. But wife is an adult, and daughter is over 18, and I'm not going to win that battle. It's an interesting study of addiction, though, both physical and mental.
I may see some light at the end of the tunnel. Like me, daughter also has a taste for tea, and I make her a cup every morning (including weekends) to try to encourage this.
It's not the sugar; that's an old-wive's tale. It's the caffeine and certain colorings.
It's the sugar and the caffeine. Test by: Give them sugary snacks that do not contain (or only contain minute amounts) of caffeine, observe that they still bounce off the walls and break things.
With caffeine and *not* sugar, they want to spin like a top but they don't have the energy.
Like any wildfire, you need both an accelerant and an ignition source.
You had me for a minute there.
I could go with a commercially available HUD in a car, on one condition -- any manufacturer who knowingly includes advertisements in a vehicle HUD will have their CEO summarily executed.
We'd probably lose a few before word got around.
So, what then for cases like Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington? They both are reasonably sized cities which border each other on a state line, effectively creating a single metropolitan area. Many sleep in Vancouver, yet live their lives in Portland; and, of course, vice versa.
Isn't this an issue even without Amazon getting involved, since Oregon doesn't have a sales tax.
To a certain extent, although there are known ways to cope. For instance, in Washington, you don't get charged sales tax if you show an Oregon ID. I think the OP was speaking of the case where a Portland resident rents a book from Amazon, then (if I'm reading the article right) crosses over the river to go to work, and suddenly is required to buy the book.
commuting students or even students in where a nearby road is the boarder.
What, you mean, like Vancouver Washington, which has sales tax, and Portland, Oregon, which doesn't, both cities having residents who work in the other city? Seems to me, they're screwed. The law doesn't take into account that people live in areas where they often cross arbitrary state lines. Sorry...
(Yeah, it is stupid...)
> the reason they can offer such a cheap price all the time is that they dont have to have sales tax.
I'm pretty sure you didn't mean that. There are several reasons why Amazon can offer a cheap price, including *not* having to build, populate and maintain brick-and-mortar stores, plus doing things in volume, having centralized warehouses, and other savings. I suspect that the least of these is that they don't have to pay sales tax. (I'm pretty sure you meant *charge* sales tax, so I won't quibble that it's the consumers who actually pay the tax.)
Windows 8 (OEM) is $89...FUD.
Which as you well know is historically a very unusual price point for a Windows operating system. Windows 7 Pro is still $265 (Amazon) after Win8 has been out for some time.
I think the unusually low price (for Microsoft) of Windows 8 is an indication that they knew it would be a hard sell. I bought one. Installed it. Tried to use it. I agree, it's really a hard sell.
Agree agree agree. But I'd still take the check.
The way I see it, MS could write everybody on /. a $10 000 cheque and slashdotters would turn around and say it wasn't done right. Just cause it's MS.
I dunno, $10K would be just about right.
I'm sure they won't do this to the Windows 8 Marketplace.
Wow. Good point.
Lessee... The first thing that would go would be the RT marketplace. Followed a year later by abandonment of the metro api.
We have a roku box in one room and a blu-ray player that includes netflix in the other room, and an ANTENNA (remember those?) on the roof so wife can watch football, and we've been cable-free for almost three years now.
So, that means you are fans of the local (American) football team. Otherwise, you'd have to have cable or satellite to watch your favorite team (either NFL or college).
I have several TV antennas on my roof, and understand exactly what is really available via OTA, and it's not nearly as much as people think.
Me, woah, not ME. I detest football (American or otherwise) and very particularly the zombie it makes out of my wife during the season.
Not sure why you would have several antennas, except to point at different stations, perhaps. (That's actually not a bad idea -- it saves having to have a electro-mechanical rotor.) We have one farmhouse-style antenna (I kinda overdid it) pointed at a local mountain range that's covered with broadcasting antennas. We get thirteen free digital channels this way, including local access and shopping channels. I don't watch any of them, at all, ever. But they include the major networks, which contain the great majority of the US football programming, so wife is for the most part satisfied.
Probably the biggest part of this is no longer caring if we see a show when it first comes out.
My wife and I are the same, with our current watch queue including the first series of Hustle as we just discovered it. But, with both of us big sports fans, we need something more than OTA. In addition, Netflix and other services often don't offer the audio and video quality that we have come to expect, while OTA and HD from DirecTV do.
I think it depends in part on whether the content merits stellar HDTV quality. A series we're currently watching from early 2000's is not presented in anything I would call quality, but I'm mostly watching it for the dialog. For effects heavy content, Iron Man 3 for instance, I agree Netflix leaves something to be desired.
I think, though, that the base article is not talking about the way things are now (which is a jumbled up mess, frankly) but the direction things are going. I strongly suspect there will eventually be a solution for sports fans that doesn't require a satellite dish or $100/month cable.
Also, we have a rule. No Cliffhangers! Wow, how is our hero going to get out of that? Well, let's find out.
We tried that -- Part time private tutoring on reading plus IEP program in the school. I'm not sure why the school was so hostile to me and my child -- maybe because I refused to consider their diagnosis of ADD? But we weren't getting anywhere and eventually I pulled her out and tutoring (essentially, homeschooling) became full time.
I have saved all the correspondence between me and the school administration during that time. *I* think it makes entertaining reading, and maybe my daughter will think so too, some day. It's in the pile of stuff labeled "for daughter".