Just FYI, as you get older, it gets harder and harder to see things that are close to your eyes, leading you to hold things you want to read further and further away from your face, not closer.
The article might as well be me... except it's 270 miles, and my dad does provide some front-line tech support. But my mom is still on AOL.
This Christmas we had her try various tech devices from smart phones to tablets (Android and iOS); the end verdict was she is still most comfortable in front of a monitor with a keyboard and mouse. Tablets worked OK for some of the things she wanted to do, but the lack of physical keyboard was problematic, esp. when it came to email. And it's also more comfortable for her to be sitting in a chair NOT having to hold the screen. Tablet screens also suffer compared to larger monitors when you're old and want a large font.
So while mom might end up with a tablet as an accessory, they are NOT desktop replacements. And don't solve the AOL problem either.
To the article submitter, what does your mom use AOL for? The AOL experience isn't necessarily much different than the browser experience, for certain activities, so you might want to try setting up Windows 7 and then seeing if the browser is "close enough".
Ultimately I got my mom a new PC (her old one was OLD and took days to boot (ok, 20 minutes)) and put windows XP on it. Fortunately she doesn't feel the need to download the screensaver du jour, so with virus software XP is OK and what she's familiar with. Did end up having to put AOL back on it but dad is working on weaning her over to a browser. If she makes that transition probably on to Windows 7.
...don't let people have access to the hashed passwords for your system.
From the user's perspective, it's don't use the same password in more than one place, so that if one place does let its hashed passwords loose, it can't be used against you.
...I got this bug on a website I do *NOT* use Facebook to log into, so the Facebook statement appears incorrect in that regard. (I was logged into Facebook in that browser though.)
The policies did originate in the legislative process.
The issue is that some people are claiming the legislation says something different than other people claim it says.
And that's a very common occurrence in our government - the executive always attempting to take the broadest interpretation of executive power as possible.
It's a big reason we have that whole judicial branch.
The answer is, it depends. My current answer is wait for other elected US officials to act. That's worked pretty well for hundreds of years. Somebody acts outside the bounds of the law, they eventually get removed from office, possibly put in jail, etc.
The nice thing about democracy is it's a structure that resists consolidation of power. If one person starts getting too much power, other people will use democratic mechanisms to reduce that power. It's not like the Republicans would allow George Bush to become a dictator, or the Democrats would allow Obama to become one, because then no one else gets their turn in 4 or 8 years. And consolidation of power means a Senator who used to be able to leverage his vote for consideration of his pet projects (or donors or whatever) doesn't want to find himself where he's only leveraging his vote to not get arrested. And all those corporations who finance political campaigns don't want to be in a position where a dictator can come seize their assets either.
And even the President himself doesn't have a whole lot of incentive to become a dictator - he's going to be rich whether he stays in power or not, so best not to get in a position where the only option people have of getting rid of you is killing you.
The idea that any single entity is going to consolidate power across 50 states, each with their own military and police apparatus, and with the cooperation of the members of our volunteer military, is just plain ridiculous.
What we're talking about here is a very sensational, but very minor, topic. More American citizens live or die on changes in DUI laws than the drone use policies. George Ryan (former Illinois Governor) killed more American citizens as a result of taking a single bribe than Obama has killed with drones.
Like all issues with what should, and should not, be legal actions by the government, this one will get settled through legislative or judicial process. We're not talking about the arrest, jailing, or killing of political opponents. These are people who have specifically declared a desire to destroy the political process entirely.
There are no US citizens captive in Cuba. We did put one in the brig in South Carolina for a while, which was absolutely a violation of due process. That was the last President, not this one.
There's a difference between expedience and casualties.
If the police come to arrest you, and you pull a gun on them, they are not going to risk getting shot and are going to shoot you instead. No trial.
If you have a 5-year-old in a bunker, and the police think you're about to cause harm to them they are not going to risk it and they're going to shoot you instead. No trial.
If you are hiding out in enemy territory where any American coming to get you is going to be shot on sight, there's no reason for us to risk the lives of Americans to come force you to trial when you don't want to go.
When you make it clear that you would rather kill the people coming to arrest you than be arrested, you're going to get killed. This should be obvious.
If you want to remove yourself from the rule of law, you can't complain when you lose the benefits of the rule of law you removed yourself from.
If you want a proper trial, simply present yourself at the nearest major international airport and I'm sure the US government will be happy to bring you home for one.
If, however, you know your government kills members of foreign terrorist organizations living in certain lawless areas of the world, and you publicly declare your support for such a foreign terrorist organization, and then move to such an area of the world to associate with members of that organization, don't be surprised when a missile lands on your head.
There are certain definitive actions an individual can take where we know they have decided to give up their due process rights. For example, in World War II, if you traveled to Germany and put on a German uniform, you got treated as an enemy combatant, not a US citizen. No trial necessary.
When the belligerents are not uniformed members of a state military power, under when can we assume a US Citizen has decided do not want to participate in due process? It is reasonable to assume that an individual in a terrorist camp in the desert of Yemen isn't interested in standing trial - they have, through their actions, obviously declared themselves an enemy combatant, by declaring and acting on their intentions to be one.
Choosing to avoid due process is not the same as being denied due process.
Or it could mean that if your father is an irresponsible dick..
- He's less likely to marry your mother
AND
- You're more likely to be a criminal
Unfortunately it's unlikely that more marriage is going to make your father less of a dick. Or that telling your father he should get married before having children will help.
Personally, I favor castration. Once you're behind on child support for two or more kids, off with your nuts.
Anyone with a business can easily rack up $100k in credit card charges a year. I probably do $200k per year between business and personal spend. I take the rewards as airline miles, and I can turn 250,000 airline miles (mile per dollar plus bonuses) into $8 to $10 thousand in international business class airline tickets.
Now, that does mean that whenever I use my card, the merchant is paying 3-4% fee instead of a 1-2% fee if I were not using a rewards card. But since the cost to me is the same, I'll take the rewards.
If merchants want to charge me more for using a credit card than cash, I won't complain about it. And I'll probably still pay the fee - worth the miles and not having to carry cash. I actually don't use cash at all anymore.
It's not like there are not alternatives out there. Yes, the major carriers generally push subsidized phone purchases with a contract, but there are also plenty of pay-as-you go providers, and T-Mobile even offers plans that don't offer phone subsidy and have lower month-to-month costs.
Most consumers don't care that they don't get to unlock the phone after the contract, because they're going to get a brand new phone on a new contract.
So I would submit that the consumers not only know exactly what they are getting, they also LIKE it!
The submitter might as well be David Beckham asking how he can get Victoria Beckham to play soccer with him.
Look, the fact of the matter is, you've been playing video games most of your life, so there's few things that are true for you that are never going to be true for your wife:
1) You started when you were very young. Very young is when most people pick up new interests, and one of the things that makes that interest interesting in their adult lives is that it was part of their young lives. No matter what you do, video games are never going to be a part of your wife's young life.
2) You have tens of thousands of hours of experience. That means even when you encounter entirely new games, you get to apply that experience to the new game. Your wife will have no frame of reference. For example, let's say you tried to introduce her to WoW.... you know what a character level is. She has no idea. You probably played RPGs at some time in the early 90's (or a bit earlier or later depending on your age), she's done it... never.
3) When you're playing with her and your skill level is going to be much higher than hers is. EVEN if you're playing cooperatively, that's going to be frustrating. We're talking basic skills here, like even manipulating a controller, or precise mouse use. Doing activities with someone who is at an entirely different skill level than you - even the simple version of that activity - is rarely pleasureably.
4) Because of 3) your wife is going to have a bit of a learning curve before she can really enjoy a game. That might be OK, *IF* your wife wasn't married with kids. And I imagine at least one of you has a job. By the time she spends an hour or two working on that learning curve, it's going to be time to put the kids to bed or go to bed yourselves and she's just going to think the activity stinks if she never gets past the learning part to the fun part.
And, the laptop is the LAST place you should attempt this. There is nothing that requires a laptop to play that you should try and get a novice gamer interested in. If you can't play it on a phone, it's almost certainly too advanced.
The reality of this is, if you dated this girl before you got married (and I hope you did), and she didn't pick up an interest in video games during that exposure to you, it's not going to happen now.
Maybe you two can play words with friends together.
It is against international regulations to have luggage for a passenger carried on a plane where the passenger isn't flying.
Passenger/bag matching is a bit of a deterrent, but not much of one when we know terrorists are willing to fly planes into buildings, or attempt to blow up planes with bombs in their crotch.
You realize the vast majority of small arms being used by the Syrian revolution came from A) Army defectors and B) Foreign supply, right?
Syria is a civil war with combatants split largely on ethnic lines, with one half of the military fighting the other half. It's absolutely not a case of an armed populace against the military. It certainly isn't an example of an untrained, armed population fighting off the government.
Slashdot Mirror
I got a kick out of the rule that you can have one golf club, or two clubs, but the golf clubs is right out.
Cause, you know, more than one club per hand is just too dangerous.
Just FYI, as you get older, it gets harder and harder to see things that are close to your eyes, leading you to hold things you want to read further and further away from your face, not closer.
An iPad is a poor PC replacement for most old folks. They don't need to be doing tasks like email on a small screen with a touch "keyboard".
At what point do you realize that if you're going to use it as a PC, you should just buy a PC?
The article might as well be me... except it's 270 miles, and my dad does provide some front-line tech support. But my mom is still on AOL.
This Christmas we had her try various tech devices from smart phones to tablets (Android and iOS); the end verdict was she is still most comfortable in front of a monitor with a keyboard and mouse. Tablets worked OK for some of the things she wanted to do, but the lack of physical keyboard was problematic, esp. when it came to email. And it's also more comfortable for her to be sitting in a chair NOT having to hold the screen. Tablet screens also suffer compared to larger monitors when you're old and want a large font.
So while mom might end up with a tablet as an accessory, they are NOT desktop replacements. And don't solve the AOL problem either.
To the article submitter, what does your mom use AOL for? The AOL experience isn't necessarily much different than the browser experience, for certain activities, so you might want to try setting up Windows 7 and then seeing if the browser is "close enough".
Ultimately I got my mom a new PC (her old one was OLD and took days to boot (ok, 20 minutes)) and put windows XP on it. Fortunately she doesn't feel the need to download the screensaver du jour, so with virus software XP is OK and what she's familiar with. Did end up having to put AOL back on it but dad is working on weaning her over to a browser. If she makes that transition probably on to Windows 7.
Two people can't use the same IP address at the same time either - your packets are interleaved.
It just so happens that your packets are interleaved on the microsecond scale while gun use is interleaved on the order of hours/days/weeks.
...don't let people have access to the hashed passwords for your system.
From the user's perspective, it's don't use the same password in more than one place, so that if one place does let its hashed passwords loose, it can't be used against you.
...I got this bug on a website I do *NOT* use Facebook to log into, so the Facebook statement appears incorrect in that regard. (I was logged into Facebook in that browser though.)
The policies did originate in the legislative process.
The issue is that some people are claiming the legislation says something different than other people claim it says.
And that's a very common occurrence in our government - the executive always attempting to take the broadest interpretation of executive power as possible.
It's a big reason we have that whole judicial branch.
The answer is, it depends. My current answer is wait for other elected US officials to act. That's worked pretty well for hundreds of years. Somebody acts outside the bounds of the law, they eventually get removed from office, possibly put in jail, etc.
The nice thing about democracy is it's a structure that resists consolidation of power. If one person starts getting too much power, other people will use democratic mechanisms to reduce that power. It's not like the Republicans would allow George Bush to become a dictator, or the Democrats would allow Obama to become one, because then no one else gets their turn in 4 or 8 years. And consolidation of power means a Senator who used to be able to leverage his vote for consideration of his pet projects (or donors or whatever) doesn't want to find himself where he's only leveraging his vote to not get arrested. And all those corporations who finance political campaigns don't want to be in a position where a dictator can come seize their assets either.
And even the President himself doesn't have a whole lot of incentive to become a dictator - he's going to be rich whether he stays in power or not, so best not to get in a position where the only option people have of getting rid of you is killing you.
The idea that any single entity is going to consolidate power across 50 states, each with their own military and police apparatus, and with the cooperation of the members of our volunteer military, is just plain ridiculous.
What we're talking about here is a very sensational, but very minor, topic. More American citizens live or die on changes in DUI laws than the drone use policies. George Ryan (former Illinois Governor) killed more American citizens as a result of taking a single bribe than Obama has killed with drones.
Like all issues with what should, and should not, be legal actions by the government, this one will get settled through legislative or judicial process. We're not talking about the arrest, jailing, or killing of political opponents. These are people who have specifically declared a desire to destroy the political process entirely.
There are no US citizens captive in Cuba. We did put one in the brig in South Carolina for a while, which was absolutely a violation of due process. That was the last President, not this one.
There's a difference between expedience and casualties.
If the police come to arrest you, and you pull a gun on them, they are not going to risk getting shot and are going to shoot you instead. No trial.
If you have a 5-year-old in a bunker, and the police think you're about to cause harm to them they are not going to risk it and they're going to shoot you instead. No trial.
If you are hiding out in enemy territory where any American coming to get you is going to be shot on sight, there's no reason for us to risk the lives of Americans to come force you to trial when you don't want to go.
When you make it clear that you would rather kill the people coming to arrest you than be arrested, you're going to get killed. This should be obvious.
If you want to remove yourself from the rule of law, you can't complain when you lose the benefits of the rule of law you removed yourself from.
If you want a proper trial, simply present yourself at the nearest major international airport and I'm sure the US government will be happy to bring you home for one.
If, however, you know your government kills members of foreign terrorist organizations living in certain lawless areas of the world, and you publicly declare your support for such a foreign terrorist organization, and then move to such an area of the world to associate with members of that organization, don't be surprised when a missile lands on your head.
There are certain definitive actions an individual can take where we know they have decided to give up their due process rights. For example, in World War II, if you traveled to Germany and put on a German uniform, you got treated as an enemy combatant, not a US citizen. No trial necessary.
When the belligerents are not uniformed members of a state military power, under when can we assume a US Citizen has decided do not want to participate in due process? It is reasonable to assume that an individual in a terrorist camp in the desert of Yemen isn't interested in standing trial - they have, through their actions, obviously declared themselves an enemy combatant, by declaring and acting on their intentions to be one.
Choosing to avoid due process is not the same as being denied due process.
Or it could mean that if your father is an irresponsible dick..
- He's less likely to marry your mother
AND
- You're more likely to be a criminal
Unfortunately it's unlikely that more marriage is going to make your father less of a dick. Or that telling your father he should get married before having children will help.
Personally, I favor castration. Once you're behind on child support for two or more kids, off with your nuts.
- Spending your lifetime saving for your retirement, and it all disappears once you're about to retire
- Rape
I'm not sure there's a clear choice there.
Anyone with a business can easily rack up $100k in credit card charges a year. I probably do $200k per year between business and personal spend. I take the rewards as airline miles, and I can turn 250,000 airline miles (mile per dollar plus bonuses) into $8 to $10 thousand in international business class airline tickets.
Now, that does mean that whenever I use my card, the merchant is paying 3-4% fee instead of a 1-2% fee if I were not using a rewards card. But since the cost to me is the same, I'll take the rewards.
If merchants want to charge me more for using a credit card than cash, I won't complain about it. And I'll probably still pay the fee - worth the miles and not having to carry cash. I actually don't use cash at all anymore.
T-Mobile offers a cheaper plan with no phone subsidies, and there are plenty pay-as-you-go carriers as well (boost, virgin, etc)
It's not like there are not alternatives out there. Yes, the major carriers generally push subsidized phone purchases with a contract, but there are also plenty of pay-as-you go providers, and T-Mobile even offers plans that don't offer phone subsidy and have lower month-to-month costs.
Most consumers don't care that they don't get to unlock the phone after the contract, because they're going to get a brand new phone on a new contract.
So I would submit that the consumers not only know exactly what they are getting, they also LIKE it!
"cable" is figurative here.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a submarine full of tapes.
Sure, the bandwidth of a surface vessel would be even more, but submarine transport is harder to intercept.
The submitter might as well be David Beckham asking how he can get Victoria Beckham to play soccer with him.
Look, the fact of the matter is, you've been playing video games most of your life, so there's few things that are true for you that are never going to be true for your wife:
1) You started when you were very young. Very young is when most people pick up new interests, and one of the things that makes that interest interesting in their adult lives is that it was part of their young lives. No matter what you do, video games are never going to be a part of your wife's young life.
2) You have tens of thousands of hours of experience. That means even when you encounter entirely new games, you get to apply that experience to the new game. Your wife will have no frame of reference. For example, let's say you tried to introduce her to WoW.... you know what a character level is. She has no idea. You probably played RPGs at some time in the early 90's (or a bit earlier or later depending on your age), she's done it... never.
3) When you're playing with her and your skill level is going to be much higher than hers is. EVEN if you're playing cooperatively, that's going to be frustrating. We're talking basic skills here, like even manipulating a controller, or precise mouse use. Doing activities with someone who is at an entirely different skill level than you - even the simple version of that activity - is rarely pleasureably.
4) Because of 3) your wife is going to have a bit of a learning curve before she can really enjoy a game. That might be OK, *IF* your wife wasn't married with kids. And I imagine at least one of you has a job. By the time she spends an hour or two working on that learning curve, it's going to be time to put the kids to bed or go to bed yourselves and she's just going to think the activity stinks if she never gets past the learning part to the fun part.
And, the laptop is the LAST place you should attempt this. There is nothing that requires a laptop to play that you should try and get a novice gamer interested in. If you can't play it on a phone, it's almost certainly too advanced.
The reality of this is, if you dated this girl before you got married (and I hope you did), and she didn't pick up an interest in video games during that exposure to you, it's not going to happen now.
Maybe you two can play words with friends together.
It is against international regulations to have luggage for a passenger carried on a plane where the passenger isn't flying.
Passenger/bag matching is a bit of a deterrent, but not much of one when we know terrorists are willing to fly planes into buildings, or attempt to blow up planes with bombs in their crotch.
If you don't board they'll pull your bags.
If the bags don't make the flight that you board, no biggie.
It's $0.45. $0.46 come Jan 27.
Anyone who thinks suicide is easy hasn't tried it.
I'm going to prove you wrong, as soon as I find someone willing to click "Submit" once I've done so.
You realize the vast majority of small arms being used by the Syrian revolution came from A) Army defectors and B) Foreign supply, right?
Syria is a civil war with combatants split largely on ethnic lines, with one half of the military fighting the other half. It's absolutely not a case of an armed populace against the military. It certainly isn't an example of an untrained, armed population fighting off the government.