In olden times when the entire monitor had a resolution less than that occupied by side-bar advertisements today, the top menu bar made sense. It really did save space over putting the menu repetitively inside every app window.
But... today it is very common to use dual monitors (at minimum) with pretty extreme resolutions. Moving the cursor from the right side of an external monitor to the left side upper corner, often feels like walking across Montana. With real estate to waste nowadays, I'd really like to see the menu go into application windows. One of the joys of X11 apps in OSX, is the fact that the menu is contained in the window.
But the private key leaves your system? Even if the private key is encrypted, unless it is encrypted by a different private key on your system, you've just given away your private key (e.g., LastPass has the decryption key to your private key which means LP has your private key, albeit in a convoluted manner). I don't know anything about LastPass, but if this is true, it isn't confidence inspiring.
Like you I have no qualms with the "unlimited" description. Back then, when you wanted to use any network service, you dialed in, probably on your only phone line, which before voicemail service (or as an expensive extra charge), meant people got a busy signal if trying to call you. When you were done online, you'd disconnect to free up the phone line for yourself as well as the ISP's modem for other users' use.
What was cool about an "unlimited" plan, of course, was that you didn't have to worry about racking up hourly charges -- $3hr back in the early 1990s was close to the minimum wage at the time, so for a poor college student, that could be quite substantial and acted as a heavy limiter of use.
Even today, we hear "unlimited broadband" but if someone wanted to be pedantic, even at the record 50+ tbs rate, there is a limit to how much data can be sent or received in a month. I think people still get that -- kind of like how "all you can eat" doesn't mean you can eat a whole cow -- somethings just aren't possible.
Although certainly not the first ISP, I think Delphi was one of the first commercial online services to offer internet access (maybe late 1992, definitely by 93). Delphi was totally text based, but if I recall, it only cost $20/month for 20 hours while AOL, though snazzier, was something like $3/hr. The one good thing about AOL discs in the very early 90s, was coming bundled with a version of GeoWorks that ran on DOS.
Anyway, I finally got actual internet through a dial-up ISP in late 1994, then DSL in 1999. And now, I toy with the idea of cutting the cord completely from time to time, as I get too tired to cuss at the punks on my lawn.
Masterfully crafted after being purchased by lobbyists for the companies. The financial return of lobbying is massive -- more than making cool products people love.
We find firms lobbying for this provision have a return in excess of $220 for every $1 spent on lobbying, or 22,000%.
That said, I think the nature of the parties in this instance is clouding/.'s judgment. Let's say it was a secure email provider who stored all data offshore, but was a US company. Would/. in general really be so willing to side with the Feds? I doubt it, and I see a lot of potential problems that could hurt real people as a result of this decision surviving appeals.
I have a "debt" in collections right now. Comcast claims I owe $95 to them. Last winter I moved to a place where I could not only get other service, Comcast doesn't even serve (thankfully). So I told Comcast I'd be terminating my service effective Jan 15. Comcast had my credit card to auto-bill for it's "service".
Then in March I started getting collection calls from companies Comcast hired to get this from me. Nobody will prove to me that I actually owe this money. And what's odd is the amount: $95 when my monthly bill for internet-only service was about $60 or $70. I just got another call yesterday on it.
I could easily pay it and never even feel the hit. But fuck that! Comcast sucks beyond the ability of science to measure and I'm so sick of being taken by them, they're going to have to take me into small claims court and get a court order for this sum.
And yeah, I get that this will harm my sterling credit rating, but what a great means of extortion. Bill people small amounts under the threat of losing their good credit rating and even when people don't actually owe the money, they'll pay up to save their rating.
How lame -- your thoughtful post with an understanding of the history gets modded troll. All of the "Dem Ruskies Arr Evul" posts get modded up.
The media is doing such a great job inciting people, I'm sure we'll get another useless war in a dispute that isn't about us soon.
Oh, and for all of you all upset about the plane: USS Vincennes. We have our sins and getting up on that high pedestal looks really stupid when we do it. We should leave the condemnations of Russia to countries who haven't done the exact same thing.
The US and Russia are equals. I bet you never heard of the USS Vincennes and Iran Air Flight 665. It's cool, I'm sure you'll figure out a way to lie to yourself or rationalize that shootdown based on trivial differences in order to maintain the lie you tell yourself that the US is not also a terrorist organization.
Not even extreme sports. Football, skiing, golf, jogging -- they all have dangers and people have suffered from accidents or repetitive stress injuries. Of course, sitting at home safe in your Lazyboy has its own health risks. Or driving -- that is probably one of the most dangerous things we do.
All of these people saying "I shouldn't have to pay for...." fundamentally fail to understand that insurance about spreading risk, not concentrating it. Besides, there are risks in everything one does, and even risks in things one chooses not not to do -- attempting to fully regulate that through insurance coverage would mean everyone would be excluded for one reason or another, and only the extremely wealthy would be able to be fully free. Alternatively, by partially regulating activities -- choosing which risks to accept and which to exclude -- that is just a way for the powerful to exert control over those who have less power. Finally, there are financial costs to exclusion -- lawsuits and such. Any time litigation ensues between insurers (*) about who should pay, that is a pure unmitigated waste of resources. Better to just accept that through insurance, you might contribute a dime to a cause you don't like, but in all likelihood, someone else is going to contribute a dime to you for a reason he/she doesn't like. In the end, over hundreds of millions of people, it's a wash, and cheaper to just accept it than bitch and litigate and regulate.
(*) This could be Ins. Co. v. Individual Person (consider the individual a potential self-insurer)
This is a great debate between Glenn Greenwald and GWB's drug czar and in it, reference to Portugal and studies related to that are made. From there, you can do your own searching:
States with greater privacy protections written into their constitutions outlaw DUI checkpoints. Those more closely aligned with the Feds' "guilty until proven innocent" mentality, use DUI checkpoints.
By accepting the propriety of a search without any articulable suspicion that you may be engaged in illegal activity, DUI checkpoint states, and the people who support such laws, are steepening the slope we're on as we glide toward police state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... Once loaded, do a text search for "ten states" to get the list of those on a higher moral level with regard to this issue.
If you aren't a member of the government, the same or less will get you a decade or more. What I meant without being clear enough, was that the special treatment is shocking given the special access government officials have. If the government cared about people's privacy, those in a position of trust who fail to safeguard that privacy would be subject to the same or more punishment as any random person who did the same thing.
Actually he _was_ convicted of misusing the DB (max sentence 12 months). He's been in jail for more than 18 months so at this point, he has served more than enough to satisfy the highest possible sentence.
As a side note, the most disturbing part of this case to me, was Valle's illegal use of the DB to find out information about people for purely personal reasons. I'm sort of shocked that such a crime carries a max 12 month sentence. What that says to me is that law enforcement agencies and the governments that set them up, don't really care how their own misuse government power. Nor does the media for the most part as demonstrated by the thousands of words spent on the prurient charms of this case, but in any article, there is at most a single sentence about the DB issue.
Here's an example:
Tabloid same as NY Times, you'll have to search the page for "database" to find that single sentence.:
When is that brain cancer you have finally going to impede your ability to type? Not soon enough.
You are one of the people who comes to mind when I think of this quote: "I've never killed a man, but I've read many an obituary with great satisfaction."
For that to happen, Obama would have to be involved.
Politicians are slimy evil scum, but they aren't stupid. They saw what happened to Nixon, so now they do all the same stuff he did, just through levels of insulation. GOP and DNC alike -- fetid pukes the lot of them.
Just how broad is the radius of this location? If a person living in New York City buys something online from a store in Seattle while he and his phone are in NY, where does the credit card transaction occur? If the answer is Seattle, the definition of what is a reasonable proximity between transaction and phone has to be quite loose, otherwise a lot of legit transactions will be botched. I don't actually know anything about CC processing however, so I would be interested in hearing from people who do.
Isn't sort of insane to cross a border with one's primary phone? I have my old retired android phone which I "fillup" with a prepaid card (and absolutely nothing else on it all), for crossing the border. I'm surprised more people don't do this.
Slashdot Mirror
In olden times when the entire monitor had a resolution less than that occupied by side-bar advertisements today, the top menu bar made sense. It really did save space over putting the menu repetitively inside every app window.
But ... today it is very common to use dual monitors (at minimum) with pretty extreme resolutions. Moving the cursor from the right side of an external monitor to the left side upper corner, often feels like walking across Montana. With real estate to waste nowadays, I'd really like to see the menu go into application windows. One of the joys of X11 apps in OSX, is the fact that the menu is contained in the window.
But the private key leaves your system? Even if the private key is encrypted, unless it is encrypted by a different private key on your system, you've just given away your private key (e.g., LastPass has the decryption key to your private key which means LP has your private key, albeit in a convoluted manner). I don't know anything about LastPass, but if this is true, it isn't confidence inspiring.
Is there a reason you don't let your email client and a GPG plugin handled the encryption/decryption?
Like you I have no qualms with the "unlimited" description. Back then, when you wanted to use any network service, you dialed in, probably on your only phone line, which before voicemail service (or as an expensive extra charge), meant people got a busy signal if trying to call you. When you were done online, you'd disconnect to free up the phone line for yourself as well as the ISP's modem for other users' use.
What was cool about an "unlimited" plan, of course, was that you didn't have to worry about racking up hourly charges -- $3hr back in the early 1990s was close to the minimum wage at the time, so for a poor college student, that could be quite substantial and acted as a heavy limiter of use.
Even today, we hear "unlimited broadband" but if someone wanted to be pedantic, even at the record 50+ tbs rate, there is a limit to how much data can be sent or received in a month. I think people still get that -- kind of like how "all you can eat" doesn't mean you can eat a whole cow -- somethings just aren't possible.
Although certainly not the first ISP, I think Delphi was one of the first commercial online services to offer internet access (maybe late 1992, definitely by 93). Delphi was totally text based, but if I recall, it only cost $20/month for 20 hours while AOL, though snazzier, was something like $3/hr. The one good thing about AOL discs in the very early 90s, was coming bundled with a version of GeoWorks that ran on DOS.
Anyway, I finally got actual internet through a dial-up ISP in late 1994, then DSL in 1999. And now, I toy with the idea of cutting the cord completely from time to time, as I get too tired to cuss at the punks on my lawn.
Masterfully crafted after being purchased by lobbyists for the companies. The financial return of lobbying is massive -- more than making cool products people love.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
That said, I think the nature of the parties in this instance is clouding /.'s judgment. Let's say it was a secure email provider who stored all data offshore, but was a US company. Would /. in general really be so willing to side with the Feds? I doubt it, and I see a lot of potential problems that could hurt real people as a result of this decision surviving appeals.
I have a "debt" in collections right now. Comcast claims I owe $95 to them. Last winter I moved to a place where I could not only get other service, Comcast doesn't even serve (thankfully). So I told Comcast I'd be terminating my service effective Jan 15. Comcast had my credit card to auto-bill for it's "service".
Then in March I started getting collection calls from companies Comcast hired to get this from me. Nobody will prove to me that I actually owe this money. And what's odd is the amount: $95 when my monthly bill for internet-only service was about $60 or $70. I just got another call yesterday on it.
I could easily pay it and never even feel the hit. But fuck that! Comcast sucks beyond the ability of science to measure and I'm so sick of being taken by them, they're going to have to take me into small claims court and get a court order for this sum.
And yeah, I get that this will harm my sterling credit rating, but what a great means of extortion. Bill people small amounts under the threat of losing their good credit rating and even when people don't actually owe the money, they'll pay up to save their rating.
How lame -- your thoughtful post with an understanding of the history gets modded troll. All of the "Dem Ruskies Arr Evul" posts get modded up.
The media is doing such a great job inciting people, I'm sure we'll get another useless war in a dispute that isn't about us soon.
Oh, and for all of you all upset about the plane: USS Vincennes. We have our sins and getting up on that high pedestal looks really stupid when we do it. We should leave the condemnations of Russia to countries who haven't done the exact same thing.
The US and Russia are equals. I bet you never heard of the USS Vincennes and Iran Air Flight 665. It's cool, I'm sure you'll figure out a way to lie to yourself or rationalize that shootdown based on trivial differences in order to maintain the lie you tell yourself that the US is not also a terrorist organization.
Not to mention too dumb to know what an Airbus looks like ... oh wait, that's us.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Not even extreme sports. Football, skiing, golf, jogging -- they all have dangers and people have suffered from accidents or repetitive stress injuries. Of course, sitting at home safe in your Lazyboy has its own health risks. Or driving -- that is probably one of the most dangerous things we do.
All of these people saying "I shouldn't have to pay for ...." fundamentally fail to understand that insurance about spreading risk, not concentrating it. Besides, there are risks in everything one does, and even risks in things one chooses not not to do -- attempting to fully regulate that through insurance coverage would mean everyone would be excluded for one reason or another, and only the extremely wealthy would be able to be fully free. Alternatively, by partially regulating activities -- choosing which risks to accept and which to exclude -- that is just a way for the powerful to exert control over those who have less power. Finally, there are financial costs to exclusion -- lawsuits and such. Any time litigation ensues between insurers (*) about who should pay, that is a pure unmitigated waste of resources. Better to just accept that through insurance, you might contribute a dime to a cause you don't like, but in all likelihood, someone else is going to contribute a dime to you for a reason he/she doesn't like. In the end, over hundreds of millions of people, it's a wash, and cheaper to just accept it than bitch and litigate and regulate.
(*) This could be Ins. Co. v. Individual Person (consider the individual a potential self-insurer)
This is a great debate between Glenn Greenwald and GWB's drug czar and in it, reference to Portugal and studies related to that are made. From there, you can do your own searching:
http://vimeo.com/32110912
Is coffee recreational or a building block of life? Either way, why do you hate coffee so much?
Hmmm. Have you checked for system updates on your humor chip? Show me one cowboy who hollers "bing!"
States with greater privacy protections written into their constitutions outlaw DUI checkpoints. Those more closely aligned with the Feds' "guilty until proven innocent" mentality, use DUI checkpoints.
By accepting the propriety of a search without any articulable suspicion that you may be engaged in illegal activity, DUI checkpoint states, and the people who support such laws, are steepening the slope we're on as we glide toward police state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Once loaded, do a text search for "ten states" to get the list of those on a higher moral level with regard to this issue.
If you aren't a member of the government, the same or less will get you a decade or more. What I meant without being clear enough, was that the special treatment is shocking given the special access government officials have. If the government cared about people's privacy, those in a position of trust who fail to safeguard that privacy would be subject to the same or more punishment as any random person who did the same thing.
Actually he _was_ convicted of misusing the DB (max sentence 12 months). He's been in jail for more than 18 months so at this point, he has served more than enough to satisfy the highest possible sentence.
As a side note, the most disturbing part of this case to me, was Valle's illegal use of the DB to find out information about people for purely personal reasons. I'm sort of shocked that such a crime carries a max 12 month sentence. What that says to me is that law enforcement agencies and the governments that set them up, don't really care how their own misuse government power. Nor does the media for the most part as demonstrated by the thousands of words spent on the prurient charms of this case, but in any article, there is at most a single sentence about the DB issue.
Here's an example:
Tabloid same as NY Times, you'll have to search the page for "database" to find that single sentence.:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07...
Does a "dumb phone" exist? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call them weak computing devices with few _user_ accessible features?
You seem to have forgotten that as modern Americans we have:
1) Cameras.
2) The ability to transmit photos worldwide.
3) Access to the work of reporters who can add textual context to those photos.
Even if the protest was seen by 50k people, what actually matters, is if it gets play on the internet, news papers, and/or television.
When is that brain cancer you have finally going to impede your ability to type? Not soon enough.
You are one of the people who comes to mind when I think of this quote: "I've never killed a man, but I've read many an obituary with great satisfaction."
That was beautifully written. Replying so I can find it in the future more easily.
Politicians are slimy evil scum, but they aren't stupid. They saw what happened to Nixon, so now they do all the same stuff he did, just through levels of insulation. GOP and DNC alike -- fetid pukes the lot of them.
Why do you own a smartphone that doesn't have an internet connection? You might as well just get a landline.
Just how broad is the radius of this location? If a person living in New York City buys something online from a store in Seattle while he and his phone are in NY, where does the credit card transaction occur? If the answer is Seattle, the definition of what is a reasonable proximity between transaction and phone has to be quite loose, otherwise a lot of legit transactions will be botched. I don't actually know anything about CC processing however, so I would be interested in hearing from people who do.
Isn't sort of insane to cross a border with one's primary phone? I have my old retired android phone which I "fillup" with a prepaid card (and absolutely nothing else on it all), for crossing the border. I'm surprised more people don't do this.