My PIN was one of the ones that were stolen. I found out about this by receiving a phone call from Citibank that essentially said: We have discovered that your account data has been stolen. Your account has been closed effective immediately, and you will receive a new card and new account number within 7 days.
I was impressed with how forthright they were about it, but it's been a pain as I had a couple of automatic debits fail this week, and now I have to update my account number everywhere.
The only reason to buy a hybrid is show other people how much you care about the environment: it's a statement, not an answer.
You know what I think is even better than faux environmentalists driving Hybrids? Faux environmentalists driving SUVs. In Indiana we have these "Environment" license plates that people put on their cars... I think they donate $10 to some state fund for environmentalism or whatever. But the best part is that I see those plates on all manner of cars - just last week I saw one on an Expedition... cracked me up.
These people are right up there with the morons who read and obey the chain emails recommending that they "stick it to the oil companies" and not fill up on Wednesdays.
So long story short, I'll take the pompous environmentalists over the pompous pseudo-enviromentalists any day.
Microsoft exists to make a profit. It does not exist for any other reason. The sole reason for the corporation is to make money for Gates and the stockholders. Period. This is the only reason any corporation exists - Exxon, McDonald's, Apple, Boeing, GM, Dow Corning, Intel, AMD... they exist to make money.
So why would a corporation try to spin themselves as "pro-consumer"? One of two reasons:
To make people think they are pro-consumer so they buy more of their products
To be able to claim to governments, judges and juries that they are pro-consumer
It really is that simple. Any corporation that isn't seeking to maximize profits for its shareholders is liable for all kinds of nasty lawsuits. The only question is how many dirty tricks are shareholders willing to put up with, how nasty of a reputation can be put forth before non-captive consumers turn their backs, and just how vicious can they become before the government steps in and smacks their noses with a rolled up legal code?
You are correct in the sense that corporations exist to make a profit. However, this does not mean that there isn't a way to give the consumer what they want and still make money doing it.
There are a lot of business theories out there that say by seriously and actually putting the consumer first, you will maximize the shareholders profit in the long term - not just to meet this quarter's earnings report. Check out Built to Last by Jim Collins - specifically his "third myth" of successful companies - "The most successful companies exist first and foremost to maximize profits." He goes on to describe how that isn't true.
There are a lot of Slashdot types who think that there is this great war being fought out there where companies are all trying to screw us out of our money. Now I'm not saying that a lot of companies aren't trying to do exactly that. There are (see SBC, Microsoft, etc). But what I am saying is that there are a number of companies out there that actually do try to be pro-consumer, and just happen to make a lot of money doing it. Some examples:
Disney - Its themeparks and ESPN networks seem to give the consumer exactly what they're looking for
Google - Took some of the most commonly used web functionality and made it much simpler, specifically by figuring out exactly what the consumer wanted out of it
Apple - By making its products as simple and easy to use for the consumer
French and English both have roots that go back very far, but English has evolved and degenerated so much that in fact there are now at least two english languages: American english and British english, with different spelling and grammar rules. French is still very much held together, and the ethymology of French words is easier to retrace, because in many cases the spelling still reflects the origin of a given word.
Is that right? Have you ever heard of Quebec? I don't speak French, but my grandmother is French Canadian (now lives in the US) and speaks both English and French natively. She says Canadian French is more different from French French than American English is from British English.
And this wikipedia article concurs. Relevant quote is "Interintelligibility of formally and informally spoken Quebec French with France French is a matter of heated debates between linguists. If a comparison can be made, the differences between both dialects are probably larger than those between American, British, and Australian English, but not as large as those between High and Swiss German."
They should retitle that page "Common errors in web design" -- I think I am dizzy after just trying to read that.
Re:Skills you learn could save your real relations
on
Virtual Girlfriend
·
· Score: 1
Of course, it helps that she's Eastern European and doesn't grant importance to the Hallmark Holidays(tm). American women have bought into that bullshit wholesale, I'm done with them.
Wait until you marry her and she gets her citizenship.
Any investment analyst will tell you that it's far better to have numerous low-priced shared than a few high-priced ones
It depends on what your goal is. There is one huge advantage to a high stock price -- it cuts down dramatically on the "day trader effect." It is more difficult for people to cause a day-to-day volatility in the stock when the price is high. However for a Google it probably doesn't matter that much since volatility will be fairly high anyways.
It really doesn't matter because the average investor doesn't know any better. This is the same reason that stocks go up when the company announces a stock split. The idiots eat these stocks up because they think that there's something magical about owning a stock through the split.
Let me preface this by saying I have a degree in Finance. I ended up in IT because I realized that's where my true passion was, but nevertheless I learned a lot of crap about stock valuation and stuff like this.
Although the parent poster was for the most part correct, there is a significant meaning to a stock split to an investor. When a company's management decides to conduct a stock split, there are sending a signal to the market that they have a high confidence in their stock price. Management does not generally split stock that they feel may drop in the future.
Investors then purchase the stock, thereby driving up the price, because this action (a stock split) signifies that management perceives some additional value in the company that the general public does not. And since a stock price is simply the market's valuation of the company (not the instrinsic value of the company itself -- that can't be changed by a split as the parent pointed out), the price goes up because the split means new information has been released into the market. All of this is predicated on the theory that management knows more about the future direction of the company than the general public, which hopefully is true.
Before you mod this as flamebait, read it.. I think I have some valid points here.
I am tired of everyone going on and on about how amazing Lance Armstrong is. Sure, he is a fine athlete... he couldn't win these without being one. However you have to consider some other things when you think about Lance Armstrong:
This is the only major race he participates in each year, unlike his competitors
He spends all year training specifically for this event, unlike his competitors
His teammates do what they can to help him win at the expense of their own times (I know this happens throughout cycling, but it's true nonetheless)
To use an analogy: It would be like Tiger Woods only playing the Masters every year. And practicing on the Masters course every week for the year leading up to it. And to top it off, he would make friends with other golfers, who would help screw up other golfers' games, to ensure that Tiger won. How many of you would consider Tiger Woods hands-down the best golfer in the world at that point? (I know this is a crude analogy, but it gets the point across)
I can see people who don't want to pay for the connection sniffing someone's traffic, then cloning their MAC address and surfing for free after the guy switches off.
Considering that like 1 out of a 1000 people might know how to do that, I am sure Lufthansa is just going to say "more power to you, pal" -- this is really aimed at business travelers... they'll take their chances with the random geek who manages to snag free access.
You must be forgetting about the GST and PST, which if I remember correctly, totals 15% in sales tax (in Ontario anyways) -- that adds up. Even the highest sales tax in the US only comes to about 7 or 8%... and most are much lower than that.
If there is nothing wrong with the link, then can you explain why I saw a boatload of disgusting porn windows open up when I clicked on it? I was not lying when I said that.
You could always do what I do... I have an old version of Real Player from around 1998 and it seems to play 90% of anything I try to listen to. That was before they loaded it up with crap. Try searching the web and you might be able to find install files for an old version.
Hey everyone... I don't know if anyone is still paying attention to this thread, but I emailed Mailblocks yesterday about their terms of service and this is their response to me:
Agreed. These were old and should not have been on the site. See the note
below and the new versions now on the site.
Dear Mailblocks Customer,
Our apologies, we picked up an old version of our TOS when we went live. We will
NOT be allowing 3rd parties to send unsolicted email to our userbase. Please
check the site for the updated and correct TOS. We apologize for any confusion
or inconvenience.
Thank you for using Mailblocks. If we can be of further assistance, please don't
hesitate to contact us.
Regards,
The Mailblocks Team
> I just wanted to let you know that I was seriously considering signing up
> for your service today, but decided not to because of the inability to opt
> out of your promotional materials. What is the point of blocking everyone
> else's spam so I can get yours?
> When you guys come up with a better revenue model than that, let me know.
You guys need to spend some time with someone who is truly a computer novice for awhile. I recently taught my grandmother how to use email. The first day she went to hotmail, she asked me about every single box that came up and what option she should click. I mean "Do you want Windows to remember your password?" and "This is a secure connection yada yada yada." I told her click yes, click yes, click yes. That was one month ago.
I stopped by her house this past weekend and watched her use the Internet. Soon enough she was clicking Yes and OK to every pop-up box, and there are TONS of them. How can you expect a novice user to tell the difference between the typical Microsoft crap dialog boxes that pop up every 2 minutes and a look-alike dialog box from a malicious site.
Sure most Slashdot readers have enough sense not to blindly click OK to everything that comes up, but someone who is new to computers certainly does not.
We are getting of topic here, but too many people have used this analogy of shooting someone who breaks into their home. We studied an example case of this in a law class I had. You cannot shoot someone for breaking into your home. You can, however, shoot an armed robber, if he points the gun at you. But if you shoot him and he is not armed, then you're up on murder charges, buddy. That's the way it is.
That said, there may be exceptions in a few states, but in the vast majority of the US, the law is as I mentioned above.
I think your comments are absolutely correct. We will still get a ton of unsolicited phone calls even with this list.
But the one thing I read in all this that really excites me is the idea that companies will no longer be allowed to block your caller ID. If that is the case, then I am all about this. It puts me back in control of who I talk to. And then I don't even have to go through the trouble of hanging up on someone.
Slashdot Mirror
My PIN was one of the ones that were stolen. I found out about this by receiving a phone call from Citibank that essentially said: We have discovered that your account data has been stolen. Your account has been closed effective immediately, and you will receive a new card and new account number within 7 days.
I was impressed with how forthright they were about it, but it's been a pain as I had a couple of automatic debits fail this week, and now I have to update my account number everywhere.
Indeed, and once we see a lawsuit against Navin R. Johnson, well know for sure.
He hates these songs!!!
Great reference by the way.. that made my day. For those of you that didn't get the joke.
I've never looked up who owns the big chains of theatres, but is it a religously charged, mid-west family like the Waltons (Walmart)?
As a proud Michigander, let me clarify that Arkansas is not the Midwest.
The only reason to buy a hybrid is show other people how much you care about the environment: it's a statement, not an answer.
You know what I think is even better than faux environmentalists driving Hybrids? Faux environmentalists driving SUVs. In Indiana we have these "Environment" license plates that people put on their cars... I think they donate $10 to some state fund for environmentalism or whatever. But the best part is that I see those plates on all manner of cars - just last week I saw one on an Expedition... cracked me up.
These people are right up there with the morons who read and obey the chain emails recommending that they "stick it to the oil companies" and not fill up on Wednesdays.
So long story short, I'll take the pompous environmentalists over the pompous pseudo-enviromentalists any day.
Microsoft exists to make a profit. It does not exist for any other reason. The sole reason for the corporation is to make money for Gates and the stockholders. Period. This is the only reason any corporation exists - Exxon, McDonald's, Apple, Boeing, GM, Dow Corning, Intel, AMD... they exist to make money.
So why would a corporation try to spin themselves as "pro-consumer"? One of two reasons:
It really is that simple. Any corporation that isn't seeking to maximize profits for its shareholders is liable for all kinds of nasty lawsuits. The only question is how many dirty tricks are shareholders willing to put up with, how nasty of a reputation can be put forth before non-captive consumers turn their backs, and just how vicious can they become before the government steps in and smacks their noses with a rolled up legal code?
You are correct in the sense that corporations exist to make a profit. However, this does not mean that there isn't a way to give the consumer what they want and still make money doing it.
There are a lot of business theories out there that say by seriously and actually putting the consumer first, you will maximize the shareholders profit in the long term - not just to meet this quarter's earnings report. Check out Built to Last by Jim Collins - specifically his "third myth" of successful companies - "The most successful companies exist first and foremost to maximize profits." He goes on to describe how that isn't true.
There are a lot of Slashdot types who think that there is this great war being fought out there where companies are all trying to screw us out of our money. Now I'm not saying that a lot of companies aren't trying to do exactly that. There are (see SBC, Microsoft, etc). But what I am saying is that there are a number of companies out there that actually do try to be pro-consumer, and just happen to make a lot of money doing it. Some examples:
I could go on and on.
And *why* does that matter?
French and English both have roots that go back very far, but English has evolved and degenerated so much that in fact there are now at least two english languages: American english and British english, with different spelling and grammar rules. French is still very much held together, and the ethymology of French words is easier to retrace, because in many cases the spelling still reflects the origin of a given word.
Is that right? Have you ever heard of Quebec? I don't speak French, but my grandmother is French Canadian (now lives in the US) and speaks both English and French natively. She says Canadian French is more different from French French than American English is from British English.
And this wikipedia article concurs. Relevant quote is "Interintelligibility of formally and informally spoken Quebec French with France French is a matter of heated debates between linguists. If a comparison can be made, the differences between both dialects are probably larger than those between American, British, and Australian English, but not as large as those between High and Swiss German."
They should retitle that page "Common errors in web design" -- I think I am dizzy after just trying to read that.
Of course, it helps that she's Eastern European and doesn't grant importance to the Hallmark Holidays(tm). American women have bought into that bullshit wholesale, I'm done with them.
Wait until you marry her and she gets her citizenship.
Any investment analyst will tell you that it's far better to have numerous low-priced shared than a few high-priced ones
It depends on what your goal is. There is one huge advantage to a high stock price -- it cuts down dramatically on the "day trader effect." It is more difficult for people to cause a day-to-day volatility in the stock when the price is high. However for a Google it probably doesn't matter that much since volatility will be fairly high anyways.
It really doesn't matter because the average investor doesn't know any better. This is the same reason that stocks go up when the company announces a stock split. The idiots eat these stocks up because they think that there's something magical about owning a stock through the split.
Let me preface this by saying I have a degree in Finance. I ended up in IT because I realized that's where my true passion was, but nevertheless I learned a lot of crap about stock valuation and stuff like this.
Although the parent poster was for the most part correct, there is a significant meaning to a stock split to an investor. When a company's management decides to conduct a stock split, there are sending a signal to the market that they have a high confidence in their stock price. Management does not generally split stock that they feel may drop in the future.
Investors then purchase the stock, thereby driving up the price, because this action (a stock split) signifies that management perceives some additional value in the company that the general public does not. And since a stock price is simply the market's valuation of the company (not the instrinsic value of the company itself -- that can't be changed by a split as the parent pointed out), the price goes up because the split means new information has been released into the market. All of this is predicated on the theory that management knows more about the future direction of the company than the general public, which hopefully is true.
Before you mod this as flamebait, read it.. I think I have some valid points here.
I am tired of everyone going on and on about how amazing Lance Armstrong is. Sure, he is a fine athlete... he couldn't win these without being one. However you have to consider some other things when you think about Lance Armstrong:
To use an analogy: It would be like Tiger Woods only playing the Masters every year. And practicing on the Masters course every week for the year leading up to it. And to top it off, he would make friends with other golfers, who would help screw up other golfers' games, to ensure that Tiger won. How many of you would consider Tiger Woods hands-down the best golfer in the world at that point? (I know this is a crude analogy, but it gets the point across)
I can see people who don't want to pay for the connection sniffing someone's traffic, then cloning their MAC address and surfing for free after the guy switches off.
Considering that like 1 out of a 1000 people might know how to do that, I am sure Lufthansa is just going to say "more power to you, pal" -- this is really aimed at business travelers... they'll take their chances with the random geek who manages to snag free access.
"Viewing it at a higher resolution forces a large white space between the search listings and the ads"
The more white space between my search results and the ads, the better.
Obligatory link to Onion article about guy who doesn't own television:
v ision.html
http://www.theonion.com/onion3604/doesnt_own_tele
You must be forgetting about the GST and PST, which if I remember correctly, totals 15% in sales tax (in Ontario anyways) -- that adds up. Even the highest sales tax in the US only comes to about 7 or 8%... and most are much lower than that.
If there is nothing wrong with the link, then can you explain why I saw a boatload of disgusting porn windows open up when I clicked on it? I was not lying when I said that.
About 20 windows opened up with porn... and not good porn either.. unless your into pictures of the inside of someone's ass.
I hate people like you... you sick fuck.
You could always do what I do... I have an old version of Real Player from around 1998 and it seems to play 90% of anything I try to listen to. That was before they loaded it up with crap. Try searching the web and you might be able to find install files for an old version.
I think you need to get a room with yourself, buddy... you're not as witty as you think you are.
Hey everyone... I don't know if anyone is still paying attention to this thread, but I emailed Mailblocks yesterday about their terms of service and this is their response to me:
Agreed. These were old and should not have been on the site. See the note below and the new versions now on the site.
Dear Mailblocks Customer,
Our apologies, we picked up an old version of our TOS when we went live. We will NOT be allowing 3rd parties to send unsolicted email to our userbase. Please check the site for the updated and correct TOS. We apologize for any confusion or inconvenience.
Thank you for using Mailblocks. If we can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact us.
Regards,
The Mailblocks Team
> I just wanted to let you know that I was seriously considering signing up
> for your service today, but decided not to because of the inability to opt
> out of your promotional materials. What is the point of blocking everyone
> else's spam so I can get yours?
> When you guys come up with a better revenue model than that, let me know.
> > Sincerely,
> > Chris Nienstedt
Pretty interesting.
You guys need to spend some time with someone who is truly a computer novice for awhile. I recently taught my grandmother how to use email. The first day she went to hotmail, she asked me about every single box that came up and what option she should click. I mean "Do you want Windows to remember your password?" and "This is a secure connection yada yada yada." I told her click yes, click yes, click yes. That was one month ago.
I stopped by her house this past weekend and watched her use the Internet. Soon enough she was clicking Yes and OK to every pop-up box, and there are TONS of them. How can you expect a novice user to tell the difference between the typical Microsoft crap dialog boxes that pop up every 2 minutes and a look-alike dialog box from a malicious site.
Sure most Slashdot readers have enough sense not to blindly click OK to everything that comes up, but someone who is new to computers certainly does not.
We are getting of topic here, but too many people have used this analogy of shooting someone who breaks into their home. We studied an example case of this in a law class I had. You cannot shoot someone for breaking into your home. You can, however, shoot an armed robber, if he points the gun at you. But if you shoot him and he is not armed, then you're up on murder charges, buddy. That's the way it is.
That said, there may be exceptions in a few states, but in the vast majority of the US, the law is as I mentioned above.
I think your comments are absolutely correct. We will still get a ton of unsolicited phone calls even with this list.
But the one thing I read in all this that really excites me is the idea that companies will no longer be allowed to block your caller ID. If that is the case, then I am all about this. It puts me back in control of who I talk to. And then I don't even have to go through the trouble of hanging up on someone.