Yeah, exactly - they still have sales now. So what you are proposing is the elimination of rebates (which can be offered as sizable rewards because only the minority retrieves their rebate) in favor of sales - which are already in existence and therefore wouldn't be affected at all. Rebates are a nice little bonus for a few people.
Listen, you just need to realize that your proposal for changing how rebates are given out means that rebates are no longer profitable for the companies and would mean that the consumer ultimately gets screwed. What's so hard to understand about this? Read the fucking article at +4 and maybe you'll get a little understanding of how capitalism works you fucking retard.
For those who aren't in the know on this bit of history, (from http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/) I. The Basics
1. What is Godwin's Law?
Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to the Jargon File:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
2. What does it mean?
It pretty much means exactly what it says - as a Usenet thread goes on, the chances of somebody or something being compared to a Nazi approach one.
3. Yes, but what does it *mean*?
Aah, now *there's* the real question.
In case your head has been buried in the sand for the last sixty years or so, the Nazis were a German political party lead by Adolf Hitler that slaughtered upwards of ten-million people that didn't meet their standards of "ethnic purity" and set off to conquer Europe and the world in World War II. They are generally considered the most evil group of people to live in modern times, and to compare something or someone to them is usually considered the gravest insult imaginable.
As a Usenet discussion gets longer it tends to get more heated; as more heat enters the discussion, tensions get higher and people start to insult each other over anything they can think of. Godwin's Law merely notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a Nazi comparison.
4. That still doesn't answer my question. What does it *MEAN*?
The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time, become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.
So, what this means in practical terms:
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult,
the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been
going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as
a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the
other side.
"The act...has been represented to legislatures as little more than updating and minor amendment of existing state laws designed to prevent theft of cable or telephone service."
I notice that most of the legislators who are voting for these acts have had their opinion shaped by the MPAA or RIAA. The issues involved aren't so simple that your average non-geek can understand them in a cut and dry fashion and so when big money lobbying comes into town, any moral stance the politician might have taken (regardless of money, and I know the joke about politicians and morals) is not considered because the issue isn't understood on an objective basis. The only way I see around this is somehow educating the public on the issue. I hear Clear Channel using air time on their stations to issue anti-piracy clips but the other side doesn't have that type of mouthpiece. Public education is key but how does one go about educating people who can't get their VCRs to stop flashing 12:00???
Why do you think rebates would be continued? There's no incentive to offer rebates if all customers are guaranteed to receive them. Do you understand how capitalism works?
I enjoy both beer and sports. Does that mean I have no understanding of foreign policy? If you think so, I don't want to bother convincing you otherwise because you're obviously very close-minded.
Yeah, if that becomes a law, there just won't be rebates anymore - simple as that. The only reason rebates are profitable is because it is such a hassle to mail them in. Although, I think that if a company doesn't process your rebate request in the expected amount of time, and you can prove it, they should owe you...oh...two times the rebate.
Yes, those responsible for administration of the system are failing in their duties. Although, for technology (speaking generally now) to gain widespread acceptance, it is a much better and easier road if no formal training or understanding is required. What I mean is that if a person were able to run a phone network without any understanding of good security techniques, the installed base would be higher. Likewise, if a Linux tech weren't needed in a company for Linux to be the accepted platform, the buy-in is much lower and thus the sales of Linux increase.
What I am getting at is that it's in the interest of the manufacturer to implement a system where the password is randomly chosen so this kind of really simple exploit is avoided. This makes the system less technical and more like a microwave - i.e. it just works, you don't need to know how. Because people are using their phone systems like a microwave - they're not considering whether they need to reset the password or choose a lengthy one, whatnot. They just want it to work.
Re:An idea to improve the automated collect calls
on
Phreaking Not Dead Yet
·
· Score: 1
But just as the Yahoo registration has been implemented, wouldn't this be a better alternative to allowing fraud to take place? Yes, you are correct in that some people might be unable to use the system (although a workaround could be found involving the TTY setup) but the majority of users won't be affected and the possibility of fraud is lessened.
Of course, Yahoo has implemented their verification because it's not profitable for robots to register accounts for spamming purposes. On the other hand, the phone company isn't the one getting hit with the bills produced by fraud in a lot of cases.
The system won't get implemented until it's actually less costly to do so as compared to paying a few of the fraudulent charges and leaving the customer with the bag on the rest.
I am on broadband right now and have been for many years. I've never had the types of problems you describe.
Your liberalism is disgusting and you are confused about what services need to be provided by the government and what services should be provided by the market.
Ah, thanks for the info. The real question is...should I buy an XBox? I'm currently a happy PS2 owner and I think that if I were going to buy another console, it would be a Gamecube just to play Zelda. I've got a network adapter for my PS2 so I wouldn't invest in XBox Live and from what I understand, XBox Live is one of the main sellers of the system.
Call me a Republican, but I don't want any more government monopolies. Broadband is catching on throughout the country and I doubt that it's not available in the cited town.
First of all, you're assuming 9,000 people will be on this network. Knock that number in half. With the fact that not everyone owns a computer and there will be more than one person living in a house, you've got 4,500 people requesting cable. Why is this potential profit being taken from the cable companies and given to the government? What is the reason for it? Is it that the government has to do it since this is a service the people need but one the private sector cannot provide due to the size or the financial feasability of it? No, certainly not. Cable companies are doing well.
So forget about the challenges of this project - think about the need. I don't see that getting people on high-speed for $40 a month (to the government) outweighs the cost of having the government tightly coupled with my flow of data. Carnivore fans? Are you out there? Pipe in.
The point is that time and time again these companies are aiming for security through obscurity. Those who find flaws are rewarded with cease and desist letters and are told to keep quiet about them or are threatened with the DMCA.
Your plan to have secure systems where everyone just acts "decent" is horribly naive. Furthermore, your analogy is flawed. The risk of getting caught taking mail out of another's mailbox is much higher than exploiting a security flaw at a coke machine.
Well obviously I'm not going to do this. It's all a conspiracy, I work for the vendor and I'm trying to bait someone into releasing a traceable pdf file into the wild that will lead to a multi-trillion dollar lawsuit. yeah, that's it.
And yes, you're correct. Nit-picking is fun, isn't it?
They've updated it with a statement from Intel - not the most impartial judge of events, right? If they're a rumor about a company and some statement from the PR staff at the company, ten times out of ten, I am more interested in the rumor. The PR release is just fluff.
Purely for marketing purposes chief. If the suits realize the kids are ripping off the system, the system will get fixed really quickly. On the other hand, how many college kids are going to download security_analysis_of_collegecard_system.pdf? Come on now, it's MARKETING.
This comes from The Inquirer. A wild rumor is that there's only a small glitch and in actuality Intel just doesn't have enough stock to make the shipment. Either way, it's not good news for Intel's stock. But which is worse? Running into a problem in testing OR miscalculating how many units you need? I say the miscalculation represents more of a fundamental problem whereas a snag in testing is to be expected.
Ah, here's the text: "Japanese web site PC Watch today claimed that Intel has put a stop to general shipments of the Pentium 4 3GHz and 800MHz chipset products because of a glitch discovered during testing.
If the report is correct - and we've contact Intel for clarification - it's rather an embarrassing admission.
The Japanese site thinks that Intel is using a small glitch as an excuse and in actual fact the problem is a severe limitation in supplies of the chipset and CPU.
Intel's embargo on the Canterwood chipset, which uses the 800MHz front side bus expired just a few hours ago, and there are already dozens of reviews of the product all over the world wide wibble."
Why isn't there a way? It seems like it wouldn't be that hard to drop a.pdf file onto a p2p network (call it how_to_get_coke_for_free_at_school.pdf) and watch the downloads begin. The point is that by doing it in this manner, the flow of information is limited to those people who are tech-saavy enough (I know, I know - you wouldn't have to know very much to download and view a.pdf file) to get the file. This prevents many of the people who really need this information, the administrators and parents, from getting it. The college kids can still find out because they've grown up with computers but the people pulling the strings won't know their system is insecure because their knowledge of computers starts and stops with Solitaire.
Slashdot Mirror
Civil Rights movement in the United States during the 1960's: REVOLUTION!
Listen, you just need to realize that your proposal for changing how rebates are given out means that rebates are no longer profitable for the companies and would mean that the consumer ultimately gets screwed. What's so hard to understand about this? Read the fucking article at +4 and maybe you'll get a little understanding of how capitalism works you fucking retard.
It adds up. I think a good chunk of that cost had to do with getting the extensive archives of the New York Times into a digital format.
For those who aren't in the know on this bit of history, (from http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/)
I. The Basics
1. What is Godwin's Law?
Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin
(godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to
the Jargon File:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
2. What does it mean?
It pretty much means exactly what it says - as a Usenet thread
goes on, the chances of somebody or something being compared to a Nazi
approach one.
3. Yes, but what does it *mean*?
Aah, now *there's* the real question.
In case your head has been buried in the sand for the last sixty
years or so, the Nazis were a German political party lead by Adolf Hitler
that slaughtered upwards of ten-million people that didn't meet their
standards of "ethnic purity" and set off to conquer Europe and the world
in World War II. They are generally considered the most evil group of
people to live in modern times, and to compare something or someone to
them is usually considered the gravest insult imaginable.
As a Usenet discussion gets longer it tends to get more heated; as
more heat enters the discussion, tensions get higher and people start to
insult each other over anything they can think of. Godwin's Law merely
notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find
the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a
Nazi comparison.
4. That still doesn't answer my question. What does it *MEAN*?
The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a
thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging
mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time,
become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.
So, what this means in practical terms:
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult,
the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been
going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as
a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the
other side.
Why do you think rebates would be continued? There's no incentive to offer rebates if all customers are guaranteed to receive them. Do you understand how capitalism works?
I enjoy both beer and sports. Does that mean I have no understanding of foreign policy? If you think so, I don't want to bother convincing you otherwise because you're obviously very close-minded.
cost(5 minutes of filling out a form + 1 postage stamp) > $50, the rebate I just got.
The process isn't costly at all.
Yeah, if that becomes a law, there just won't be rebates anymore - simple as that. The only reason rebates are profitable is because it is such a hassle to mail them in. Although, I think that if a company doesn't process your rebate request in the expected amount of time, and you can prove it, they should owe you...oh...two times the rebate.
What I am getting at is that it's in the interest of the manufacturer to implement a system where the password is randomly chosen so this kind of really simple exploit is avoided. This makes the system less technical and more like a microwave - i.e. it just works, you don't need to know how. Because people are using their phone systems like a microwave - they're not considering whether they need to reset the password or choose a lengthy one, whatnot. They just want it to work.
Of course, Yahoo has implemented their verification because it's not profitable for robots to register accounts for spamming purposes. On the other hand, the phone company isn't the one getting hit with the bills produced by fraud in a lot of cases.
The system won't get implemented until it's actually less costly to do so as compared to paying a few of the fraudulent charges and leaving the customer with the bag on the rest.
Why? What would happen?
And if I see you in the street, it's on! Ha Ha.
If you want to be a socialist, go live in Europe.
I notice you've marked me as a foe. I take it when people disagree with you, they automatically are foes, right?
Your liberalism is disgusting and you are confused about what services need to be provided by the government and what services should be provided by the market.
Ah, thanks for the info. The real question is...should I buy an XBox? I'm currently a happy PS2 owner and I think that if I were going to buy another console, it would be a Gamecube just to play Zelda. I've got a network adapter for my PS2 so I wouldn't invest in XBox Live and from what I understand, XBox Live is one of the main sellers of the system.
First of all, you're assuming 9,000 people will be on this network. Knock that number in half. With the fact that not everyone owns a computer and there will be more than one person living in a house, you've got 4,500 people requesting cable. Why is this potential profit being taken from the cable companies and given to the government? What is the reason for it? Is it that the government has to do it since this is a service the people need but one the private sector cannot provide due to the size or the financial feasability of it? No, certainly not. Cable companies are doing well.
So forget about the challenges of this project - think about the need. I don't see that getting people on high-speed for $40 a month (to the government) outweighs the cost of having the government tightly coupled with my flow of data. Carnivore fans? Are you out there? Pipe in.
Was there a price drop? Last time I checked the XBox was $200.
I'm just curious where you're getting this idea - maybe I'm missing a dot in the puzzle.
Your plan to have secure systems where everyone just acts "decent" is horribly naive. Furthermore, your analogy is flawed. The risk of getting caught taking mail out of another's mailbox is much higher than exploiting a security flaw at a coke machine.
Obviously you're not involved in security.
And yes, you're correct. Nit-picking is fun, isn't it?
They've updated it with a statement from Intel - not the most impartial judge of events, right? If they're a rumor about a company and some statement from the PR staff at the company, ten times out of ten, I am more interested in the rumor. The PR release is just fluff.
Ah, here's the text:
"Japanese web site PC Watch today claimed that Intel has put a stop to general shipments of the Pentium 4 3GHz and 800MHz chipset products because of a glitch discovered during testing.
If the report is correct - and we've contact Intel for clarification - it's rather an embarrassing admission.
The Japanese site thinks that Intel is using a small glitch as an excuse and in actual fact the problem is a severe limitation in supplies of the chipset and CPU.
Intel's embargo on the Canterwood chipset, which uses the 800MHz front side bus expired just a few hours ago, and there are already dozens of reviews of the product all over the world wide wibble."
Why isn't there a way? It seems like it wouldn't be that hard to drop a .pdf file onto a p2p network (call it how_to_get_coke_for_free_at_school.pdf) and watch the downloads begin. The point is that by doing it in this manner, the flow of information is limited to those people who are tech-saavy enough (I know, I know - you wouldn't have to know very much to download and view a .pdf file) to get the file. This prevents many of the people who really need this information, the administrators and parents, from getting it. The college kids can still find out because they've grown up with computers but the people pulling the strings won't know their system is insecure because their knowledge of computers starts and stops with Solitaire.