And BTW, the real scandal here is why is this not a standard feature of answering machines by now? This is a relatively easy to implement feature that we should have had for years by now. Why don't we? Because the makers of the devices also make equipment for the phone companies who have no interest in blocking calls, and these powerful companies position allows them to call the shots in home answering machines.
Unfortunately, as long as surveys and political calls are exempted from the do-not-call rules, the PERCEPTION will continue to be that these systems, and the laws regarding phone solicitation, don't work.
The solution is simple. Incoming calls from non-whitelisted numbers are first asked to enter an extension number, as if it were a business. You then give out your number to people you WANT to call you with an extension number. Incoming calls that don't know allowed numbers just can't get through, and you can have a few valid numbers so that you can categorize your allowed incoming callers as well if you want. Extension number as password. Asterisk can be set up to do this.
However, it doesn't explain what would suppress both empathy and analytics, something clearly evidenced in this post.
"Laziness" is an easy claim to generalize, but it not always so easily stands up to scrutiny. Other possible explanations are: insufficient education, insufficient opportunity, and to risk being politically incorrect, insufficient IQ. Sufficient ambition may be able to counter some of these in some circumstances, not all. And someone who would think everyone who does not pay taxes is lazy and shiftless could hardly be less analytical.
Giving notice for pirating is one thing. But when they start giving notice for using TOR, because they THINK you MIGHT be doing something illegal, we have a problem. I'm afraid that will be next.
Spend all that $$ on cable, and all you get is junk with commercials. I'm sorry, but I remember back in the late '60s when cable first arrived, and the rationale was "no commercials". For me, that rationale hasn't changed, I won't pay for stuff that is delivering more than about 1% advertising, and that 1% should be mostly restricted to trailers for other videos. I get most of my content on DVD one way or another (library, rental, purchase) or streaming from PBS. I also don't care much for Blu ray, my eyes aren't all that good and they take up too much storage on my hard drive.
All I'm saying is, someone who is homosexual but does not recognize that fact may find the argument that it is a choice reasonable in a way that someone who has recognized that their gender attraction is not so flexible does not. Perhaps you are trying to argue that everyones gender attraction is mutable? Essentially, that everyone is inherently bi-sexual? I would say that for some it is most certainly mutable, but in others it is less so if at all.
In this case, the rumor spreading is automated, and is findable via search engines all over the world. A dick that writes your phone # on a bathroom wall reaches a limited audience.
Not using FB doesn't fix the problem, because anyone can post anything to Facebook about anyone. Better you DO have a FB account, as at least there is some chance you'll get notified when someone chooses to post something undesirable (to you) about you. If you don't have a FB account, you won't even know that there's a doctored photo of you having sex with a donkey posted with your name on it.
Read the freakin' article. Facebook can out your most personal secrets if you tell them to your personal FRIENDS (in person, not on FB) and those FRIENDS later post it on FB. That's true even if you DON'T EVEN HAVE a FB account.
Anyone with a FB account, whether a friend or not, could doctor up a photo of you that makes it look like you're doing something unsavory and post it to FB tagged with your name on it. A prospective employer could search on your name, find the photo, recognize it as you, think that it's a real and undoctored photo, and you may never know why you were turned down for the job. And this is true even if you don't have a FB account. If you do have a FB account, there's at least some chance you'll get notified you were tagged in the photo and can remove the identifier...
For those who have chosen to deny their own innate homosexuality it is. For those of us who feel they couldn't willingly choose to be homosexual if our life depended on it, it's clearly not.
I'm sure it's much easier to do if they just don't admit they're doing it. Then you don't need permission. That's how wiretapping works in the US anyway...
The problem is, you'd spend at least as much time listening to that even if you were in Heaven. What these fundies don't realize is, the Heaven they offer is just as torturous as their Hell, just in a different way. I consider the psychological torture of their Heaven, worse than the physical torture of their Hell.
Google+ looked great at first, but then they did a complete overhaul of the interface and messed it up so bad that nobody I know uses it anymore. Lessons to learn:
1. Make social network UI changes gradually-- a complete overhaul is guaranteed to piss off a lot of users, no matter how much YOU like it. Change is a bad thing for many people. Facebook has already learned this one, for the most part.
2. Clean chronological sorting is a necessity, and if you can't decide whether to use the OP date or the last comment date, offer both.
3. Don't presume that your mobile users have any other computer.
Take tor for example. I'm interested in secure and/or anonymous surfing, but have no particular need for it at present. I recently thought it might be fun to throw tor on a machine and try it out. It soon became More-Trouble-Than-It-Was-Worth. Documentation was horrible, but so was the ease-of-use. The product needed more usability improvements than it needed better documentation, but it needed that too. It's been my experience that just about any product that includes encryption is suffering from a major handicap. I know there's no such thing as "painless" encryption, but if non-techie nerds are ever to use it, it must be comprehensible, and far easier than it currently is to use. And bad documentation is not a good start-- good documentation will help show you where the product needs usability improvements.
I've been looking for a way to automatically screen out sites overdependent on advertising revenue, this looks like a perfect method to do so-- turn on do-not-track and they won't do business with me-- what more could I ask for?
Slashdot Mirror
Does it come in a Guy Fawkes?
Who shops at major groceries anymore? I get most of my food at the farmers market. I like to pick my own produce, not phone it in.
And BTW, the real scandal here is why is this not a standard feature of answering machines by now? This is a relatively easy to implement feature that we should have had for years by now. Why don't we? Because the makers of the devices also make equipment for the phone companies who have no interest in blocking calls, and these powerful companies position allows them to call the shots in home answering machines.
Unfortunately, as long as surveys and political calls are exempted from the do-not-call rules, the PERCEPTION will continue to be that these systems, and the laws regarding phone solicitation, don't work. The solution is simple. Incoming calls from non-whitelisted numbers are first asked to enter an extension number, as if it were a business. You then give out your number to people you WANT to call you with an extension number. Incoming calls that don't know allowed numbers just can't get through, and you can have a few valid numbers so that you can categorize your allowed incoming callers as well if you want. Extension number as password. Asterisk can be set up to do this.
"Relevant" here means they don't argue with you when your ideas are stupid.
What they don't realize, is that it IS the Milky Way, as it was 13.3 billion years ago. Of course it's smaller.
However, it doesn't explain what would suppress both empathy and analytics, something clearly evidenced in this post.
"Laziness" is an easy claim to generalize, but it not always so easily stands up to scrutiny. Other possible explanations are: insufficient education, insufficient opportunity, and to risk being politically incorrect, insufficient IQ. Sufficient ambition may be able to counter some of these in some circumstances, not all. And someone who would think everyone who does not pay taxes is lazy and shiftless could hardly be less analytical.
The existance of conservative Republicans proves there must be an additional factor, something that suppresses BOTH empathy and analytics...
All it would take is one of these to mutate in the wild into something not so particular, and wham, worldwide pandemic.
So what exactly is the US track record of abiding by international consensus? Seems to me, it's not all that good.
Giving notice for pirating is one thing. But when they start giving notice for using TOR, because they THINK you MIGHT be doing something illegal, we have a problem. I'm afraid that will be next.
Spend all that $$ on cable, and all you get is junk with commercials. I'm sorry, but I remember back in the late '60s when cable first arrived, and the rationale was "no commercials". For me, that rationale hasn't changed, I won't pay for stuff that is delivering more than about 1% advertising, and that 1% should be mostly restricted to trailers for other videos. I get most of my content on DVD one way or another (library, rental, purchase) or streaming from PBS. I also don't care much for Blu ray, my eyes aren't all that good and they take up too much storage on my hard drive.
All I'm saying is, someone who is homosexual but does not recognize that fact may find the argument that it is a choice reasonable in a way that someone who has recognized that their gender attraction is not so flexible does not. Perhaps you are trying to argue that everyones gender attraction is mutable? Essentially, that everyone is inherently bi-sexual? I would say that for some it is most certainly mutable, but in others it is less so if at all.
In this case, the rumor spreading is automated, and is findable via search engines all over the world. A dick that writes your phone # on a bathroom wall reaches a limited audience.
Not using FB doesn't fix the problem, because anyone can post anything to Facebook about anyone. Better you DO have a FB account, as at least there is some chance you'll get notified when someone chooses to post something undesirable (to you) about you. If you don't have a FB account, you won't even know that there's a doctored photo of you having sex with a donkey posted with your name on it.
Read the freakin' article. Facebook can out your most personal secrets if you tell them to your personal FRIENDS (in person, not on FB) and those FRIENDS later post it on FB. That's true even if you DON'T EVEN HAVE a FB account.
Anyone with a FB account, whether a friend or not, could doctor up a photo of you that makes it look like you're doing something unsavory and post it to FB tagged with your name on it. A prospective employer could search on your name, find the photo, recognize it as you, think that it's a real and undoctored photo, and you may never know why you were turned down for the job. And this is true even if you don't have a FB account. If you do have a FB account, there's at least some chance you'll get notified you were tagged in the photo and can remove the identifier...
For those who have chosen to deny their own innate homosexuality it is. For those of us who feel they couldn't willingly choose to be homosexual if our life depended on it, it's clearly not.
I'm sure it's much easier to do if they just don't admit they're doing it. Then you don't need permission. That's how wiretapping works in the US anyway...
Zuckerberg is always dicking around with it looking for an angle. Maybe he wanted to give Romney a boost, just to see if he can.
NBC is not the channel for LWNs, MSDN is.
No it isn't, Democracy Now is. The fact that you didn't notice that shows just how skewed to the right all of the rest of them are.
The problem is, you'd spend at least as much time listening to that even if you were in Heaven. What these fundies don't realize is, the Heaven they offer is just as torturous as their Hell, just in a different way. I consider the psychological torture of their Heaven, worse than the physical torture of their Hell.
Google+ looked great at first, but then they did a complete overhaul of the interface and messed it up so bad that nobody I know uses it anymore. Lessons to learn:
1. Make social network UI changes gradually-- a complete overhaul is guaranteed to piss off a lot of users, no matter how much YOU like it. Change is a bad thing for many people. Facebook has already learned this one, for the most part.
2. Clean chronological sorting is a necessity, and if you can't decide whether to use the OP date or the last comment date, offer both.
3. Don't presume that your mobile users have any other computer.
Seems to me it'd be pulverized by a meteor long before that anyhow...
Take tor for example. I'm interested in secure and/or anonymous surfing, but have no particular need for it at present. I recently thought it might be fun to throw tor on a machine and try it out. It soon became More-Trouble-Than-It-Was-Worth. Documentation was horrible, but so was the ease-of-use. The product needed more usability improvements than it needed better documentation, but it needed that too. It's been my experience that just about any product that includes encryption is suffering from a major handicap. I know there's no such thing as "painless" encryption, but if non-techie nerds are ever to use it, it must be comprehensible, and far easier than it currently is to use. And bad documentation is not a good start-- good documentation will help show you where the product needs usability improvements.
I've been looking for a way to automatically screen out sites overdependent on advertising revenue, this looks like a perfect method to do so-- turn on do-not-track and they won't do business with me-- what more could I ask for?