First of all, no, you don't have to turn over your car to the insurance company if they decide that it's a total loss. Due to the value (or lack thereof) of my last car, it didn't take much damage (15 mph soft collision) to total it. So the insurance company says "Here, take $2k." I say "No, here's some equitable vehicles. I've done my homework. Give me $5k." They say "Okay, well, give us your car." I say "No, heres the clause in our agreement that says I can subtract $250 from your settlement and keep my car." They say "Um, okay."
Your insurance company will keep your car in the event of a total loss. Then they sell it through auction, etc. However, you can pay "salvage" cost (usually not very much at all), and keep your vehicle, even fix and drive it again, at your discretion.
Second... well, I'm not hearing as much ominous music as you are. Let's think about this for a minute. There's a device in your car that your insurance companies and government (via law enforcement) can use against you. You're (allegedly) not allowed to disable and/or remove it. I have yet to see a citation of any specific law that prohibits this, but I'll assume that people are speaking of the DMCA, Patriot Act, or other such non-sens... I mean, legislation. That's fine, but, well... why aren't people excited about being given proof against the many incorrect citations that everyone always complains about? Yeah, I don't like government tracking/control any more than you do. But let's be honest here: You control what kind of data these devices will record because... well, you're the driver.
You know, they've been selling devices for years that record front and rear video, speed data, brake data, etc. People are buying these and choosing to install them, not so that they can be used against them, but so they could use them to defend themselves against dishonest drivers and *ahem* "mistaken" law enforcement personnel. Now, your auto manufacturers have provided this device for you, free of charge. You don't need to disable it. All you have to do is figure out how to access the data. Hell, you can mount one of those matchstick-box-sized CPUs in a tiny shock-resistant case, wire it up, and slap a mini-LCD in your glove compartment. Then, when you roll down your window and he asks you if you know why he pulled you over, you can say "No, and neither does my continuous data recording system. Why did you pull me over?
Keep the airbags, keep the sensors. Hopefully, you'll never need to use either. But if you do, hopefully one can save your life, and the other your finances and legal standing.
The only way to keep the spammers out of those hosts is to wipe them clean. Eventually the owners will either leave them disconnected from the internet, or wiped, or will install something secure. Until then, they need to be wiped as many times as needed to get the message across.
Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. We should illegally hack into innocent users machines to "teach them a lesson" in security... repeatedly, until they either disable their network connection or disable their vulnerabilities? Isn't that like shooting the hostage?
To make a more accurate, real-world example, that would be like walking down the street, shooting at anything that moves, in an attempt to make sure that no one walks outside without adequate protection from... well, people like you. After all, we'll have no terrorists taking hostages if we kill all of the potential hostages, right?
I hope no one depends on you for network security or sysadmin support.
Brilliant scheme that is so simple. Try before you buy, get em hooked while they're young. Win their loyalty now and they will come back as paying customers in the future.
Everyone wins in this situation.
You don't work for the tobacco industry, do you?;-)
So, Stratton Sclavos says "The noise you're hearing publicly does not match the real impact of the [Sitefinder] system......We have asked for the data five times from anyone who has it--ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the IAB--and no one can produce data. All they can produce is these fringe stories."
Back on September 21s, Paul Twomey, president and CEO of Verisign said "As to your call for us to suspend the service, I would respectfully suggest that it would be premature to decide on any course of action until we first have had an opportunity to collect and review the available data." Well, have they seen this? It's a study that says:
Our analysis indicates that approximately 9% of Internet users at the time of the study did not receive Site Finder when they request a nonexistent.COM or.NET domain. More than half of this proportion results from China's apparent decision, effective beginning September 24-25, to block Site Finder, while the remainder reflects other network operators jointly.
The study also says:
We also note that relatively more intense blocking of Site Finder outside the US is precisely as anticipated by two distinct sets of concerns:
1. That Site Finder pages are always presented in English (notwithstanding users' language preferences)
2. That Site Finder pages are larger than ordinary error messages and therefore slower and more costly to transmit.
That seems pretty clear to me. It says that 91% of the entire internet was affected, in a manner that was more costly than necessary, and not user friendly to the majority of the people that saw it. (i.e. not in their native language.)
In addition, on October 7th, Verisign released a statement that said:
Prior to ICANN's October 3 directive to shut down the service, Site Finder had been used more than 48 million times by Internet users to get where they want to go online.
48 million. So... an independant study that Verisign called for, and Verisign themselves have found that the "real impact" of Sitefinder has been tremendous. And then Stratton Scalvos has the gall to say that "no one can produce data"?!
If you paid attention in Gattaca, there was actually mention of anti-discrimination legislation. It existed, and was intended to curb exactly the type of discrimination that the movie's premis was based on. But it didn't. Why? Because it is often very difficult to prove discrimination. How do you prove that your ex-potential employer scoured the room for your dead skin cells after you left, and run them through a screening process? How do you prove that your employer had a back-room meeting with a geneticist, discussing your potential shortcomings, costs, and life expectancy prior to your hire? How do you fight the phrase "We just found other candidates superior to Mr. Smith", even if you know them to be false?
The short of it is, you can't. Not without tracking and recording every conversation, handwritten note, and thought process, which, thankfully, is not yet possible. (Though, with enough trained monkeys, this may change soon.)
In the meantime, we're going to have to put up with discrimination based on race, sex, sexual preference, skin color, hair color, political choice, and coming soon to a job near you, genetic risk factor. Just as it took place in Gattaca, and just as difficult to fight. My only hope is that it will not be so widespread and commonplace. But unfortunately, most companies are more concerned with the bottom line, than with legality, so here we are.
But from a slightly different prespective... would some genetic screening be so bad? In terms of setting a precident, certainly. After all, once you say it's okay to do in some circumstances, it inevitably becomes accepted in others. But I could see some scenarios where genetic screening would be beneficial to all parties involved. What if a gene was discovered that led to a greater resistance to chemical-induced distortions in your cells (such as cancer), even if it also lead to high blood pressure? You might make an excellent candidate for genetic research, chemistry, or molecular biology, even if you had a higher risk for heart attack. There are pros and cons. You'd be safer to employ, from a liability aspect... but riskier to employ, based on your life expectancy. Legislations is a good step towards allowing the former and eliminating the latter, but legislation alone will not solve the problem.
The point is not that pr0n is not legitimate. Preferences and beliefs aside, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and hanging out in clubs and bars is "legitimate", and legal. But not for children. The point is that there are no safeguards in place to keep minors from accessing it... but the problem with this legislation is that, like some of it's legal predecessors, it seems to fail to properly distinguish pr0n from art, science, etc.
The article quotes the Bush administration as saying that children are unprotected from the harmful effects of the enormous amount of pr0n on the world wide web. And that may be true. But it sounds like this law would be the equivalent of protecting children from cigarettes by prosecuting stores who sold them candy cigarettes or cough syrup. After all, candy cigarettes are *like* real ones, just as discussing sexual technique is *like* sex stories. And cough syrup is *like* beer, because it also contains alcohol. Perhaps the latter is a bad example; I'm not sure if there's an age requirement for purchasing this type of medication, but I think the point stands.
I believe that some kind of safeguards should indeed be in place, even with some of these non-pr0n sites. For example, a parent may not want a child to know the ins and outs (no pun intended) of the birds and the bees as they pertain to disabled adults, until the child is older. That is the parent's decision. Thus, some sort of rating system may be better suited than an all-encompassing "THIS IS UNSUITABLE FOR KIDS, SO IT IS OBSCENE" statement. Sure, require a bit of code for filtering software to pick up. If the code doesn't exist, apply a fine, penalty, etc. But it should fit the instance. Getting pr0n results from a search for prescription drugs is a lot different than stumbling across the reproductive system on a medical site. Simply assessing the same fine for allowing access to any and all types of "inappropriate" material makes no sense. That's like allowing the removal of basic civil rights from a burglar simply by labeling him a "terrorist". Oh, wait a minute...
So Theodore Olson says the main target is commercial pornographers. So what? Since when has the "targeted group of offenders" ever stopped the government from prosecuting anyone it wishes? While I think imprisoning someone who's set up a meth lab is legitimate, prosecuting him for creating "chemical weapons of mass destruction" using a set of guidelines so broad that glue, bleach and motor oil also qualifies for is ridiculous. Let me guess... there's going to be a clause in here somewhere that makes "distribution of non-age-appropriate materials an act of terror, as a method for inciting rebellion in the homeland's children", right? We need to be specific, and our government has already shown that they cannot be trusted to interpret a law for themselves. Either we need to do it beforehand, or we should not pass the law. To do otherwise potentially allows innocent people to be prosecuted, or guilty parties to be punished far in excess of what is appropriate. You only need look at the recent history of the "Patriot" Act to see this.
For sites that contain content of an adult nature, perhaps an "I am over such-and-such age" entry form is appropriate. If so, the wording of said form might be set by the state... but that probably isn't necessary. It's easy enough to word something that says "If x, click here; if y, click here." Also, code might be put in place to warn off filtering software, which the parent is responsible for installing. If the parent fails to do so, that is not the site operator's fault. Perhaps there should indeed be a classification system for ratings... but it is important that we are A) very specific, and B) very understanding of what we are doing when we decide what is considered "adult entertainment", "mature information", etc. And dammit, no more "Oh, I didn't have time to read it properly" legislation! How many times have we read this in the news lately!?
A couple of other things I've noticed about the Treo after another day & a half's use:
The system supports "snoozing" an alarm (like it did before), but in a more comprehensive way. You can click a "done" button to get the screen the hell away from you, in case you're in the middle of something important, like a game of Warefare, Incorporated. After that, a little flashing asterisk will appear in the upper-left corner of the display, which you can click on to bring up again. Otherwise, the alarm will re-appear in a minute or two. Alternatively, you can still Snooze it for... 15 minutes, if memory serves. If more than one alarm is set for the same time, or if more than one as gone off since you've been paying attention, they appear in a list. This is MUCH nicer than having to click "Snooze" on half a dozen items if you've left your Treo in your bag all day. You can also click on an individual item in the list, to jump to the datebook and edit/delete/whatever it. Well done, Handspring!
You can now send SMS directly from the phone; not just receive. Of course, the ability to look up numbers in your Contacts is nicely integrated. According to Sprint, there are no charges associated with sending or receiving SMS messages. I can't speak for other carriers. Supposedly, the messages are also threaded. Since I haven't used it for long, i can't verify how well this functionality is implemented. However... I had an informal conversation with a tier 2 tech, after befriending her by teaching her about the Treo 600, which she'd not even seen yet. She said that Sprint is currently having problems with their SMS system (and apparently has for the last two weeks), and that during that time and until further notice, you cannot send or receive SMS messages through Sprint. I know this to be partially false, since I've had no trouble receiving messages. However, an attempt to send a message was met with the following error:
"This service will be available soon. You will receive a text message when it is ready. Until then, you can use Short Mail to send text messages to any other wireless phone from the browser."
Now, this message appeared in bold red text, as a part of the message I sent, in the outbox. It was not an error reported by the Treo, nor an incoming SMS, but a message generated my Sprints messaging server. When I initially asked about this, I was told that Sprint didn't support sending SMS. When I explained further (and mentioned that this was one of the selling points of the Treo 600, and something that Sprint was touting), she admitted the issues with the SMS system. Oh, one other item of note: According to Sprint, there is no charge for sending or receiving SMS, locally or internationally.
With regard to my previous comments about the camera being very discrete: it's only hidden on the carbon (CDMA/Sprint) version of the phone. The silver (GSM) version's camera is significantly more obvious, though whether a non-geek would notice that it's a camera, and not just a black dot is a matter of conjecture. On the carbon version, is easy to make it look like you're just trying to read your PDA at a better angle. It helps if you make goofy-looking "Huh?" faces.;-)
The ability to attach photos to a contact record and/or caller ID reference does not appear to be a feature that's part of the factory Treo. You'll need to download a 3rd-party application to support it.
There has been some conjecture as to whether or not the Treo has built-in GPS hardware. The Phone Preferences info box had this to say about it:
"Select "Enable 'Location Privacy' if you would like to prevent Palm OS applications from receiving your location information (approximate latitude location). For your safety, your location information will always be provided during a 911 emergency call, regardless of whether
At first, you're going to feel like you're all thumbs. (And you'd be right, since that's the best way to type on it.) But after you use it for about a week (depending on how often you do), you're going to notice an ENORMOUS difference in speed. I can type on my Treo about 1/3 as fast as I can on a keyboard, about 4-5 times faster than I can handwrite, and about 8-9 times faster than I can use grafifti.
I already have a Sprint phone but it isn't a PDA so I can't even get trade in credit. So what is the price to *me*?
You don't get trade-in credit based on who your service is worth; you don't even get trade-in credit at all. If you buy the 600 from Handspring (and NOT from Sprint), you enter your serial number in a field during the order process, and they give you a discount for being brand-loyal... and you keep your old Treo.
As far as I'm aware, Sprint does not honor this loyalty program... though I have been successful in the past in getting one of their reps to give me a service credit for it, anyway. The loyalty discount isn't offered by Sprint; it's offered by Handspring. But Sprint also offers activation discounts. If you want one of those, you need to sign up for a one or two-year agreement with them, depending on what agreement you've already got.
At the price it is, you're right. It's an expensive device. But I'd suggest you read my "First impressions" post for more reasons of why you might want to stick with Sprint before you make up your mind.
I've always felt that it was a "best" feature (protects the screen), and a "worst" feature. (gets in the way, screen is less visible, and it's broken on me on three separate occasions; thank god for warantees!)
You've got a few options:
1) It comes with a mock-leather cover, in the box. I usually keep my phone in my back pocket. I slip it in that, and leave it in my pocket when I take the phone out. It seems to work well, though I do worry about scratching/breaking the screen when it's out, and in general. So...
2) I pay the extra four bucks a month for loss/theft insurance. If I break it, I can always "lose" it; the replacement is only the cost of a $35 deductable. No worries. Heck, you can even sync it with a cracked screen before you replace it, so you don't even have to worry about lost data.:-)
I picked one of these suckers up yesterday, and it is MUCH better than the Treo 300: Following is my long-winded review, with some technical issues, work-arounds, answers, and heresy.;-) Oh, and how to use your Treo 600 (or 300) as free, wireless internet access for a laptop, that does not use your minutes!
The Treo 600 is signifigantly smaller than the 300. It actually feels more like a "smartphone" than a PDA with a built-in cell phone, like the 300 did. It's the same height, but slightly slimmer from front to back, and signifigantly slimmer in width. Definitely feels sexier, though the color scheme for the GSM verision looks nicer/more professional, in my opinion. This one (The dual-band CDMA) looks... slightly cheaper than the GSM version.
The screen is not 20 times brighter like some reviews will lead you to believe, but it is definitely brighter (2-3 times), and the gamma is different. Comparing the two, the 300 has a definite yellowish cast to it. Also, the screen is evenly illuminated, unlike the 300, which was illuminated from the upper-right corner of the display.
The keyboard is slightly more difficult to use, as they keys are closer together, though, each key's surface area is larger than the 300. However, my impression on the usability might be colored by two things: A) the fact the keyboard layout has changed somewhat, and B) the fact that I've been using the 300 for the past year. It'll no doubt become easier to use as time goes on. I've only had the thing for a day and a half.;-) The keys are not backlit as brightly as the 300, which is unfortunate. They're fine in a dark room/at night, but in a dimly-lit room, they can be difficult to read.
Ah, the 5-way jog-dial! Actually, it's more like a 4-way directional keypad with an enter-button... kind of like the remote for a DVD player. VERY nicely integrated. You'll need to play around with it in each application to become accustomed to how it operates (it's slightly different in each app, based on what you're using it for; this might be slightly less intuitive, but is superior for final usability, in my opinion), but once you do, it blows the up/down buttons away. However, 3rd-party applications must have support built-in for the 5-way buttons. Otherwise, the left, right and center buttons are ignored, and it only operates as up/down buttons.
Speaking of 3rd-party software, software compatibility seems to be something of an issue. Many shareware titles that worked fine on the 300 have issues on the 600. Some are just more buggy, and some don't work at all, reporting errors crashing and/or reseting the 600 with no warning. Also, some apps that claim to be compatible with ARM processors, but operated with odd results, usually display-related. (Appearing as though it was intended for one resolution, but is being displayed in another.) This may be related to the fact that most ARM-optimized apps are also intended for high-res devices. I'm not sure, but one might infer that all ARM devices prior to the Treo 600 might also have been high-res devices... which might lead to this problem?
One item of note regarding resetting: The Treo 300 would never turn wireless (phone) mode back on after a soft reset. However, a couple of third-party extensions would allow you to (among other things), cause the 300 to automatically turn wireless mode after a soft reset. The 600 seems to do this on it's own, but not 100% of the time, and there does not appear to be any pattern to when it will or will not turn back on, post reset. However, you know whether or not wireless mode is back on because A) you get bumped back to the phone app and B) it will make the same annoying chime that the Samsung A500 made. (Or at least, the first half of it), and displays part of the Sprint corporate ID. (You know, with all of those hokey icons?)
The 600 now has a built-in camera, which is really just a gimmick in this iteration (only 640x480, at relatively low quality)
I think that's the *real* answer here. It sounds like paragraph 3 is basically saying "if the weapon is capable of firing ANYTHING"... though that depends on the definition of "ammunition". Does any projectile qualify as ammunition, or does it need to contain the charge and the projectile? (Such as a bullet.)
It also sounds like "rendered incapable of firing" is talking about a weapon that is being sold under the assumption that the buyer would keep in it's current condition (as an "antique/museum piece"), and not repair/modify it for use as a "weapon".
But then again, you have to wonder about the company mentioned above that sells fully funtional cannons. I, for one, have seen fully functional 3-inch cannons at boy scout camps, operated and owned by civilians. Companies that sell illegal weapons tend to get shut down. Civilians that publically display the use and firing of illegal weapons tend to get arrested... so I think there are some exceptions here to be found. But my advise? Go talk to your lawyer.
Oh, and a psychiatrist. Because you should have learned not to play with guns bigger than your head. Go get some heavy medication first, then do it.;-)
The Palestinians living in camps are not there simply because they're being "ordered" to be by the surrounding Arab nations; many of them have nowhere else to go. Other attrocities aside, Israel is currently displacing Palestinians by the hundreds, bulldozing their homes and land (including olive groves, an act expressly forbidden by the Torah) to build the "security fence", another farce that I won't discuss here. Israel does this under the guise of eminent domain... but then refuses to pay the Palestinians for the land that they destroyed/took over, and also refused to provide them with land of equitable value. Bear in mind, these are people with deeds to this land, who's families have been living there for decades, if not longer. It's not eminent domain when you don't pay for it; it's theft. Go look it up.
Their lives thus destroyed, the Palestinians have nowhere else to go but the camps. And while I abhor terrorism, and do not condone it in *any* form, I can at least understand how this could create more suicide bombers of those who feel they have no options left, and feel that they must strike back in any way possible. Empathy is the begining of understanding, and the first step to peace, in my ever-so-humble opinion.
Oh, and before you call me an anti-semitic, I'm Jewish. And before you tell me I have no idea, I just got back from Israel two days ago. And before you tell me I'm wrong, deluded, lying, or anything else, I asked speakers from the IDF and representatives from the Israeli Spokesman Department at several conferences if these rumors were accurate. In front of the audience, there words were "Well, plans are being discussed to compensate the Palestinians, but nothing has been agreed upon so far." This from the government that claims that Palestinians will be held to the same laws and standards of Israelis.
I identify with my Jewish background and support my extended "family" in any way that I can. But that doesn't mean I'll stand for it when my "family" abuses it's neighbors. My eyes are open to the truth, no matter how unpleasant it may be to me. Israelis (and non-Israeli Jews) are happy to admit that they're abusing (and sometimes killing) Palestinians indiscriminately on many occasions. Their answer to my questions of legality and morality? "The rest of the world lies and violates the Geneva Convention whenever they want. Why shouldn't we?"
It would appear from hints dropped by the project lead of Mayflower, a home-made rocket vying for the $10 million X-Prize, that part of the secret of his space flight technology is based on cow feces.
"We have one [more] bit of valuable data. Cow pies in the area burned long after everything else was extinguished," Akkerman wrote to nearly 100 project supporters, after a small fire caused by a ruptured fuel hose ignited nearby cow excrement.
The team working on Mayflower may have stumbled across a way to use the excrement as a cheap, widely available and long-lasting fuel. Now all that remains is to discover a method for compacting and concentrating the potential fuel for later use.
In other news, America's dairy farmers and beef industry stocks rose as a direct result of a discovery made during a small fire caused by a Christian geek playing with model rockets. The geek claimed to be producing a home-made space shuttle, but local law enforcement believe that he may have been spending too much time near the fumes.
This isn't something that's likely to become a serious exploit, for the simple reason that the attacker would need to bring a compatible device within range of the access point. Unless someone has a serious grudge against the owner of the network, who'd want to spend the time? You'd either have to be present with a laptop/pda, or leave it behind. Remember, we are talking about radio waves here. Plenty of technology exists to track 802.11x signals, and all it takes is a well equipped sysadmin and a properly filed lawsuit to discourage the attacker.
All of these added precautions are not intended to make travel more secure. They are intended to make travel feel more secure.
I have a friend who is a project manager for a major X-ray scanner vendor. He handles installations many major airports worldwide, including SFO and Oakland in the SF bay area. In a moment of ire at all of the red tape he's had to deal with, he informed me that 30% of all bags checked in at the counter are never checked. They are not scanned, X-rayed or visually inspected. You check them, and they are tagged, accepted, and loaded. That's it.
I wanted to verify this for myself. I fly quite a bit these days, so I've engaged a number of airport screeners and TSA reps in conversation. I just ask them how their day is going, and mention offhand how unfortunate that they have to be under so much stress, when such a large number of baggage goes unchecked, and when it's really just a feel-good measure for the American public. If the screener I'm speaking with is in a good mood (or is just happy to not be dealing with another disgruntled passenger), the answer is almost always "Yeah, I know. It's stupid, but that's the job." Most of the white-shirted TSA folks seem to know better than to affirm that, but I've even tripped up a couple of them recently.
All of this extra screening does not stop serious, hard-core terrorists from taking control of our planes. It does not stop assassins from planting explosives. With the verification techniques displayed by all of the security personnel during my last four or five flights, it is clear to me that a quickly forged identity card left in one's wallet and a mocked-up e-mail itinerary will suffice to get you past the gate. So-called "random" searches and screenings are usually generated by certain flags: infrequent flyers, one-way tickets, and the like. I was recently flagged for a "random" screening, based on the fact that I had booked a one-way ticket. But since I had flown three other flights with this company, I was excepted.
Surgical steel will not set off the metal detectors, even the super-sensitive ones used in the wands. $20,000 could easily pay for a quick surgery and enough plastic explosive to take out a plane. Triple that amount if the surgeons do a good job. That's chump change to a dictator with a grudge. The electronics need only be made of surgical steel, and the chemicals need only need be buried in flesh to avoid a secondary alert. The trigger could be something as innocuous as a two-way pager or a cell phone. Weapons can easily be hidden inside the cases of laptops, if properly shaped and disguised. I know all of this because, with the exception of explosives and weapons, I have carried all of the rest on board myself.
If someone was determined enough, planned ahead, and had a decent bankroll, they would not be stopped by all of this "security". Only a complete moron of a terrorist would get tripped up by it. These new measures are not intended to stop terrorists. By forcing the American public to submit to all of these checks, they convince us that "if we're being inconvenienced this much, no terrorist could possibly get through now". And do you know what? The government is right. The American public does not want to know. I've started conversations with several friends and relatives about this very subject. The moment any question of real security enters the conversation, I'm told "I don't want to know; I just want to feel safe". That's a direct quote.
People truly are sheep. Sheep that want to be led. Sheep who not only don't realize what's really happening to their rights, but that wouldn't really care if they did.
Unless there's some kind of terms/conditions statement on the outside of the packaging, I don't see how you could be prevented from retaining and reusing the camera after having it developed:
Step 1: Buy camera.
Step 2: Take pictures.
Step 3: Take camera back to Ritz to develop.
Step 4: Request to have camera returned.
Step 5: Repeat steps 2-4 until batteries die.
You've bought the camera. Unless they say otherwise when you buy it, it's yours to keep. That's the definition of property; something you buy and keep. IANAL, but if they argue and refuse to return the camera to you, I'm pretty sure they're legally committing theft. Eventually the batteries will run out (barring someone else on/. figuring out a workaround), but you should get a few more runs out of your camera than Ritz probably expected you to.
From the known bugs list:
"Form auto-complete is still an unstable feature and may lead to crashes.
Disabling of form auto-completion is not working."
Uh... hello? I tend to use this feature quite a bit... and though it's temporary unavailability is something I can deal with, having a feature that crashes the browser and can't be turned off is just idiotic.
Slashdot Mirror
Several problems with this:
First of all, no, you don't have to turn over your car to the insurance company if they decide that it's a total loss. Due to the value (or lack thereof) of my last car, it didn't take much damage (15 mph soft collision) to total it. So the insurance company says "Here, take $2k." I say "No, here's some equitable vehicles. I've done my homework. Give me $5k." They say "Okay, well, give us your car." I say "No, heres the clause in our agreement that says I can subtract $250 from your settlement and keep my car." They say "Um, okay."
Your insurance company will keep your car in the event of a total loss. Then they sell it through auction, etc. However, you can pay "salvage" cost (usually not very much at all), and keep your vehicle, even fix and drive it again, at your discretion.
Second... well, I'm not hearing as much ominous music as you are. Let's think about this for a minute. There's a device in your car that your insurance companies and government (via law enforcement) can use against you. You're (allegedly) not allowed to disable and/or remove it. I have yet to see a citation of any specific law that prohibits this, but I'll assume that people are speaking of the DMCA, Patriot Act, or other such non-sens... I mean, legislation. That's fine, but, well... why aren't people excited about being given proof against the many incorrect citations that everyone always complains about? Yeah, I don't like government tracking/control any more than you do. But let's be honest here: You control what kind of data these devices will record because... well, you're the driver.
You know, they've been selling devices for years that record front and rear video, speed data, brake data, etc. People are buying these and choosing to install them, not so that they can be used against them, but so they could use them to defend themselves against dishonest drivers and *ahem* "mistaken" law enforcement personnel. Now, your auto manufacturers have provided this device for you, free of charge. You don't need to disable it. All you have to do is figure out how to access the data. Hell, you can mount one of those matchstick-box-sized CPUs in a tiny shock-resistant case, wire it up, and slap a mini-LCD in your glove compartment. Then, when you roll down your window and he asks you if you know why he pulled you over, you can say "No, and neither does my continuous data recording system. Why did you pull me over?
Keep the airbags, keep the sensors. Hopefully, you'll never need to use either. But if you do, hopefully one can save your life, and the other your finances and legal standing.
Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. We should illegally hack into innocent users machines to "teach them a lesson" in security... repeatedly, until they either disable their network connection or disable their vulnerabilities? Isn't that like shooting the hostage?
To make a more accurate, real-world example, that would be like walking down the street, shooting at anything that moves, in an attempt to make sure that no one walks outside without adequate protection from... well, people like you. After all, we'll have no terrorists taking hostages if we kill all of the potential hostages, right?
I hope no one depends on you for network security or sysadmin support.
You don't work for the tobacco industry, do you? ;-)
So, Stratton Sclavos says "The noise you're hearing publicly does not match the real impact of the [Sitefinder] system... ...We have asked for the data five times from anyone who has it--ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the IAB--and no one can produce data. All they can produce is these fringe stories."
Back on September 21s, Paul Twomey, president and CEO of Verisign said "As to your call for us to suspend the service, I would respectfully suggest that it would be premature to decide on any course of action until we first have had an opportunity to collect and review the available data." Well, have they seen this? It's a study that says:
The study also says:
That seems pretty clear to me. It says that 91% of the entire internet was affected, in a manner that was more costly than necessary, and not user friendly to the majority of the people that saw it. (i.e. not in their native language.)
In addition, on October 7th, Verisign released a statement that said:
48 million. So... an independant study that Verisign called for, and Verisign themselves have found that the "real impact" of Sitefinder has been tremendous. And then Stratton Scalvos has the gall to say that "no one can produce data"?!
If you paid attention in Gattaca, there was actually mention of anti-discrimination legislation. It existed, and was intended to curb exactly the type of discrimination that the movie's premis was based on. But it didn't. Why? Because it is often very difficult to prove discrimination. How do you prove that your ex-potential employer scoured the room for your dead skin cells after you left, and run them through a screening process? How do you prove that your employer had a back-room meeting with a geneticist, discussing your potential shortcomings, costs, and life expectancy prior to your hire? How do you fight the phrase "We just found other candidates superior to Mr. Smith", even if you know them to be false?
The short of it is, you can't. Not without tracking and recording every conversation, handwritten note, and thought process, which, thankfully, is not yet possible. (Though, with enough trained monkeys, this may change soon.)
In the meantime, we're going to have to put up with discrimination based on race, sex, sexual preference, skin color, hair color, political choice, and coming soon to a job near you, genetic risk factor. Just as it took place in Gattaca, and just as difficult to fight. My only hope is that it will not be so widespread and commonplace. But unfortunately, most companies are more concerned with the bottom line, than with legality, so here we are.
But from a slightly different prespective... would some genetic screening be so bad? In terms of setting a precident, certainly. After all, once you say it's okay to do in some circumstances, it inevitably becomes accepted in others. But I could see some scenarios where genetic screening would be beneficial to all parties involved. What if a gene was discovered that led to a greater resistance to chemical-induced distortions in your cells (such as cancer), even if it also lead to high blood pressure? You might make an excellent candidate for genetic research, chemistry, or molecular biology, even if you had a higher risk for heart attack. There are pros and cons. You'd be safer to employ, from a liability aspect... but riskier to employ, based on your life expectancy. Legislations is a good step towards allowing the former and eliminating the latter, but legislation alone will not solve the problem.
The point is not that pr0n is not legitimate. Preferences and beliefs aside, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and hanging out in clubs and bars is "legitimate", and legal. But not for children. The point is that there are no safeguards in place to keep minors from accessing it... but the problem with this legislation is that, like some of it's legal predecessors, it seems to fail to properly distinguish pr0n from art, science, etc.
The article quotes the Bush administration as saying that children are unprotected from the harmful effects of the enormous amount of pr0n on the world wide web. And that may be true. But it sounds like this law would be the equivalent of protecting children from cigarettes by prosecuting stores who sold them candy cigarettes or cough syrup. After all, candy cigarettes are *like* real ones, just as discussing sexual technique is *like* sex stories. And cough syrup is *like* beer, because it also contains alcohol. Perhaps the latter is a bad example; I'm not sure if there's an age requirement for purchasing this type of medication, but I think the point stands.
I believe that some kind of safeguards should indeed be in place, even with some of these non-pr0n sites. For example, a parent may not want a child to know the ins and outs (no pun intended) of the birds and the bees as they pertain to disabled adults, until the child is older. That is the parent's decision. Thus, some sort of rating system may be better suited than an all-encompassing "THIS IS UNSUITABLE FOR KIDS, SO IT IS OBSCENE" statement. Sure, require a bit of code for filtering software to pick up. If the code doesn't exist, apply a fine, penalty, etc. But it should fit the instance. Getting pr0n results from a search for prescription drugs is a lot different than stumbling across the reproductive system on a medical site. Simply assessing the same fine for allowing access to any and all types of "inappropriate" material makes no sense. That's like allowing the removal of basic civil rights from a burglar simply by labeling him a "terrorist". Oh, wait a minute...
So Theodore Olson says the main target is commercial pornographers. So what? Since when has the "targeted group of offenders" ever stopped the government from prosecuting anyone it wishes? While I think imprisoning someone who's set up a meth lab is legitimate, prosecuting him for creating "chemical weapons of mass destruction" using a set of guidelines so broad that glue, bleach and motor oil also qualifies for is ridiculous. Let me guess... there's going to be a clause in here somewhere that makes "distribution of non-age-appropriate materials an act of terror, as a method for inciting rebellion in the homeland's children", right? We need to be specific, and our government has already shown that they cannot be trusted to interpret a law for themselves. Either we need to do it beforehand, or we should not pass the law. To do otherwise potentially allows innocent people to be prosecuted, or guilty parties to be punished far in excess of what is appropriate. You only need look at the recent history of the "Patriot" Act to see this.
For sites that contain content of an adult nature, perhaps an "I am over such-and-such age" entry form is appropriate. If so, the wording of said form might be set by the state... but that probably isn't necessary. It's easy enough to word something that says "If x, click here; if y, click here." Also, code might be put in place to warn off filtering software, which the parent is responsible for installing. If the parent fails to do so, that is not the site operator's fault. Perhaps there should indeed be a classification system for ratings... but it is important that we are A) very specific, and B) very understanding of what we are doing when we decide what is considered "adult entertainment", "mature information", etc. And dammit, no more "Oh, I didn't have time to read it properly" legislation! How many times have we read this in the news lately!?
A couple of other things I've noticed about the Treo after another day & a half's use:
The system supports "snoozing" an alarm (like it did before), but in a more comprehensive way. You can click a "done" button to get the screen the hell away from you, in case you're in the middle of something important, like a game of Warefare, Incorporated. After that, a little flashing asterisk will appear in the upper-left corner of the display, which you can click on to bring up again. Otherwise, the alarm will re-appear in a minute or two. Alternatively, you can still Snooze it for... 15 minutes, if memory serves. If more than one alarm is set for the same time, or if more than one as gone off since you've been paying attention, they appear in a list. This is MUCH nicer than having to click "Snooze" on half a dozen items if you've left your Treo in your bag all day. You can also click on an individual item in the list, to jump to the datebook and edit/delete/whatever it. Well done, Handspring!
You can now send SMS directly from the phone; not just receive. Of course, the ability to look up numbers in your Contacts is nicely integrated. According to Sprint, there are no charges associated with sending or receiving SMS messages. I can't speak for other carriers. Supposedly, the messages are also threaded. Since I haven't used it for long, i can't verify how well this functionality is implemented. However... I had an informal conversation with a tier 2 tech, after befriending her by teaching her about the Treo 600, which she'd not even seen yet. She said that Sprint is currently having problems with their SMS system (and apparently has for the last two weeks), and that during that time and until further notice, you cannot send or receive SMS messages through Sprint. I know this to be partially false, since I've had no trouble receiving messages. However, an attempt to send a message was met with the following error:
Now, this message appeared in bold red text, as a part of the message I sent, in the outbox. It was not an error reported by the Treo, nor an incoming SMS, but a message generated my Sprints messaging server. When I initially asked about this, I was told that Sprint didn't support sending SMS. When I explained further (and mentioned that this was one of the selling points of the Treo 600, and something that Sprint was touting), she admitted the issues with the SMS system. Oh, one other item of note: According to Sprint, there is no charge for sending or receiving SMS, locally or internationally.
With regard to my previous comments about the camera being very discrete: it's only hidden on the carbon (CDMA/Sprint) version of the phone. The silver (GSM) version's camera is significantly more obvious, though whether a non-geek would notice that it's a camera, and not just a black dot is a matter of conjecture. On the carbon version, is easy to make it look like you're just trying to read your PDA at a better angle. It helps if you make goofy-looking "Huh?" faces. ;-)
The ability to attach photos to a contact record and/or caller ID reference does not appear to be a feature that's part of the factory Treo. You'll need to download a 3rd-party application to support it.
There has been some conjecture as to whether or not the Treo has built-in GPS hardware. The Phone Preferences info box had this to say about it:
At first, you're going to feel like you're all thumbs. (And you'd be right, since that's the best way to type on it.) But after you use it for about a week (depending on how often you do), you're going to notice an ENORMOUS difference in speed. I can type on my Treo about 1/3 as fast as I can on a keyboard, about 4-5 times faster than I can handwrite, and about 8-9 times faster than I can use grafifti.
I already have a Sprint phone but it isn't a PDA so I can't even get trade in credit. So what is the price to *me*?
You don't get trade-in credit based on who your service is worth; you don't even get trade-in credit at all. If you buy the 600 from Handspring (and NOT from Sprint), you enter your serial number in a field during the order process, and they give you a discount for being brand-loyal... and you keep your old Treo.
As far as I'm aware, Sprint does not honor this loyalty program... though I have been successful in the past in getting one of their reps to give me a service credit for it, anyway. The loyalty discount isn't offered by Sprint; it's offered by Handspring. But Sprint also offers activation discounts. If you want one of those, you need to sign up for a one or two-year agreement with them, depending on what agreement you've already got.
At the price it is, you're right. It's an expensive device. But I'd suggest you read my "First impressions" post for more reasons of why you might want to stick with Sprint before you make up your mind.
I've always felt that it was a "best" feature (protects the screen), and a "worst" feature. (gets in the way, screen is less visible, and it's broken on me on three separate occasions; thank god for warantees!) You've got a few options: 1) It comes with a mock-leather cover, in the box. I usually keep my phone in my back pocket. I slip it in that, and leave it in my pocket when I take the phone out. It seems to work well, though I do worry about scratching/breaking the screen when it's out, and in general. So... 2) I pay the extra four bucks a month for loss/theft insurance. If I break it, I can always "lose" it; the replacement is only the cost of a $35 deductable. No worries. Heck, you can even sync it with a cracked screen before you replace it, so you don't even have to worry about lost data. :-)
I picked one of these suckers up yesterday, and it is MUCH better than the Treo 300: Following is my long-winded review, with some technical issues, work-arounds, answers, and heresy. ;-) Oh, and how to use your Treo 600 (or 300) as free, wireless internet access for a laptop, that does not use your minutes!
The Treo 600 is signifigantly smaller than the 300. It actually feels more like a "smartphone" than a PDA with a built-in cell phone, like the 300 did. It's the same height, but slightly slimmer from front to back, and signifigantly slimmer in width. Definitely feels sexier, though the color scheme for the GSM verision looks nicer/more professional, in my opinion. This one (The dual-band CDMA) looks... slightly cheaper than the GSM version.
The screen is not 20 times brighter like some reviews will lead you to believe, but it is definitely brighter (2-3 times), and the gamma is different. Comparing the two, the 300 has a definite yellowish cast to it. Also, the screen is evenly illuminated, unlike the 300, which was illuminated from the upper-right corner of the display.
The keyboard is slightly more difficult to use, as they keys are closer together, though, each key's surface area is larger than the 300. However, my impression on the usability might be colored by two things: A) the fact the keyboard layout has changed somewhat, and B) the fact that I've been using the 300 for the past year. It'll no doubt become easier to use as time goes on. I've only had the thing for a day and a half. ;-) The keys are not backlit as brightly as the 300, which is unfortunate. They're fine in a dark room/at night, but in a dimly-lit room, they can be difficult to read.
Ah, the 5-way jog-dial! Actually, it's more like a 4-way directional keypad with an enter-button... kind of like the remote for a DVD player. VERY nicely integrated. You'll need to play around with it in each application to become accustomed to how it operates (it's slightly different in each app, based on what you're using it for; this might be slightly less intuitive, but is superior for final usability, in my opinion), but once you do, it blows the up/down buttons away. However, 3rd-party applications must have support built-in for the 5-way buttons. Otherwise, the left, right and center buttons are ignored, and it only operates as up/down buttons.
Speaking of 3rd-party software, software compatibility seems to be something of an issue. Many shareware titles that worked fine on the 300 have issues on the 600. Some are just more buggy, and some don't work at all, reporting errors crashing and/or reseting the 600 with no warning. Also, some apps that claim to be compatible with ARM processors, but operated with odd results, usually display-related. (Appearing as though it was intended for one resolution, but is being displayed in another.) This may be related to the fact that most ARM-optimized apps are also intended for high-res devices. I'm not sure, but one might infer that all ARM devices prior to the Treo 600 might also have been high-res devices... which might lead to this problem?
One item of note regarding resetting: The Treo 300 would never turn wireless (phone) mode back on after a soft reset. However, a couple of third-party extensions would allow you to (among other things), cause the 300 to automatically turn wireless mode after a soft reset. The 600 seems to do this on it's own, but not 100% of the time, and there does not appear to be any pattern to when it will or will not turn back on, post reset. However, you know whether or not wireless mode is back on because A) you get bumped back to the phone app and B) it will make the same annoying chime that the Samsung A500 made. (Or at least, the first half of it), and displays part of the Sprint corporate ID. (You know, with all of those hokey icons?)
The 600 now has a built-in camera, which is really just a gimmick in this iteration (only 640x480, at relatively low quality)
310 is Los Angeles.
I think that's the *real* answer here. It sounds like paragraph 3 is basically saying "if the weapon is capable of firing ANYTHING"... though that depends on the definition of "ammunition". Does any projectile qualify as ammunition, or does it need to contain the charge and the projectile? (Such as a bullet.)
;-)
It also sounds like "rendered incapable of firing" is talking about a weapon that is being sold under the assumption that the buyer would keep in it's current condition (as an "antique/museum piece"), and not repair/modify it for use as a "weapon".
But then again, you have to wonder about the company mentioned above that sells fully funtional cannons. I, for one, have seen fully functional 3-inch cannons at boy scout camps, operated and owned by civilians. Companies that sell illegal weapons tend to get shut down. Civilians that publically display the use and firing of illegal weapons tend to get arrested... so I think there are some exceptions here to be found. But my advise? Go talk to your lawyer.
Oh, and a psychiatrist. Because you should have learned not to play with guns bigger than your head. Go get some heavy medication first, then do it.
The Palestinians living in camps are not there simply because they're being "ordered" to be by the surrounding Arab nations; many of them have nowhere else to go. Other attrocities aside, Israel is currently displacing Palestinians by the hundreds, bulldozing their homes and land (including olive groves, an act expressly forbidden by the Torah) to build the "security fence", another farce that I won't discuss here. Israel does this under the guise of eminent domain... but then refuses to pay the Palestinians for the land that they destroyed/took over, and also refused to provide them with land of equitable value. Bear in mind, these are people with deeds to this land, who's families have been living there for decades, if not longer. It's not eminent domain when you don't pay for it; it's theft. Go look it up.
Their lives thus destroyed, the Palestinians have nowhere else to go but the camps. And while I abhor terrorism, and do not condone it in *any* form, I can at least understand how this could create more suicide bombers of those who feel they have no options left, and feel that they must strike back in any way possible. Empathy is the begining of understanding, and the first step to peace, in my ever-so-humble opinion.
Oh, and before you call me an anti-semitic, I'm Jewish. And before you tell me I have no idea, I just got back from Israel two days ago. And before you tell me I'm wrong, deluded, lying, or anything else, I asked speakers from the IDF and representatives from the Israeli Spokesman Department at several conferences if these rumors were accurate. In front of the audience, there words were "Well, plans are being discussed to compensate the Palestinians, but nothing has been agreed upon so far." This from the government that claims that Palestinians will be held to the same laws and standards of Israelis.
I identify with my Jewish background and support my extended "family" in any way that I can. But that doesn't mean I'll stand for it when my "family" abuses it's neighbors. My eyes are open to the truth, no matter how unpleasant it may be to me. Israelis (and non-Israeli Jews) are happy to admit that they're abusing (and sometimes killing) Palestinians indiscriminately on many occasions. Their answer to my questions of legality and morality? "The rest of the world lies and violates the Geneva Convention whenever they want. Why shouldn't we?"
My eyes are still open. How about yours?
It would appear from hints dropped by the project lead of Mayflower, a home-made rocket vying for the $10 million X-Prize, that part of the secret of his space flight technology is based on cow feces.
"We have one [more] bit of valuable data. Cow pies in the area burned long after everything else was extinguished," Akkerman wrote to nearly 100 project supporters, after a small fire caused by a ruptured fuel hose ignited nearby cow excrement.
The team working on Mayflower may have stumbled across a way to use the excrement as a cheap, widely available and long-lasting fuel. Now all that remains is to discover a method for compacting and concentrating the potential fuel for later use.
In other news, America's dairy farmers and beef industry stocks rose as a direct result of a discovery made during a small fire caused by a Christian geek playing with model rockets. The geek claimed to be producing a home-made space shuttle, but local law enforcement believe that he may have been spending too much time near the fumes.
This isn't something that's likely to become a serious exploit, for the simple reason that the attacker would need to bring a compatible device within range of the access point. Unless someone has a serious grudge against the owner of the network, who'd want to spend the time? You'd either have to be present with a laptop/pda, or leave it behind. Remember, we are talking about radio waves here. Plenty of technology exists to track 802.11x signals, and all it takes is a well equipped sysadmin and a properly filed lawsuit to discourage the attacker.
All of these added precautions are not intended to make travel more secure. They are intended to make travel feel more secure.
I have a friend who is a project manager for a major X-ray scanner vendor. He handles installations many major airports worldwide, including SFO and Oakland in the SF bay area. In a moment of ire at all of the red tape he's had to deal with, he informed me that 30% of all bags checked in at the counter are never checked. They are not scanned, X-rayed or visually inspected. You check them, and they are tagged, accepted, and loaded. That's it.
I wanted to verify this for myself. I fly quite a bit these days, so I've engaged a number of airport screeners and TSA reps in conversation. I just ask them how their day is going, and mention offhand how unfortunate that they have to be under so much stress, when such a large number of baggage goes unchecked, and when it's really just a feel-good measure for the American public. If the screener I'm speaking with is in a good mood (or is just happy to not be dealing with another disgruntled passenger), the answer is almost always "Yeah, I know. It's stupid, but that's the job." Most of the white-shirted TSA folks seem to know better than to affirm that, but I've even tripped up a couple of them recently.
All of this extra screening does not stop serious, hard-core terrorists from taking control of our planes. It does not stop assassins from planting explosives. With the verification techniques displayed by all of the security personnel during my last four or five flights, it is clear to me that a quickly forged identity card left in one's wallet and a mocked-up e-mail itinerary will suffice to get you past the gate. So-called "random" searches and screenings are usually generated by certain flags: infrequent flyers, one-way tickets, and the like. I was recently flagged for a "random" screening, based on the fact that I had booked a one-way ticket. But since I had flown three other flights with this company, I was excepted.
Surgical steel will not set off the metal detectors, even the super-sensitive ones used in the wands. $20,000 could easily pay for a quick surgery and enough plastic explosive to take out a plane. Triple that amount if the surgeons do a good job. That's chump change to a dictator with a grudge. The electronics need only be made of surgical steel, and the chemicals need only need be buried in flesh to avoid a secondary alert. The trigger could be something as innocuous as a two-way pager or a cell phone. Weapons can easily be hidden inside the cases of laptops, if properly shaped and disguised. I know all of this because, with the exception of explosives and weapons, I have carried all of the rest on board myself.
If someone was determined enough, planned ahead, and had a decent bankroll, they would not be stopped by all of this "security". Only a complete moron of a terrorist would get tripped up by it. These new measures are not intended to stop terrorists. By forcing the American public to submit to all of these checks, they convince us that "if we're being inconvenienced this much, no terrorist could possibly get through now". And do you know what? The government is right. The American public does not want to know. I've started conversations with several friends and relatives about this very subject. The moment any question of real security enters the conversation, I'm told "I don't want to know; I just want to feel safe". That's a direct quote.
People truly are sheep. Sheep that want to be led. Sheep who not only don't realize what's really happening to their rights, but that wouldn't really care if they did.
Unless there's some kind of terms/conditions statement on the outside of the packaging, I don't see how you could be prevented from retaining and reusing the camera after having it developed:
You've bought the camera. Unless they say otherwise when you buy it, it's yours to keep. That's the definition of property; something you buy and keep. IANAL, but if they argue and refuse to return the camera to you, I'm pretty sure they're legally committing theft. Eventually the batteries will run out (barring someone else on /. figuring out a workaround), but you should get a few more runs out of your camera than Ritz probably expected you to.
From the known bugs list: "Form auto-complete is still an unstable feature and may lead to crashes. Disabling of form auto-completion is not working." Uh... hello? I tend to use this feature quite a bit... and though it's temporary unavailability is something I can deal with, having a feature that crashes the browser and can't be turned off is just idiotic.