Why crap on the parent? He's not saying that cookies are a good thing; he's merely pointing out that TFA's complaints boil down to, "It goes too slow without cookies". It's the author of the article who's minimizing the security concerns, not the parent poster.
Actually, no; I've never been pulled over wrongfully, myself. I've been pulled over a total of 3 times in my life, and I was speeding each time; once was the time I mentioned above, and twice were local. I did only get warnings for the local ones, though (they were for things like doing 38 in a 30 MPH zone).
My mother did get pulled over once in a situation like the one you describe, though, when she was in the process of moving from Illinois to Wisconsin (she still had IL plates, so the cop thought she was just visiting); she got off with a warning, because she didn't have any money on her, and the cop gave up on the shakedown. A couple of weeks later, she went into the station on other business, and the cop who was at the desk happened to be the same one who'd tried to shake her down. She was very amused that he couldn't seem to meet her eye as he was taking down the information; she didn't let on that she recognized him, but he obviously recognized her.:) Anyway, some time after that, she read in the paper that several cops working out of that area had been suspended or fired; apparently, they were doing this on a consistent basis to out-of-state drivers, and pocketing the cash that they were getting for the "bond" (I gather they weren't accepting credit cards, as the cop who nabbed me did). I don't remember exactly how they got caught; I gather that some people did come back from the other states for their hearings, and the scam ended up coming to light.
Bottom line, though, this is a different issue than the question of jurisdiction. In the situation you describe, a phone hearing won't do any good since (as you point out) it's your word against the cop's, and the cop has the data that shows how fast you were going, even if you weren't speeding where you actually were when he took the reading. They still have the right (even, as someone pointed out above, the Constitutional obligation) to give you the opportunity to defend yourself in the jurisdiction where the alleged offense occurred. But I do agree that getting rid of dishonest cops who pull this sort of BS is important.
Well, slightly different, but when i get an out of state traffic ticket those bastards will only talk to me in court in their state. Oftentimes cops don't hesitate to slap a ticket on an out of towner, knowing that it's free revenue for their state.
That may influence the cops, but there's a good reason they won't talk to you in court in your state. It will cost them money to send the cop there, probably significantly more than the amount of the ticket. If you commit a traffic offense, you're the wrongdoer, and shouldn't win just because they can't send cops flying across the country to present the evidence against you. You allegedly committed the offense in their state, so if you think you're not really guilty, you have to defend yourself in that jurisdiction. It's not unreasonable; you were in the state at the time, there's no reason you can't be there again. You shouldn't be immune to local laws just because it would be inconvenient for you to defend yourself there. Incidentally, I am speaking as someone who has been in that situation; I happened to be driving at about 70 in a 55 mph zone in Wisconsin a few years ago, and they nabbed me. I live in Massachusetts, so I had to post a bond on my credit card, and the officer told me that I had the right to appear in court some 3 weeks later if I wanted to contest it; if I didn't, it would be treated as a guilty plea, and my bond would become the fine. I wasn't happy, but I really was speeding (even if, in MA, the cop probably wouldn't have glanced up from his coffee and donut for doing the same thing here), and there wasn't anything I could really use to defend myself. Most of the time, when people go to court over a traffic ticket, they're really hoping that the cop won't show up, and they'll get a default judgment in their favor.
Now, if you're running your computer in your own home, it is unreasonable for the RIAA (or any other entity) to try to drag you into court halfway across the country. You should be able to defend yourself in the jurisdiction, and under the laws thereof, where you allegedly committed your offense (or at least under Federal laws in a court local to you). This tactic is disgusting, and the laws shouldn't allow it (I won't hold my breath, though...).
-Mike
Re:Indians will complain about foreigners soon
on
Reverse Off-Shoring
·
· Score: 1
"and use ROE for my investment decisions. You follow the Rules of Engagment to invest?"
I think he misspelled "ROA" -- the Rules of Acquisition.
Saying yes when offered a choice only means that you want one of the options... Further questioning ("Well, which one do you want?") is required to determine which of those options you want.
Yes, this is true. But the person who does this, when it's obvious that one is being offered a choice between the two, is just being a wiseass.
TFA did point out that that's only one piece of adware he's installing. Multiply that by 10 or more. Then figure in the money from the botnet he's renting out to spammers. I'd say he's probably doing a lot better than you think.
Well, I didn't say anything about why Hunter was replaced; merely that NBC rejected the pilot in which he was Captain. I had heard that Hunter had domestic issues, and they may have contributed to his suicide. It may well have been that Hunter withdrew (or was nagged into withdrawing) after filming the pilot, leading to Shatner's replacing him. And they did re-film and re-dub some of the original Cage footage, using a Hunter lookalike (amongh other things) to make it fit better with the continuity of the revamped TOS.
The Cage was supposed to be the pilot, but NBC rejected it. Roddenberry reworked the series, replacing Jeffrey Hunter's Captain Pike with William Shatner's Kirk, and making other cast changes. Once TOS got off the ground, footage from "The Cage" was reused as flashbacks for "The Menagerie", with its plot line of Spock being tried for violating General Order 7, breaking the quarantine of Talos IV. The "trial" turned out to be a sham to keep Kirk busy and to explain to Kirk and Starfleet (in the person of Commodore Mendez, whose physical presence on the Enterprise was an illusion, but who saw the "trial" from Starbase 11) why Pike should be allowed to live out his days on Talos IV. The exception was granted, and everyone lived happily ever after....:)
The problem here is that Diebold machines seem to not just lack proper security, but almost seem to have been deliberately designed to allow easy, unauthorized access.
Pluto is and always should be a planet. If they try to claim it isn't, i think it will start a bigger controversy then creation verses evolution when taught in schools.
The naming of a planet doesn't threaten people's cherished religious beliefs. It might cause a stir, but nowhere near on that scale.
I do think Pluto should be "grandfathered in", as it were; we've been calling it a planet for decades, ever since it was discovered. But I won't lose any sleep over it if astronomers choose to excommunicate it from the Solar System.;)
That's because 99% of the time, the problem comes back as soon as the expert leaves. I've experienced it too.
It's also because they've lost face in front of the expert. The expert now thinks the user is an idiot and will probably show less patience and willingness to help in the future. Especially after the 2nd or 3rd time this happens.
I once worked with a guy who told me that at his previous job (I think it was at Sperry) some 20+ years ago, personal phone calls of any kind were absolutely prohibited, and that one could get warned and then fired for receiving(!) them. I think he said they would make exceptions for emergencies, but they would have to be truly serious. He also told me that whenever they wanted slack time, what they'd do is get a big, long printout (the continuous kind, with perforations between pages, from a line printer -- God, I feel old!), lean back in their chairs, and pretend to read through it. Appearances mattered much more than actually doing any work.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The tools are there, the info is there, take the time to learn how to use the equipment that you are using. you don't just get into a car and drive it, so why can't people learn to use thier computers
Not the same thing. A car is a couple thousand pounds (give or take) of metal that can travel at speeds in excess of 100mph. It can do direct physical harm, potentially fatal, and therefore the government demands that you demonstrate a certain level of competence before allowing you to operate it without restriction (and revokes its permission when you do too many things that indicate that you're too irresponsible to be trusted). A computer is a tool that isn't particularly dangerous (physically), and the average person expects to be able to do X, Y, and Z, and be all set. Everyone is ignorant about different things, and it's not reasonable for an expert in a field to sneer at someone who isn't. You are ignorant about many fields (as am I); nobody has the time to become an expert in everything. We have chosen computer technology as part of our expertise, but it isn't reasonable to demand that everyone do so.
It's all well and good to say that people should avoid "bad" areas of the Net, but sometimes, it's hard to know just what those are, and the parent's point about malicious banner ads is that "muggings" can happen even in "good" areas.
gMail is about the only (non-ISP) web mail service that also
provides access via eMail clients, eg, Eudora, OE, etc.
FastMail does. At the "Guest" (free) and "Member" (one-time $14.95 fee) levels, it's web and IMAP only, but at higher levels, POP3 is available as well. I'm an Enhanced level user, myself (disclosure: link gives me credit for anyone that signs up through it).
So, using a "real" eMail client, no cookies aer required.
QED;-)
You keep using that TLA.... I do not think it means what you think it means.;)
While there's a great deal of truth to what you're saying, reality often slaps theory in the face. My guess would be that there is no qualified support, there's no money (or no management desire) to hire qualified support, and someone who has an inkling of a clue about computers gets the responsibility dropped in their lap with no real option to say "No". It's not their fault and there's often not much they can do except struggle through and do the best they can. (And, of course, I know some pretty savy people who started out just that way a decade or so ago.)
Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner! There is no shame in ignorance, as long as one recognizes it and tries to do something to rectify it -- which is exactly what the poster of the article is doing.
Ok, so it's big news and Pentagon related. But what does it have to do with "Paragliding Military Drones"? Just because the GP talks about military issues doesn't automatically relate it to the topic. That's why someone (not me, no mod points today, and I rarely either mod anyone down or mod ACs at all) flagged it Offtopic; it is offtopic. (And so is this -- sorry!)
I'm one who believes that mod points should not be used to express agreement or disagreement. But I can see why the GP got gigged for Offtopic, and if I happen to get to Meta-Mod it, I'll mark it Fair.
That's the same reason thefts are counted as a form of income.
I remember some story about a big time theif who was nailed for tax evasion.
Don't remember who or where I heard it from.
They care to such an extent, I've heard of cases where they don't report drug dealers to law enforcement, since that'd result in a drop in tax revenue.
Actually, the IRS is not legally permitted to share information from tax returns with other law enforcement agencies. I believe it's a 5th Amendment issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Why crap on the parent? He's not saying that cookies are a good thing; he's merely pointing out that TFA's complaints boil down to, "It goes too slow without cookies". It's the author of the article who's minimizing the security concerns, not the parent poster.
-Mike
Did that "WHOOOOOOOOSH" sound make you duck?
-Mike
Actually, no; I've never been pulled over wrongfully, myself. I've been pulled over a total of 3 times in my life, and I was speeding each time; once was the time I mentioned above, and twice were local. I did only get warnings for the local ones, though (they were for things like doing 38 in a 30 MPH zone).
:) Anyway, some time after that, she read in the paper that several cops working out of that area had been suspended or fired; apparently, they were doing this on a consistent basis to out-of-state drivers, and pocketing the cash that they were getting for the "bond" (I gather they weren't accepting credit cards, as the cop who nabbed me did). I don't remember exactly how they got caught; I gather that some people did come back from the other states for their hearings, and the scam ended up coming to light.
My mother did get pulled over once in a situation like the one you describe, though, when she was in the process of moving from Illinois to Wisconsin (she still had IL plates, so the cop thought she was just visiting); she got off with a warning, because she didn't have any money on her, and the cop gave up on the shakedown. A couple of weeks later, she went into the station on other business, and the cop who was at the desk happened to be the same one who'd tried to shake her down. She was very amused that he couldn't seem to meet her eye as he was taking down the information; she didn't let on that she recognized him, but he obviously recognized her.
Bottom line, though, this is a different issue than the question of jurisdiction. In the situation you describe, a phone hearing won't do any good since (as you point out) it's your word against the cop's, and the cop has the data that shows how fast you were going, even if you weren't speeding where you actually were when he took the reading. They still have the right (even, as someone pointed out above, the Constitutional obligation) to give you the opportunity to defend yourself in the jurisdiction where the alleged offense occurred. But I do agree that getting rid of dishonest cops who pull this sort of BS is important.
-Mike
Well, slightly different, but when i get an out of state traffic ticket those bastards will only talk to me in court in their state. Oftentimes cops don't hesitate to slap a ticket on an out of towner, knowing that it's free revenue for their state.
That may influence the cops, but there's a good reason they won't talk to you in court in your state. It will cost them money to send the cop there, probably significantly more than the amount of the ticket. If you commit a traffic offense, you're the wrongdoer, and shouldn't win just because they can't send cops flying across the country to present the evidence against you. You allegedly committed the offense in their state, so if you think you're not really guilty, you have to defend yourself in that jurisdiction. It's not unreasonable; you were in the state at the time, there's no reason you can't be there again. You shouldn't be immune to local laws just because it would be inconvenient for you to defend yourself there. Incidentally, I am speaking as someone who has been in that situation; I happened to be driving at about 70 in a 55 mph zone in Wisconsin a few years ago, and they nabbed me. I live in Massachusetts, so I had to post a bond on my credit card, and the officer told me that I had the right to appear in court some 3 weeks later if I wanted to contest it; if I didn't, it would be treated as a guilty plea, and my bond would become the fine. I wasn't happy, but I really was speeding (even if, in MA, the cop probably wouldn't have glanced up from his coffee and donut for doing the same thing here), and there wasn't anything I could really use to defend myself. Most of the time, when people go to court over a traffic ticket, they're really hoping that the cop won't show up, and they'll get a default judgment in their favor.
Now, if you're running your computer in your own home, it is unreasonable for the RIAA (or any other entity) to try to drag you into court halfway across the country. You should be able to defend yourself in the jurisdiction, and under the laws thereof, where you allegedly committed your offense (or at least under Federal laws in a court local to you). This tactic is disgusting, and the laws shouldn't allow it (I won't hold my breath, though...).
-Mike
"and use ROE for my investment decisions. You follow the Rules of Engagment to invest?"
I think he misspelled "ROA" -- the Rules of Acquisition.
-Mike
Saying yes when offered a choice only means that you want one of the options... Further questioning ("Well, which one do you want?") is required to determine which of those options you want.
Yes, this is true. But the person who does this, when it's obvious that one is being offered a choice between the two, is just being a wiseass.
-Mike
TFA did point out that that's only one piece of adware he's installing. Multiply that by 10 or more. Then figure in the money from the botnet he's renting out to spammers. I'd say he's probably doing a lot better than you think.
-Mike
Well, I didn't say anything about why Hunter was replaced; merely that NBC rejected the pilot in which he was Captain. I had heard that Hunter had domestic issues, and they may have contributed to his suicide. It may well have been that Hunter withdrew (or was nagged into withdrawing) after filming the pilot, leading to Shatner's replacing him. And they did re-film and re-dub some of the original Cage footage, using a Hunter lookalike (amongh other things) to make it fit better with the continuity of the revamped TOS.
-Mike
The Cage was supposed to be the pilot, but NBC rejected it. Roddenberry reworked the series, replacing Jeffrey Hunter's Captain Pike with William Shatner's Kirk, and making other cast changes. Once TOS got off the ground, footage from "The Cage" was reused as flashbacks for "The Menagerie", with its plot line of Spock being tried for violating General Order 7, breaking the quarantine of Talos IV. The "trial" turned out to be a sham to keep Kirk busy and to explain to Kirk and Starfleet (in the person of Commodore Mendez, whose physical presence on the Enterprise was an illusion, but who saw the "trial" from Starbase 11) why Pike should be allowed to live out his days on Talos IV. The exception was granted, and everyone lived happily ever after.... :)
-Mike
Nope. The "prequel". "Eels on a hovercraft" is from a Monty Python sketch IIRC.
YDRC.
-Mike
The problem here is that Diebold machines seem to not just lack proper security, but almost seem to have been deliberately designed to allow easy, unauthorized access.
Almost?!
-Mike
And we all know how well that is working!
-Mike
I wonder what their equivalent of "OMG, Ponies!!!!!!" is...?
-Mike
Pluto is and always should be a planet. If they try to claim it isn't, i think it will start a bigger controversy then creation verses evolution when taught in schools.
;)
The naming of a planet doesn't threaten people's cherished religious beliefs. It might cause a stir, but nowhere near on that scale.
I do think Pluto should be "grandfathered in", as it were; we've been calling it a planet for decades, ever since it was discovered. But I won't lose any sleep over it if astronomers choose to excommunicate it from the Solar System.
-Mike
Ever considered switching to decaf?
-Mike
That's because 99% of the time, the problem comes back as soon as the expert leaves. I've experienced it too.
It's also because they've lost face in front of the expert. The expert now thinks the user is an idiot and will probably show less patience and willingness to help in the future. Especially after the 2nd or 3rd time this happens.
-Mike
I once worked with a guy who told me that at his previous job (I think it was at Sperry) some 20+ years ago, personal phone calls of any kind were absolutely prohibited, and that one could get warned and then fired for receiving(!) them. I think he said they would make exceptions for emergencies, but they would have to be truly serious. He also told me that whenever they wanted slack time, what they'd do is get a big, long printout (the continuous kind, with perforations between pages, from a line printer -- God, I feel old!), lean back in their chairs, and pretend to read through it. Appearances mattered much more than actually doing any work.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
-Mike
1. Argumentum ad hominem (tu quoque).
2. Commentary regarding Clinton's wiretaps.
3. Interesting article from the right about Clinton's requests for wiretapping authority, 5 years before 9/11.
-Mike
The tools are there, the info is there, take the time to learn how to use the equipment that you are using. you don't just get into a car and drive it, so why can't people learn to use thier computers
Not the same thing. A car is a couple thousand pounds (give or take) of metal that can travel at speeds in excess of 100mph. It can do direct physical harm, potentially fatal, and therefore the government demands that you demonstrate a certain level of competence before allowing you to operate it without restriction (and revokes its permission when you do too many things that indicate that you're too irresponsible to be trusted). A computer is a tool that isn't particularly dangerous (physically), and the average person expects to be able to do X, Y, and Z, and be all set. Everyone is ignorant about different things, and it's not reasonable for an expert in a field to sneer at someone who isn't. You are ignorant about many fields (as am I); nobody has the time to become an expert in everything. We have chosen computer technology as part of our expertise, but it isn't reasonable to demand that everyone do so.
It's all well and good to say that people should avoid "bad" areas of the Net, but sometimes, it's hard to know just what those are, and the parent's point about malicious banner ads is that "muggings" can happen even in "good" areas.
-Mike
Bzzzt! Sorry, you forgot to phrase it in the form of a question....
(or did you mean Pat?)
-Mike
gMail is about the only (non-ISP) web mail service that also provides access via eMail clients, eg, Eudora, OE, etc.
;-)
;)
FastMail does. At the "Guest" (free) and "Member" (one-time $14.95 fee) levels, it's web and IMAP only, but at higher levels, POP3 is available as well. I'm an Enhanced level user, myself (disclosure: link gives me credit for anyone that signs up through it).
So, using a "real" eMail client, no cookies aer required.
QED
You keep using that TLA.... I do not think it means what you think it means.
-Mike
While there's a great deal of truth to what you're saying, reality often slaps theory in the face. My guess would be that there is no qualified support, there's no money (or no management desire) to hire qualified support, and someone who has an inkling of a clue about computers gets the responsibility dropped in their lap with no real option to say "No". It's not their fault and there's often not much they can do except struggle through and do the best they can. (And, of course, I know some pretty savy people who started out just that way a decade or so ago.)
Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner! There is no shame in ignorance, as long as one recognizes it and tries to do something to rectify it -- which is exactly what the poster of the article is doing.
-Mike
Ok, so it's big news and Pentagon related. But what does it have to do with "Paragliding Military Drones"? Just because the GP talks about military issues doesn't automatically relate it to the topic. That's why someone (not me, no mod points today, and I rarely either mod anyone down or mod ACs at all) flagged it Offtopic; it is offtopic. (And so is this -- sorry!)
I'm one who believes that mod points should not be used to express agreement or disagreement. But I can see why the GP got gigged for Offtopic, and if I happen to get to Meta-Mod it, I'll mark it Fair.
-Mike
That's the same reason thefts are counted as a form of income.
I remember some story about a big time theif who was nailed for tax evasion.
Don't remember who or where I heard it from.
Al Capone.
-Mike
They care to such an extent, I've heard of cases where they don't report drug dealers to law enforcement, since that'd result in a drop in tax revenue.
Actually, the IRS is not legally permitted to share information from tax returns with other law enforcement agencies. I believe it's a 5th Amendment issue.
-Mike