I will never understand why people still buy phones through the network. Phone networks are no charities, you will definitely end up paying back the full value of the phone in the form of overpriced contracts and roaming charges. but people like to fool themselves into thinking they're getting a good deal
Quite simple: the cellphone companies give no discounts for buying the phone from another supplier. So, you just paid more for a phone and the only advantage that you may get is being able to break the contract at less cost. Since the cost of breaking the contract is limited, it's not an irrational decision to buy the phone from the carrier.
Futhermore, T-Mobile will unlock one phone every 90 days at no charge.
If he had some kind of limited-liability entity that sued, he might have been able to protect his own possessions, just like the patent trolls do by setting up a subsidiary for each group of patents.
The proper response to this news is not to push for regulation. It's Comcast's network they can do what they like with the data so long as what they are doing is part of the customer agreement the user signed up for.
That would be true if there were genuine competition, but there isn't.
You could mandate on-site support only, but you will get charged out the yang for it.
Unfortunately, there are other risks than having your data stolen and on-site support is just as vulnerable to these. A few years ago, I came across a company where the outsourced (but on-site) administrator had just done an fdisk -- on the primary data disk of their primary file server! Fortunately, they had some backups so the company did not die as a result of this.
Without knowing a whole lot about dvd encryption: why couldn't you do a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD? That way you don't have to break CSS.
In order for a DVD player to decrypt a DVD, it has to read some keys. These keys are stored on a part of the disc that DVD burners can't burn (today -- it's possible this may change in the future). So you can't make a usable bit-for-bit copy of the disc.
class action lawsuits are there to make it hard to screw a million people out of $5 each. Without a class action, there's no way you're going to pursue action.
I'm not so sure. In the UK, generally the loser of a suit pays the winner's legal costs. Thus a company won't defend multiple small-value lawsuits once one such lawsuit has been lost -- and companies may not even defend the first one because the cost of losing is far greater than the $5 claimed by the plaintiffs.
Anyway, what I was trying to point out was that if the GGP was correct, and class-action lawsuits are a powerful protection for consumers, in countries where class actions are not allowed, one would expect to see consumers being screwed far more regularly. However, I don't see any evidence of this in the UK (which doesn't generally allow class action lawsuits).
Or, to be more brutal, you have accepted the FUD from US lawyers about the need for class action lawsuits.
Basically, the only way to prove your assertion that evidence is lacking is to demonstrate that companies selling products ONLY in nations/places that don't allow class-action suits are releasing MORE defective/dangerous products compared to companies selling in at least one location that allows class-action suits.
Actually, rather than proving a point, my comment was to refute the G-GP's assertion that class action suits modify the behaviour of companies. I don't claim the proof of my assertion, rather, I claim that the G-GP's assertion is unsupported by any evidence.
Class action lawsuits could be improved, sure, but even in their present form, they discourage companies from performing certain actions, and that itself as value.
If that were true, one might expect that western nations that do not allow class-action lawsuits would have many cases of defective and dangerous products. Well, guess, what... they don't. The evidence that class action lawsuits protect consumers from anything is lacking.
If anything, I suspect that the Nigerian scammers are, on the whole, smart, motivated and fairly unprincipled, guys working in a tough competitive market.
And the difference between those people and Goldman's employees is?
The author parrots out the common fallacy that passwords have to changed frequently:
Even worse, good password management requires frequently changing passwords - every 30 to 60 days is the standard. Rotating passwords more frequently--every 15 days or so--is possible, but the panelist say it creates more of management and user headache that leads to more sunflowers by users who's memories can't keep up with changes.
Until people get over this misconception and communicate to their users: "give yourself a good password. I won't ask you to change it so you can pick a strong password that you will remember and that will be the end of memorising passwords" Then stress what makes a strong password.
In addition I check the network once a week for mail or ftp sockets ( evidence there is a bot net at work). So far this has been the easiest way to stay on top.
I would also block outgoing port 25 and then ask the users what smtp servers they use and whitelist those.
Getting the users to run as a non-privileged user will make clean-up much easier. Set their normal login to be a low-privilege user (and add network configuration so they can configure wireless networks), then give them their own administrator login (another user with admin rights) and show them how to login as their normal username and use "run-as". That way they can do everything they would like with a much lower risk of an infection that can't be handled.
Tell me why it doesn't make sense to buy power at off-peak rates and store it locally to meet peak demands.
This has been possible for consumers in the UK for decades. In the UK, they have "storage heaters". These are heaters that store heat at night, at off-peak rates (the meters measure peak-time and off-peak usage) and then release the heat during the day when it is needed. Many people also use delay-timers on other devices such as dishwashers to take advantage of off-peak rates. It amazes me that this concept has failed to reach the USA, although it is a lot more difficult to store "cool" than it is to store heat, so perhaps the possible gains are smaller across much of the USA.
The site has had twice as many women (by percentage) sign up as the other dating sites typically see.
A new meaning was given to the term "slashdot effect" today, as hordes of/. readers register on the site, changing its demographics to be similar to other dating sites.
As mentioned in a few comments prior to yours, it really depends on if Amazon had the right to 'grant' you anything. If somehow they illegitimately sold you the book, then it doesn't matter what the EULA says.
I don't think it is so simple. My point is that Amazon sold people the book. People bought it in good faith and now they don't have the book any more. They are clearly owed compensation -- so the question is: "is a refund sufficient compensation"? The fact that Amazon did not have the rights to sell the book in the first place doesn't alter the buyers' expectation of compensation.
Even taking your own argument -- the EULA for the most part limits the buyers' rights, not Amazon's.
Without the EULA, any buyer has a copy of the ebook with the same rights as a physical copy -- deleting it could be viewed as theft by Amazon.
If the EULA doesn't apply any more, then, presumably the arbitration clause doesn't apply also. I suspect that Amazon would prefer to keep the arbitration clause in play!
It appears that the source of the problem is someone other than Amazon, so Amazon may have to sue that person for its losses.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
Reading the license agreement, it looks like Amazon has no right to do this, which implies that buyers should be compensated for the loss of their purchase -- the question is, what is compensation? A refund? Or replacement (hardcopy)?
The biggest problem, though is that the license agreement specifies arbitration for any disputes (unless Amazon decides otherwise).
just don't know how it can save "55 million tons of CO2 a year"....people who drive a little will continue to drive a little with this insurance or not.
The idea is to make insurance costs like gas costs. People are generally aware that driving more uses more gas, which costs more. Insurance is a bill, paid at verious intervals, which bears little relationship to the miles I drive. Yes, I might have told the insurance company that I drive 15k miles per year, but, with this insurance, I know that the 15 mile trip down the road will cost me a couple of dollars in gas and a couple of dollars in insurance, I might just reconsider. More importantly, I might consider structural changes in my driving patterns -- trying to share a ride to/from work.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite simple: the cellphone companies give no discounts for buying the phone from another supplier. So, you just paid more for a phone and the only advantage that you may get is being able to break the contract at less cost. Since the cost of breaking the contract is limited, it's not an irrational decision to buy the phone from the carrier.
Futhermore, T-Mobile will unlock one phone every 90 days at no charge.
I can answer the question on whom we should revile more: the politicians who passed anti-spam laws that effectively protect the spammers.
If he had some kind of limited-liability entity that sued, he might have been able to protect his own possessions, just like the patent trolls do by setting up a subsidiary for each group of patents.
Was that intended as a joke? Otherwise it appears that you can't spell "affected"!
To be fair, Comcast does allow you to opt out of the DNS redirection and they processed my request for this quite quickly.
That would be true if there were genuine competition, but there isn't.
Unfortunately, there are other risks than having your data stolen and on-site support is just as vulnerable to these. A few years ago, I came across a company where the outsourced (but on-site) administrator had just done an fdisk -- on the primary data disk of their primary file server! Fortunately, they had some backups so the company did not die as a result of this.
In order for a DVD player to decrypt a DVD, it has to read some keys. These keys are stored on a part of the disc that DVD burners can't burn (today -- it's possible this may change in the future). So you can't make a usable bit-for-bit copy of the disc.
I'm not so sure. In the UK, generally the loser of a suit pays the winner's legal costs. Thus a company won't defend multiple small-value lawsuits once one such lawsuit has been lost -- and companies may not even defend the first one because the cost of losing is far greater than the $5 claimed by the plaintiffs.
Anyway, what I was trying to point out was that if the GGP was correct, and class-action lawsuits are a powerful protection for consumers, in countries where class actions are not allowed, one would expect to see consumers being screwed far more regularly. However, I don't see any evidence of this in the UK (which doesn't generally allow class action lawsuits).
Or, to be more brutal, you have accepted the FUD from US lawyers about the need for class action lawsuits.
Actually, rather than proving a point, my comment was to refute the G-GP's assertion that class action suits modify the behaviour of companies. I don't claim the proof of my assertion, rather, I claim that the G-GP's assertion is unsupported by any evidence.
If that were true, one might expect that western nations that do not allow class-action lawsuits would have many cases of defective and dangerous products. Well, guess, what... they don't. The evidence that class action lawsuits protect consumers from anything is lacking.
And the difference between those people and Goldman's employees is?
What makes you think the difference has anything to do with differences in ability and is unrelated to geographic opportunity?
Until people get over this misconception and communicate to their users: "give yourself a good password. I won't ask you to change it so you can pick a strong password that you will remember and that will be the end of memorising passwords" Then stress what makes a strong password.
I would also block outgoing port 25 and then ask the users what smtp servers they use and whitelist those.
Getting the users to run as a non-privileged user will make clean-up much easier. Set their normal login to be a low-privilege user (and add network configuration so they can configure wireless networks), then give them their own administrator login (another user with admin rights) and show them how to login as their normal username and use "run-as". That way they can do everything they would like with a much lower risk of an infection that can't be handled.
This has been possible for consumers in the UK for decades. In the UK, they have "storage heaters". These are heaters that store heat at night, at off-peak rates (the meters measure peak-time and off-peak usage) and then release the heat during the day when it is needed. Many people also use delay-timers on other devices such as dishwashers to take advantage of off-peak rates. It amazes me that this concept has failed to reach the USA, although it is a lot more difficult to store "cool" than it is to store heat, so perhaps the possible gains are smaller across much of the USA.
My name? It's Bill Gates. Oh, no, it's Warren Buffet .... Barak Obama.......
A new meaning was given to the term "slashdot effect" today, as hordes of /. readers register on the site, changing its demographics to be similar to other dating sites.
I don't think it is so simple. My point is that Amazon sold people the book. People bought it in good faith and now they don't have the book any more. They are clearly owed compensation -- so the question is: "is a refund sufficient compensation"? The fact that Amazon did not have the rights to sell the book in the first place doesn't alter the buyers' expectation of compensation.
Even taking your own argument -- the EULA for the most part limits the buyers' rights, not Amazon's. Without the EULA, any buyer has a copy of the ebook with the same rights as a physical copy -- deleting it could be viewed as theft by Amazon.
If the EULA doesn't apply any more, then, presumably the arbitration clause doesn't apply also. I suspect that Amazon would prefer to keep the arbitration clause in play!
It appears that the source of the problem is someone other than Amazon, so Amazon may have to sue that person for its losses.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
Reading the license agreement, it looks like Amazon has no right to do this, which implies that buyers should be compensated for the loss of their purchase -- the question is, what is compensation? A refund? Or replacement (hardcopy)?
The biggest problem, though is that the license agreement specifies arbitration for any disputes (unless Amazon decides otherwise).
The idea is to make insurance costs like gas costs. People are generally aware that driving more uses more gas, which costs more. Insurance is a bill, paid at verious intervals, which bears little relationship to the miles I drive. Yes, I might have told the insurance company that I drive 15k miles per year, but, with this insurance, I know that the 15 mile trip down the road will cost me a couple of dollars in gas and a couple of dollars in insurance, I might just reconsider. More importantly, I might consider structural changes in my driving patterns -- trying to share a ride to/from work.
Then you haven't been paying attention. The USA has pursued actions against foreign-based Internet gambling sites, including Partypoker.com. Also, forbidding credit card payments is against WTO treaties, which are (per the constitution), the law of the land.
Let's not forget the USA's actions against foreign based gambling operations. The USA started this type of action!
Do they block ftp to ftp.mozilla.org?
Your solution is here. I even have Windows Defender running on Win2K after using this tool.