or if they send me a verifiable money order (i.e. western union or another US issued one that has a verification phone number, which I always verify with their website before calling).
I have sold only a few items on eBay, and one item that I sold this year was paid for by a money order. When it arrived, I phoned the number on the money order to verify it. I was told that, yes: the money order was OK, but that this situation could change!
So, verifiable? Well, what's the point of verifying if the verification can be removed after the fact?
Well, maybe it does provide a little extra protection, but it is certainly not 100%.
He's protecting his family by not publishing his information. That is inarguably true.
He's protecting his -wallet-, if you can call it that from spending $10 rather than pay someone to prevent harassment.
How is that wrong?
ICANN regulations? You know, the regulations that require accurate data. There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect his children. However, he does not need to break the regulations in order so to do.
He can protect his children and follow the regulations for a small price per year. How is that wrong? His justification for the false information ("protect the children") is bogus, because he has an alternative that follows the regulations, yet costs a few $ per year.
his unreasonable demand that he not be subject to any security measures, like a bag search and a pat down,
According to this article he accepted physical security measures in order to board an aircraft. Gilmore has a valid point: identity checks don't make us any more secure. The 9/11 hijackers all had (or had access to) documents that would have passed identity checks. On the other hand, physical security checks can be linked quite closely to security of the aircraft.
OSX: root is disabled by default. Apps may request sudo rights of a user, to which a user has to enter his password and may review the (somewhat archanly named) right being asked for.
Linux: root is enabled by defauly. Installers insist you create a non-root user during installation and warn you to use it.
Evidently you have not installed Ubuntu. While you refer to "Linux" you are probably aware that there are many different distributions and installers, thus, one should not generalise as "Linux".
Ubuntu insists that you create a user account during installation. root is disabled by default, and access to root privileges is through sudo. A sophisticated user can use sudo to enable the root account.
Note: There is no such thing as a distribution or its installer (generically) "having SATA support" (or not). Please send anyone speaking in such terms to this page. (Some SATA chipsets have been supported since practically forever, as their programming interfaces are unchanged from PATA predecessors. Others are brand-new and require new drivers from scratch.)
So, just because the XP installer supported the SATA chipset on your motherboard, does not mean that the XP installer will support some other, newer SATA chipset. Hence your experience may not be duplicated by others.
If you want to really scan for virus and trojans on a crtical PC, you map the administrative shares C$ D$ etc to another PC, and run the virus scanner on that machine.
You surely can't think that can you? If you are accessing the shares remotely, you need the kernel on the compromised machine to tell you what files exist. If the kernel doesn't list the files, do you think it will make them available over the share?
The only way to be sure is to boot from CD or another, known good, hard disk.
It would be interesting to see a similar paper on Total Environmental Impact.
Including the environmental impact of building the new car -- if one is to compare the total impact of running an older car against the impact of running a new car, the effects of building that new car (and disposing of both cars at end of life) should also be considered. What happens to all the lead from the batteries? Sure most will be re-cycled, but some will be released. What of the impact of mining all those metals required to build the new car?
Claiming that he isn't liable because his grandson was the one doing it, not him, is about as rediculous
Is it ridiculous? Isn't that very similar to the argument that a mother recently used successfully against the RIAA? (that her child was responsible)
< Spelling Nazi mode > What's with "rediculous" -- has 50% of the/. population forgotton how to spell "ridiculous" -- or did they never learn the correct spelling?
2) You can't defeat something unless you have something better to replace it with. Linux is not better from an end-user standpoint.
Such a statement is a gross over-simplification and does not do justice to the real situation. For many people (myself included), Linux provides a more productive platform than Windows. That may be due to my familiarity with computers and the type of tasks I do. It's not due to any lack of familiarity with Windows -- in my last job, I had both Win2k and Linux desktops, running side by side (2 machines, not one dual-boot machine). Now I find the Windows machine unnecessary.
You should also be aware that distributions such as Ubuntu are enlarging the pool of people for whom Linux provides a good or better solution.
Word 2000 worked like a charm for me on a Celeron 266 with 128M RAM.
Interesting, but not relevant. Office 2003 requires Windows 2000 (at least). Ever tried running Windows 2000 on a machine with less than 256MB? Even with 256MB, it's pretty slow.
What's the minimum Windows OS requirement for Office-12?
Upon the expiration or termination of this EULA, you shall immediately remove all of the LICENSED MATERIALS from your personal computer system and delete or destroy them, along with any related documentation (and any copies thereof) that you may have received or otherwise may possess.
So now Sony has you in the unenviable position of not being able to uninstall the software that you agreed already to uninstall.....
BASH BACK. If you get attacked, dig up dirt on your assailant and feed it to sympathetic bloggers. Discredit him.
Ah, so if the behavior is unacceptable by a blogger, it's acceptable for a company to do it in return?
ATTACK THE HOST. Find some copyrighted text that a blogger has lifted from your Web site and threaten to sue his Internet service provider under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That may prompt the ISP to shut him down. Or threaten to drag the host into a defamation suit against the blogger. The host isn't liable but may skip the hassle and cut off the blogger's access anyway. Also:Subpoena the host company, demanding the blogger's name or Internet address.
SLAPP anyone?
In the article on PJ, he describes Maureen O'Gara's attempt to unmask PJ, yet fails to consider the possiblity that MOG found someone entirely unrelated and performed a unprovoked and unjustified intrusion into an unrelated person's privacy.
The basic problem with the article is that is completely ignores the possiblity that bloggers are finding and publishing real facts that are unpleasant for companies to have publicised.
How do you tune channels from cable or satellite providers when a set top box provided by cable or satellite provider is essentially required?
Tivo has solved this for some cable receivers: my Tivo is has a connection that plugs into the back of my cable box and is able to control the channel very effectively. Of course, the problem then becomes wanting to record 2 shows at the same time, but this happens so rarely that I don't really care! Even if the 2 shows are on at the same time, there is usually a re-broadcast in the early hours of the morning so the Tivo is able to eventually record both shows.
This will probably get slapped down pretty quickly via the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.
Frankly, since Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich, the Interstate Commerce clause can be interpreted to refer to just about any activity, making the Federal Government's powers effectively unlimited.
Also, I don't understand how this particularly helps keep the milk fresh, as the usual problem is bacteria entering your milk after you break the seal, isn't it?
no other industry on the face of this earth (except politicians) can sell you stuff and not be liable for it causing harm.
So next time my flight is late and I miss an important meeting, I can sue the airline for lost profits (based on the deal that would have been made in the meeting? Oh wait, no.
Or, I can sue the airline next time they trash my luggage? Oh wait, no, it's limited by treaty.
The simple facts are that:
1. Those who are careful don't get viruses, spyware, etc.
2. The cost of providing indemnification would dramatically push up the cost of the software
3. The net effect is that the careful people would be paying for the careless people to continue their careless behavior.
The article also takes the position that Apple were required to replace these iPods. In many cases, though, companies accept liability not because they are legally obligated to but because it is in the long term commercial interest of the company. Unless you can show that the long term (or short term) interests of software companies are served by providing indemnification, don't expect them to provide it.
Finally: has anyone successfully sued a disk drive manufacturer over the value of lost data on a consumer disk?
Most of the ones I've seen recently (such as my 2002 Ford Focus) only have one light: "Shift Up". I guess they figure that you'll know when to shift down yourself.
Just wait until Ford is sued by someone who crashed while changing up on an icy road and going round a corner because "the light told me that I had to change gear"
1. In an email program, prominently note in the "browse" box that files that are too large to be emailed are not shown.
But how is an email client going to know what limits are placed on the recipient's emails?
2. Again, in an email program, when the user attaches a file, the program could pop up a message notifying the user that "NapoleanDynamite.avi" is going to take 30 minutes to arrive in the recipient's Inbox due to the large size of this file, and recommend that the user think twice about emailing such a large file.
Again, how does the client know over what types of networks the email must flow to get to the recipent's email client? There are huge differences in bandwiths between dial-up and cable.
Slashdot Mirror
So, verifiable? Well, what's the point of verifying if the verification can be removed after the fact?
Well, maybe it does provide a little extra protection, but it is certainly not 100%.
Reminds me of the Red Dwarf episode Rimmerworld
He can protect his children and follow the regulations for a small price per year. How is that wrong? His justification for the false information ("protect the children") is bogus, because he has an alternative that follows the regulations, yet costs a few $ per year.
Your argument is that it is your family's security that you are protecting, whilst in reality, it is your wallet that you are protecting.
Ubuntu insists that you create a user account during installation. root is disabled by default, and access to root privileges is through sudo. A sophisticated user can use sudo to enable the root account.
But will the fabric short out a Tazer, thus enabling people to avoid being disabled by one?
If you want to really scan for virus and trojans on a crtical PC, you map the administrative shares C$ D$ etc to another PC, and run the virus scanner on that machine. You surely can't think that can you? If you are accessing the shares remotely, you need the kernel on the compromised machine to tell you what files exist. If the kernel doesn't list the files, do you think it will make them available over the share? The only way to be sure is to boot from CD or another, known good, hard disk.
Including the environmental impact of building the new car -- if one is to compare the total impact of running an older car against the impact of running a new car, the effects of building that new car (and disposing of both cars at end of life) should also be considered. What happens to all the lead from the batteries? Sure most will be re-cycled, but some will be released. What of the impact of mining all those metals required to build the new car?
< Spelling Nazi mode > What's with "rediculous" -- has 50% of the /. population forgotton how to spell "ridiculous" -- or did they never learn the correct spelling?
While on the subject of settlements, did the MS/CA settlement vouchers ever go out?
You should also be aware that distributions such as Ubuntu are enlarging the pool of people for whom Linux provides a good or better solution.
What's the minimum Windows OS requirement for Office-12?
Corrected version:
1. Buy spyware CD
2. Join class action lawsuit
3. Get $5 off next CD voucher
4 (valid only for lawyers): collect $$$M
In the article on PJ, he describes Maureen O'Gara's attempt to unmask PJ, yet fails to consider the possiblity that MOG found someone entirely unrelated and performed a unprovoked and unjustified intrusion into an unrelated person's privacy.
The basic problem with the article is that is completely ignores the possiblity that bloggers are finding and publishing real facts that are unpleasant for companies to have publicised.
Or, I can sue the airline next time they trash my luggage? Oh wait, no, it's limited by treaty.
The simple facts are that:
1. Those who are careful don't get viruses, spyware, etc.
2. The cost of providing indemnification would dramatically push up the cost of the software
3. The net effect is that the careful people would be paying for the careless people to continue their careless behavior.
The article also takes the position that Apple were required to replace these iPods. In many cases, though, companies accept liability not because they are legally obligated to but because it is in the long term commercial interest of the company. Unless you can show that the long term (or short term) interests of software companies are served by providing indemnification, don't expect them to provide it.
Finally: has anyone successfully sued a disk drive manufacturer over the value of lost data on a consumer disk?
Are you 100% certain that a September 09 backup is safe?