I had a very similar issue that was fixed by running the Lenovo update tool and it performed an update of the BIOS. Before that update the install failed ~5 times in a row and after the update it succeeded with no issues on the first try.
It's worth a try
Don't know, but to me it's simple and easy. While the caller ID may be spoofed, they actually have the charge back info somewhere in the call setup data.
If you get one of these calls, just have a system where you dial a * code (e.g. *66) and it gets flagged. More than 100 (or larger number), per day flagged from your billing info and the callers line is blocked at the source and you have to explain why it should ever be re-enabled. This would include the business and bank/payment method so these callers would have to keep creating and opening billing accounts which is not trivial.
Simple, easy and most people can easily understand a simple add or flyer with "if you receive an unwanted call, just hit *66 after you hang up"
Concur,
I play about twice a year just for the sheer fun when it gets above the $300 million mark. It's pure entertainment thinking about what to do if the 276M:1 odds ever fell in my favor:)
My only concern would be if the communication is bi-directional. E.g. one primary application thinking it's communication to a single instance/pump and pump 3 throws a "cannot perform command, error at line X" etc. Would the application then start throwing recovery commands that would screw up the others?
I think I would go with his approach (assuming it's cost effective). If the vendor provided app assumes it's talking to a single instance/pump, do not mess with its error handling unless you know what impact if would have (e.g. 1 pump recovered, 6 never understood why they were receiving correction commands).
Sorry if I misunderstood your approach
I feel that you have your supplier/purchaser interaction backwards here. If supplier produces something that they consider worthwhile and then offer it for purchase. It's your right to agree or disagree on the price/terms and walk-away if you feel my product does not merit the price. Just because 'you' deem the product bad/overpriced does not give you the right to steal or violate the contract.
Now, I freely admit that the current copyright extensions, patents, etc. have almost no basis in reality and should be returned to their original intent. They frustrate me to no end and are part and parcel of a large number of all our frustrations.
However, the point is still the same. Your assessment of a product does not entitle you to freely take what someone else has produced (let's not go down the argument of digital theft is only copyright violation. Correct in legal terms, but someone is still losing something).
The problem I have with this example is item 1 "Read all of the instructions". By reading each line and performing the actions sequentially, I will have read all of the instructions by the time I've finished the actions.
If it was changed to "Read all instructions prior to executing them", then I could understand this experiment in reading comprehension
While I understand that this is just your opinion (and hopefully just knee jerk reaction/comment off the top of your head), but do you truly believe that abolishing all copyrights is fair and/or appropriate?
If I write a book am I not due compensation for others to read it? If I write a piece of software (and wish to make a living off of it) am I not due the right to do so? Finally, is the whole open source movement to be disbanded since it's based upon the foundation of copyrights (or copy-lefts if you will).
Just because items do not take a physical form (musical notes in the air, software bits in a computer's ram), it does not mean that they have less worth than someone who produces a physical product (a sculptor, a bricklayer, etc.). A copyright is intended to ensure that the originator of a composition (music, code or words) can decide how they wish for it to be released and/or measured. They can give it away, give it away with restrictions (GPL) or even mandate that they will only release it for fee (selling books, music or software as examples). While I do not agree with the current expansion of the copyright lengths to what they are now, I do fully subscribe to the right of any author of a work to make their own decisions on it's distribution.
While I hope your 'abolish' was just a knee jerk reaction, I continue to see more and more of the attitude of "it's not stealing since there's nothing tangible taken from these authors" and "copyrights are bad (under the breath) since they prevent me from getting something for nothing" and it both saddens and concerns me.
I don't agree with the proposed levy that automatically assumes I'm guilty and fines me for that reason, but neither do I argue that copyrights do not have a place and reason for existing. This is nothing more than a bad law that needs to be stricken, not a reason or rational for abolishing author's rights to control their creation.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a very similar issue that was fixed by running the Lenovo update tool and it performed an update of the BIOS. Before that update the install failed ~5 times in a row and after the update it succeeded with no issues on the first try. It's worth a try
If you get one of these calls, just have a system where you dial a * code (e.g. *66) and it gets flagged. More than 100 (or larger number), per day flagged from your billing info and the callers line is blocked at the source and you have to explain why it should ever be re-enabled. This would include the business and bank/payment method so these callers would have to keep creating and opening billing accounts which is not trivial.
Simple, easy and most people can easily understand a simple add or flyer with "if you receive an unwanted call, just hit *66 after you hang up"
Concur, I play about twice a year just for the sheer fun when it gets above the $300 million mark. It's pure entertainment thinking about what to do if the 276M:1 odds ever fell in my favor :)
My only concern would be if the communication is bi-directional. E.g. one primary application thinking it's communication to a single instance/pump and pump 3 throws a "cannot perform command, error at line X" etc. Would the application then start throwing recovery commands that would screw up the others? I think I would go with his approach (assuming it's cost effective). If the vendor provided app assumes it's talking to a single instance/pump, do not mess with its error handling unless you know what impact if would have (e.g. 1 pump recovered, 6 never understood why they were receiving correction commands). Sorry if I misunderstood your approach
Do you mean "your remaining eye"?
I feel that you have your supplier/purchaser interaction backwards here. If supplier produces something that they consider worthwhile and then offer it for purchase. It's your right to agree or disagree on the price/terms and walk-away if you feel my product does not merit the price. Just because 'you' deem the product bad/overpriced does not give you the right to steal or violate the contract. Now, I freely admit that the current copyright extensions, patents, etc. have almost no basis in reality and should be returned to their original intent. They frustrate me to no end and are part and parcel of a large number of all our frustrations. However, the point is still the same. Your assessment of a product does not entitle you to freely take what someone else has produced (let's not go down the argument of digital theft is only copyright violation. Correct in legal terms, but someone is still losing something).
The problem I have with this example is item 1 "Read all of the instructions". By reading each line and performing the actions sequentially, I will have read all of the instructions by the time I've finished the actions.
If it was changed to "Read all instructions prior to executing them", then I could understand this experiment in reading comprehension
While I understand that this is just your opinion (and hopefully just knee jerk reaction/comment off the top of your head), but do you truly believe that abolishing all copyrights is fair and/or appropriate?
If I write a book am I not due compensation for others to read it? If I write a piece of software (and wish to make a living off of it) am I not due the right to do so? Finally, is the whole open source movement to be disbanded since it's based upon the foundation of copyrights (or copy-lefts if you will).
Just because items do not take a physical form (musical notes in the air, software bits in a computer's ram), it does not mean that they have less worth than someone who produces a physical product (a sculptor, a bricklayer, etc.). A copyright is intended to ensure that the originator of a composition (music, code or words) can decide how they wish for it to be released and/or measured. They can give it away, give it away with restrictions (GPL) or even mandate that they will only release it for fee (selling books, music or software as examples). While I do not agree with the current expansion of the copyright lengths to what they are now, I do fully subscribe to the right of any author of a work to make their own decisions on it's distribution.
While I hope your 'abolish' was just a knee jerk reaction, I continue to see more and more of the attitude of "it's not stealing since there's nothing tangible taken from these authors" and "copyrights are bad (under the breath) since they prevent me from getting something for nothing" and it both saddens and concerns me.
I don't agree with the proposed levy that automatically assumes I'm guilty and fines me for that reason, but neither do I argue that copyrights do not have a place and reason for existing. This is nothing more than a bad law that needs to be stricken, not a reason or rational for abolishing author's rights to control their creation.