I generally use a custom, unique address for each domain where I register, and did the same when I registered with Equifax to get my credit report through the free annual credit report that we are entitled to receive.
Two years later (2011), I started getting lots of spam for the address that I had used ONLY for Equifax and nowhere else. They've had crappy security (and most likely a customer data breach) since way back when.
I even emailed their customer service to report this at that time and their response was basically that I needed to contact my email provider to check my spam settings.
Good question, so I spent a little while looking for the rule that applies. There are so many rules for using commas, some of which don't seem to always be included in purported lists of comma uses. This one, in particular, seems to be the one that applies to your case: http://www.grammar-monster.com...
Separate the name of the person (or thing) you are addressing from the rest of the sentence with a comma.
I hope this helps. It helped me get a more solid understanding of one comma use-case.
Bastard! My head almost exploded from trying to hold back tears of laughter at work! 10 out of 5 funny, because it's exactly like the transcriptions I get from Google Voice.
The never-ending single page is the worst trend in webdesign today, or perhaps ever. I was trying to reach the footer of some website the other day to get to info like "about", "contact us", or whatever, and it was absolutely impossible.
Uhm, no. Just no. Inch-thick steel is effectively armor. Very very good armor. You can legally buy armor-penetrating large caliber rifle ammunition in the United States (because 'Murica! Fuck yeah!) and while it does put a divot into inch thick steel, it does not penetrate. At all. Plenty of video on Youtube demonstrating. That lunatic in Texas tried it with all manner of weapons and ammunition, right up to 50 caliber.
Uhm, I'm not knowledgeable in metalurgy or guns, but I have a pretty good hunch that actual military vehicle armor is very different from just any old steel, and most likely a lot more expensive. Just as an example, I was out with some friends many years ago and we shot through about a half-inch steel target from what I recall, with regular 30-06 rifle ammo. It left a perfectly clean hole, as if someone had taken a drill to it. I would not be so certain that whatever steel they use to build thousands of miles of large tubes would be very bulletproof at all. I think that your expectation that they would use any kind of serious armor for that size installation might be off the mark.
Just to reinforce what you're saying: yes, you can get a ton of free channels if you're in the right place and have the right antenna setup. When we moved into a small condo building a couple of years ago I noticed that there was a coax connection on the wall. I plugged my TV in and scanned for channels just on a lark. Well, from what I recall, it found about 160-180 channels! I'm in the Los Angeles / Orange County area about 35 miles from the transmitter antennas, and came to find out that our 4-story tall building has a full-size antenna on the roof that looks like it was professionally installed.
Like you said, the majority of the channels is junk, but it's still worth the effort, I think, to try the best setup you can get if you are interested in getting free TV. If you follow the cord cutting news (cordcutternews.com is what I usually read, but there are also subreddits, etc), you will see that more and more OTA channels are being added fairly regularly. I think that this is a real trend, however small, of moving away from paid TV back to free OTA TV.
- Uniquely identify you, your device, and your location/network. - Record what you navigate and search on the internet. - Record what you watch, listen to, and read. - Record your purchase history.
Any citations for these (like field names in that huge list) that you could provide? I searched for some keywords to find anything related what you mentioned (ex: web, browse, history, internet, purchase, etc) and could not find anything as nefarious sounding as your summary. Perhaps I'm not looking closely enough and it's a huge list, so citations would be appreciated. I really would like to know if they are collecting the info you listed. Thanks.
I would hesitate to read to much into that search statistic. It could be that people were just trying to learn more about the EU once it became huge news the next day. It could be that most of the people searching were people who did not vote either way. It could be that just as many people who voted to remain in the EU also did that search the next day.
I understand the feeling, but still believe that we need to remove barriers to voting, not add more.
I figure you were probably joking, but this concept gets way more credit than it deserves and needs more push back. Why should illiterate or otherwise uneducated people not be allowed to vote? They were already left behind by society, and then we want to punish them on top of that? I get that people like that may be more easily manipulated, but the solution it to try much harder to not let anyone go without a good education, instead of restricting the rights of those who fell through the cracks of society.
This story (or more accurately the trend that it is addressing) kinda worries me. Reading this, reading about the Luddites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite), then thinking about political incompetence and societal inertia, I wonder what are the chances of general anti-technology riots if unemployment rapidly rose to, say, 30%-50% because of automation? Would they target only robots, or, more likely, anything and anyone related to automation? How about destruction of internet infrastructure and data centers? What else? Death to all programmers and IT people?
I'm far from a Trump defender as I lean left, but this executive order was really not as obviously bad as some of his other ones. To start with, it's not jacking up anyone's rates. The order stopped a rate cut from going into effect, meaning that people are just going to keep paying what they were paying before. Second, there has been a long debate over whether this insurance fund was properly funded. An improperly funded insurance fund would be a recipe for disaster if another wave of defaults were to happen. Third, Obama signed this a week before leaving office. Why?
I imagine that you're right about the cost/benefit analysis, but the problem for them is that for every user that posts, there are probably 50 that only read the message boards. I'm one of these users, having only posted about 4 or 5 times in over 10 years there while on the other hand reading them relatively frequently. I agree completely with the GP poster.
I think you were using it the wrong way. The way I used the imdb forums was to discuss details and questions about a movie after I had already watched the movie. I think it was excellent for this, especially for smaller movies for which you were unlikely to find any discussion anywhere else.
I had also been reading them for at least over 10 years and yes, I agree completely with the sentiment. Where else can I go now after watching some obscure foreign film to discuss or read other people's discussions about that film. Very sad to hear this.
I found the stability of Cyanogenmod to be pretty good. I've heard some people say that in some cases it's actually more stable than the original ROMs included with phones, perhaps because of the bloatware that vendors add.
Unfortunately, custom ROMs are still necessary because phone manufacturers, carriers, and even Google itself washes their hands of any phone that is older than about 2 years. Often they stop offering system updates even sooner than 2 years. This forces people to install custom ROMs to keep their phone operating systems up to date.
I don't care what anyone claims -- a smartphone's useful life is way longer than 2 years, so it's unconscionable that these Android companies do this. Compare to iPhones, which are supported for up to 5 years. I have been using Android phones (Google Nexus models) for several years now, but I have seriously considered going back to iPhones because of this and because of app availability.
A lot of people would pay money for a "netflix" of all the BBC-owned video content. There were rumors a few years ago about them making their iPlayer available in other countries for a fee, but it never happened. As it is, many people *cough* have to pirate some of their video content, because it's literally (the real literally, not the misused literally) not available to legally buy, rent, or watch.
I'm not even talking about some rare episode of some obscure show that ran for 7 weeks back in the 70s not being available in some small country. I'm talking about current shows, being produced and broadcast by the BBC now on an ongoing basis that are not available in the US. It's a pretty frustrating situation.
I can kind of see that argument, but remember that there are also headshots on the site, so it's unlikely that someone will pick a 40 year old to play a teenager, or some similar age mix-up. At most, I think that it should be left to each actor whether to display their age or not, or perhaps even give a range of ages they can play. I'm not sure why imdb dragged their heels on this.
It's not really pointless if you think about the process. A producer is considering a bunch of unknown actors that they've seen on imdb. They see the headshots, credits, etc and determine that the actors seem suitable for the part. Do they have the time to go digging around google to find the age of each actor? Especially if they're unknown, the information is probably even harder to find. They will most likely just forget about real age, move along to the next phase and invite them for an audition, or whatever.
I didn't look at their claims, but regardless of the details if you think about the basics of the situation no one should have their age forcibly posted on a de facto employment website.
Slashdot Mirror
I generally use a custom, unique address for each domain where I register, and did the same when I registered with Equifax to get my credit report through the free annual credit report that we are entitled to receive.
Two years later (2011), I started getting lots of spam for the address that I had used ONLY for Equifax and nowhere else. They've had crappy security (and most likely a customer data breach) since way back when.
I even emailed their customer service to report this at that time and their response was basically that I needed to contact my email provider to check my spam settings.
Fuck Equifax.
Good question, so I spent a little while looking for the rule that applies. There are so many rules for using commas, some of which don't seem to always be included in purported lists of comma uses. This one, in particular, seems to be the one that applies to your case: http://www.grammar-monster.com...
Separate the name of the person (or thing) you are addressing from the rest of the sentence with a comma.
I hope this helps. It helped me get a more solid understanding of one comma use-case.
Bastard! My head almost exploded from trying to hold back tears of laughter at work! 10 out of 5 funny, because it's exactly like the transcriptions I get from Google Voice.
The never-ending single page is the worst trend in webdesign today, or perhaps ever. I was trying to reach the footer of some website the other day to get to info like "about", "contact us", or whatever, and it was absolutely impossible.
Uhm, no. Just no. Inch-thick steel is effectively armor. Very very good armor. You can legally buy armor-penetrating large caliber rifle ammunition in the United States (because 'Murica! Fuck yeah!) and while it does put a divot into inch thick steel, it does not penetrate. At all. Plenty of video on Youtube demonstrating. That lunatic in Texas tried it with all manner of weapons and ammunition, right up to 50 caliber.
Uhm, I'm not knowledgeable in metalurgy or guns, but I have a pretty good hunch that actual military vehicle armor is very different from just any old steel, and most likely a lot more expensive. Just as an example, I was out with some friends many years ago and we shot through about a half-inch steel target from what I recall, with regular 30-06 rifle ammo. It left a perfectly clean hole, as if someone had taken a drill to it. I would not be so certain that whatever steel they use to build thousands of miles of large tubes would be very bulletproof at all. I think that your expectation that they would use any kind of serious armor for that size installation might be off the mark.
Just to reinforce what you're saying: yes, you can get a ton of free channels if you're in the right place and have the right antenna setup. When we moved into a small condo building a couple of years ago I noticed that there was a coax connection on the wall. I plugged my TV in and scanned for channels just on a lark. Well, from what I recall, it found about 160-180 channels! I'm in the Los Angeles / Orange County area about 35 miles from the transmitter antennas, and came to find out that our 4-story tall building has a full-size antenna on the roof that looks like it was professionally installed.
Like you said, the majority of the channels is junk, but it's still worth the effort, I think, to try the best setup you can get if you are interested in getting free TV. If you follow the cord cutting news (cordcutternews.com is what I usually read, but there are also subreddits, etc), you will see that more and more OTA channels are being added fairly regularly. I think that this is a real trend, however small, of moving away from paid TV back to free OTA TV.
I bought myself two Casio scientific calculators (one graphing, one not) for my math classes. Nice calculators.
Thanks, that's what I thought you meant, but just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something.
Could you provide some more information on what you mean by passive income? Perhaps some examples? Thanks.
At the very least, they admit that they:
- Uniquely identify you, your device, and your location/network.
- Record what you navigate and search on the internet.
- Record what you watch, listen to, and read.
- Record your purchase history.
Any citations for these (like field names in that huge list) that you could provide? I searched for some keywords to find anything related what you mentioned (ex: web, browse, history, internet, purchase, etc) and could not find anything as nefarious sounding as your summary. Perhaps I'm not looking closely enough and it's a huge list, so citations would be appreciated. I really would like to know if they are collecting the info you listed. Thanks.
I would hesitate to read to much into that search statistic. It could be that people were just trying to learn more about the EU once it became huge news the next day. It could be that most of the people searching were people who did not vote either way. It could be that just as many people who voted to remain in the EU also did that search the next day.
I understand the feeling, but still believe that we need to remove barriers to voting, not add more.
I figure you were probably joking, but this concept gets way more credit than it deserves and needs more push back. Why should illiterate or otherwise uneducated people not be allowed to vote? They were already left behind by society, and then we want to punish them on top of that? I get that people like that may be more easily manipulated, but the solution it to try much harder to not let anyone go without a good education, instead of restricting the rights of those who fell through the cracks of society.
This story (or more accurately the trend that it is addressing) kinda worries me. Reading this, reading about the Luddites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite), then thinking about political incompetence and societal inertia, I wonder what are the chances of general anti-technology riots if unemployment rapidly rose to, say, 30%-50% because of automation? Would they target only robots, or, more likely, anything and anyone related to automation? How about destruction of internet infrastructure and data centers? What else? Death to all programmers and IT people?
I'm far from a Trump defender as I lean left, but this executive order was really not as obviously bad as some of his other ones. To start with, it's not jacking up anyone's rates. The order stopped a rate cut from going into effect, meaning that people are just going to keep paying what they were paying before. Second, there has been a long debate over whether this insurance fund was properly funded. An improperly funded insurance fund would be a recipe for disaster if another wave of defaults were to happen. Third, Obama signed this a week before leaving office. Why?
I imagine that you're right about the cost/benefit analysis, but the problem for them is that for every user that posts, there are probably 50 that only read the message boards. I'm one of these users, having only posted about 4 or 5 times in over 10 years there while on the other hand reading them relatively frequently. I agree completely with the GP poster.
I think you were using it the wrong way. The way I used the imdb forums was to discuss details and questions about a movie after I had already watched the movie. I think it was excellent for this, especially for smaller movies for which you were unlikely to find any discussion anywhere else.
I had also been reading them for at least over 10 years and yes, I agree completely with the sentiment. Where else can I go now after watching some obscure foreign film to discuss or read other people's discussions about that film. Very sad to hear this.
I hope that Google comes to their senses and goes in that direction!
I found the stability of Cyanogenmod to be pretty good. I've heard some people say that in some cases it's actually more stable than the original ROMs included with phones, perhaps because of the bloatware that vendors add.
Unfortunately, custom ROMs are still necessary because phone manufacturers, carriers, and even Google itself washes their hands of any phone that is older than about 2 years. Often they stop offering system updates even sooner than 2 years. This forces people to install custom ROMs to keep their phone operating systems up to date.
I don't care what anyone claims -- a smartphone's useful life is way longer than 2 years, so it's unconscionable that these Android companies do this. Compare to iPhones, which are supported for up to 5 years. I have been using Android phones (Google Nexus models) for several years now, but I have seriously considered going back to iPhones because of this and because of app availability.
I see what you mean, but I figure that they do own some of the shows that they broadcast. Eastenders, for instance?
A lot of people would pay money for a "netflix" of all the BBC-owned video content. There were rumors a few years ago about them making their iPlayer available in other countries for a fee, but it never happened. As it is, many people *cough* have to pirate some of their video content, because it's literally (the real literally, not the misused literally) not available to legally buy, rent, or watch.
I'm not even talking about some rare episode of some obscure show that ran for 7 weeks back in the 70s not being available in some small country. I'm talking about current shows, being produced and broadcast by the BBC now on an ongoing basis that are not available in the US. It's a pretty frustrating situation.
Interesting take and background on this idea, and some why it's a bad idea: http://thelongandshort.org/soc...
I can kind of see that argument, but remember that there are also headshots on the site, so it's unlikely that someone will pick a 40 year old to play a teenager, or some similar age mix-up. At most, I think that it should be left to each actor whether to display their age or not, or perhaps even give a range of ages they can play. I'm not sure why imdb dragged their heels on this.
It's not really pointless if you think about the process. A producer is considering a bunch of unknown actors that they've seen on imdb. They see the headshots, credits, etc and determine that the actors seem suitable for the part. Do they have the time to go digging around google to find the age of each actor? Especially if they're unknown, the information is probably even harder to find. They will most likely just forget about real age, move along to the next phase and invite them for an audition, or whatever.
I didn't look at their claims, but regardless of the details if you think about the basics of the situation no one should have their age forcibly posted on a de facto employment website.