It switched to stolen the INSTANT they scanned the dogs chip and the new owners didn't offer to return it.
It doesn't matter if the lead was unclipped, its STILL HIS PROPERTY.
You can leave your car unlocked with the keys in it, and if someone takes it, its still theft.
He knows its in someone else's possession. The chip company knows its in someone else's possession. There are records showing he was the registered owner (THE WHOLE POINT TO CHIPPING). He DID call the police and report it, and they said they were busy eating donuts. I guess reading the actual article was too hard? Were the words too big or something?
You can make retarded statements like its his fault, but pretty much no matter how you look at it, the police and the company doing the chips have not handled this properly and it needs to be made far more public just to point out how much of a waste of time it is apparently to chip your dog.
Every shelter in existence has the rfid readers to know that a dog has been chipped, it costs them WAY less money to return it than to adopt it out, so it didn't go to the pound.
Microchips _move_ within the body, and it's not uncommon for some people to only check the neck and miss a chip which migrated down to the elbow.
I'm pretty sure you would have failed anatomy in vet school. The chips are put in behind the neck and there is no possible way for it to migrate to the elbow, it just doesn't work that way.
Second, on a dog that size, you could pretty much hold the scanner anywhere near the dog and wave it slightly and end up detecting the chip.
Please don't talk about animals like you have a clue, you sound like some retarded vet tech or vet tech assistant who doesn't have any idea what you're talking about.
Of course, this wouldn't have been a problem if he hadn't left the dog tied up unattended in his yard...
But its a direct and unquestionable indication of someone in possession of property which is not theirs. I won't call it stolen because apparently he hasn't reported it as such.
Where I live, you're still guilty of committing the crime even if you didn't know. If you are truly an innocent offender, no one will do anything to you. Eitherway, this a retarded fucking discussion and they should just give the guy his damn dog back.
I'm sure he can get advice from either the judge who rejected
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, no he can't get advice from the judge, its illegal. Its an indication of bias. Some break the rule and do it anyway because most of the time its just the right thing to do, but legally, they aren't supposed to give you any advice what so ever when they preside over your case.
Good for the company for standing thier ground... really... now explain to me WHY THE FUCK I would use their service when they've shown publicly they'll do the wrong thing and not help to get the dog returned.
You chip your animal to get it returned, thats the selling point of their service, and they aren't willing to make an effort to provide the service or they aren't 'allowed' to provide the service the customer paid for.
Why would any intelligent pay for a service that could not possibly help them do to some other retarded law being used in the wrong way?
All this does is shows that its stupid to chip your dog in the UK. Good job guys, you're idiots.
As filesharing becomes easier on the user's end, how is a new/naive/young user supposed to know it's illegal?
Oh I don't know... the same way kids have been taught that stealing is wrong for the past few thousand years, whats so hard to figure out about that one?
Do you let a kid drive a car without explaining the rules to them? Why the fuck are you letting a kid use a computer, with wide open access to EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD without teaching him/her whats right/wrong and whats safe/unsafe?
The fact that today's music largely sucks is far from the only reason I haven't bought music in years.
The fact that today's music largely sucks is an opinion and irrelevant to the discussion. Its STILL illegal.
It's suck level is obviously low enough that someone bothered to pirate it.
The fines shouldn't be any more than the price per song, street value, for the number of CONFIRMED times it has been distributed. The current pricing for the songs out of trial is far more than the actual value.
I can even accept that the person committing the crime gets charged extra as a punishment on top of restitution for the 'theft'. 750 times the price of the item 'stolen' is just ridiculous, considering they only lost a potential sale, not even a real one sale. And the item being 'stolen' does not actually hurt them when its stolen if you ignore the purchase price... they don't loose money when its stolen, they actually have to pay something if someone downloads it from them, but they aren't downloading the pirated versions from the person selling it so... you get the point I hope.
I use an ActiveDirectory domain at both work and home, I've configured both, using group policy to enable the Window firewall with no exceptions other than those in the policy when not on our internal networks.
When internal, the firewall service is disabled.
What this does is let me assume that myself and my users are running a firewall when they aren't already in a trusted and controlled environment.
When in those trusted and controlled environments, the firewall doesn't get in the way of people getting things done and doesn't require tedious configuration, I just let my BSD boxes handle the firewalling for everyone, Windows and non-Windows alike. Far more reliable and nothing is going to get past it like a windows virus that turns off the firewall or adds exceptions.
Now it does mean that if something does penetrate my network, it can spread across the internal subnet its on like no tomorrow, but that hasn't happened yet thanks to good border protection for things like mail and web access. We don't do anything for USB devices but then again, even as a company who sells USB flash drives, we rarely use them, thats what the network is for. When we do use them, its generally outbound, so we just grab a clean stick, throw whatever on it, and ship it off to whoever needs it, we rarely take them from outside for anything other than returns, which get wiped by a BSD machine before going anywhere near any other machines in the office.
The Windows Firewall has its time and place, its a basic layer of protect that is really useful if you're traveling about and have to connect to an untrusted network.
Running it internally on your own trusted network just seems silly to me, and a big hassle for little return.
A kernel driver has pretty much free run to do what it wants in XP. If not worked with the graphics side, but for other forms of hardware it isn't even that hard.
The latest Linux kernel is available for free, and can be upgraded without any compatibility issues or changes to the UI.
Without any compatibility issues? Uhm, no, sorry. Free yes, 'upgraded without any compatibility issues', no. Thats a retarded statement, pretty much any kernel change of any usefulness requires upgrading system libraries at the bare minimum. I'm fairly sure you've never had any software development experience. Pretty much EVERY change you make in a kernel causes compatibility problems if theres actually software written to use it. You can think what you want, but binary compatibility tends to be rather difficult and its an area that pretty much every free OS completely sucks at, hence the practically non-existent amount of commercial software written for an impossible to hit target. You're confusing minor kernel patches with major kernel upgrades at best.
The odds that anyone would be interested in DX11 on Linux and simultaneously have a good reason not to upgrade their kernel are rather slim.
I'd be willing to bet actually that the number of people interested in DX11 on Linux is considerably lower than those on XP.
Not to mention that the whole kernel is open-source, so if you really wanted to make it work you could probably backport the necessary DRI changes to an older kernel.
Which is roughly as likely to happen as my fixing Windows XP without the source. Clearly you don't understand that source code is only one part of the equation. It doesn't just magically combine itself and work like you want it too with the source. When will you fanboy stop making such retarded statements. The source IS NOT EVERYTHING, it actually takes someone putting some work into doing something with that source. It really isn't magical beans.
You can't upgrade an XP system to a Vista or Windows 7 kernel with DX11 support while leaving the rest of the system intact
What? Seriously what do you mean? You're saying that you can upgrade Linux... but not really upgrade it at the same time? But you can't do that with XP? Please explain how they are different?
While I'm not actually challenging the 'stats' you linked to, you can't link to gizmodo.com and pretend you're linking to a reputable news organization or a site that can be trusted in the last.
They have a track record that reads like a criminal record. Theft, public disruption, you name something childish, they do it.
So I won't argue the validity of those stats, simply because I refuse to visit such a disreputable organization, can't believe anyone would take them at their word for anything.
My laptop has been sitting here on this article for a while, and I had some other pages open in the background and a VM running windows downloading some games to play.
I pick it up and its piping hot... like it gets after running some hard core games. Gah, that stupid VM is roasting CPU, freaking Windows... start top to see whats going on and cofirm... what? The VM isn't even on the screen its so far down the process list?
Whats eating CPU? WebKitPlugin... i.e. FREAKING FLASH.
Close the one web page with flash on it, and the CPU load drops down to nothing.
THATS WHY I FUCKING HATE FLASH.
I have a request, will someone please make a Safari plugin that will enable flash only when private browsing is enabled? I know that sounds backwards, but the only reason I turn flash on is to view porn, seems like if it would switch on and off automatically then I wouldn't mind nearly as much. I might even switch to Chrome if there was a plugin like that, hrm, maybe I can port one to Safari if its already there.
First off, the FCC wouldn't jump on them, thats not their job. You're thinking DOJ or something. But lets pretend you got the right 3 letter acronym.
While there technically was a 'mobile market' before the iPhone, the reality of it is, no one outside of geeks owned a real smart phone before the iPhone. If anyone says that RIM makes a smart phone, you're fired. There certainly WERE smartphones out there (owned one myself) but not enough to matter.
Apple more or less created the smartphone market from a CONSUMER stand point when it released the iPhone. It took two devices everyone already had anyway, and made one that did both. Argue over if they did it good or not all you want, thats not my point. My point is that ignoring WHAT smart phones people own now, now EVERYONE owns a smart phone almost.
So considering Apple more or less created the market from a practical perspective, the DOJ isn't going to jump up and start an antitrust investigation tomorrow, even if they owned the market, which... they don't, not anywhere near being able to call the shots.
Point of reference: If they had the power to control the market, AT&T wouldn't charge tethering and would still have unlimited data plans because Apple said so.
ADB only worked on Apple, it never stood a chance competing with PS/2 because it wasn't intended to, thats a retarded statement.
USB took over because Adaptec wanted retarded license fees for using firewire and USB is more or less free. Adaptec basically wanted $20/device for anything that used firewire. Its really hard to sell a $10 web cam when you have to pay $20 for the connector.
USB succeeded because it was free, otherwise pretty much everything about USB is asstastic. Its a horribly inefficient protocol as anyone who actually has worked with it at the low level knows.
There are plenty of other things Apple failed at. Interestingly enough, it was during the time that Steve Jobs wasn't there that most of these failures occurred. He's had his fair share too, but for fucks sake at least pick the ones that were actually shitty products and failed because Apple's hands were tied (Firewire) or they just didn't care (ADB).
No, Apple didn't not provide a multibutton mouse out of the box, however right click, which is has the key equivilent of control-left click has been around since before OS X and you can use multi-button mice just fine with Macs. They just didn't ship with one... and no one cared enough to buy one... you do realize 99.9% of the windows users out there don't know what right click does... right?
As for replacing it with something better... well they already tried, and we fanboys hated it because it fucking sucked. And now the magic mouse, which may actually be better but its brand new and I haven't tried one.
You're bitching about something that hasn't actually been an issue for at least 10 years (since OSX just turned 10) and a few years before that since it was in previous versions.
Just go ahead and start whining about it not being upgradable too while you're at it, on and that the monitor is built in to ever modal. I mean, if you're going to talk out your ass about things that haven't been true for probably longer than you've actaully used computers in general then you might as well go all the way.
Considering the number of people with BS accounts for getting farmville friends or whatever, it wouldn't suprise me that there are more 'facebook users using iPhones' than iPhones themselves.
Also, I'm fairly certain that nothing that has ever come out of that company was actually true.
MyI recently came into some money and offered to buy wife a new Macbook Air to replace her several 7 year old laptop.
Her response?
Why, I don't use my laptop anymore, I just do everything I need on my iPhone.
Of course, she was never a 'computer user', she was a person who used computers to get a job done. I.E. she's normal, not a geek.
My job revolves entirely around computers so thats in no way my stand, but unless I want to game, I don't bother to take my laptop anywhere unless its needed to work, I can stay in contact well enough with my iPhone, more than I want too actually.
Your experience certainly isn't unique and my guess would be its probably going to be the typical way people compute who aren't in the 'computer guys' in the relatively near future. I'm sure it won't be just iPhones, and I don't think the desktop will die. It'll probably be more like 'the good tv in the livingroom' and individuals with their own smaller, less capable devices.
Guess you and most of the rest of slashdot have never heard of glass bottom boats.
You don't make EVERYTHING transparent, you can't.
You make certain areas transparent to provide large viewports. The floor is a good example, as is the roof.
They aren't going to make a transparent airplane, if you believe slashdot headlines you're an idiot. They're going to make a plane with bigger windows, bigger than anything we've seen in a plane to date... but still just a window.
The only problem is that Airbus is probably the only aircraft company that sucks more than Boeing at actually getting their new designs in the air.
It'll be cool when it happens, but Airbus won't be the first to put us in one. They'll be the first to START talking about constructing one, hell maybe even the first to start constructing one.
History tells us there isn't a chance in hell that Airbus will be the first one in the air with it.
Slashdot Mirror
On Mars? Forgetting the not so minor difference in atmospheres between Earth and Mars are we?
It switched to stolen the INSTANT they scanned the dogs chip and the new owners didn't offer to return it.
It doesn't matter if the lead was unclipped, its STILL HIS PROPERTY.
You can leave your car unlocked with the keys in it, and if someone takes it, its still theft.
He knows its in someone else's possession. The chip company knows its in someone else's possession. There are records showing he was the registered owner (THE WHOLE POINT TO CHIPPING). He DID call the police and report it, and they said they were busy eating donuts. I guess reading the actual article was too hard? Were the words too big or something?
You can make retarded statements like its his fault, but pretty much no matter how you look at it, the police and the company doing the chips have not handled this properly and it needs to be made far more public just to point out how much of a waste of time it is apparently to chip your dog.
Every shelter in existence has the rfid readers to know that a dog has been chipped, it costs them WAY less money to return it than to adopt it out, so it didn't go to the pound.
I'm pretty sure you would have failed anatomy in vet school. The chips are put in behind the neck and there is no possible way for it to migrate to the elbow, it just doesn't work that way.
Second, on a dog that size, you could pretty much hold the scanner anywhere near the dog and wave it slightly and end up detecting the chip.
Please don't talk about animals like you have a clue, you sound like some retarded vet tech or vet tech assistant who doesn't have any idea what you're talking about.
You're an idiot.
From the linked article at telegraph which you apparently ignored:
He reported it and they said 'fuck you, we're eating donuts.'
From TFA:
So ... he tried, they told him to fuck off... NOW WHAT?
Yea, it is wonderful.
But its a direct and unquestionable indication of someone in possession of property which is not theirs. I won't call it stolen because apparently he hasn't reported it as such.
Where I live, you're still guilty of committing the crime even if you didn't know. If you are truly an innocent offender, no one will do anything to you. Eitherway, this a retarded fucking discussion and they should just give the guy his damn dog back.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, no he can't get advice from the judge, its illegal. Its an indication of bias. Some break the rule and do it anyway because most of the time its just the right thing to do, but legally, they aren't supposed to give you any advice what so ever when they preside over your case.
Good for the company for standing thier ground ... really ... now explain to me WHY THE FUCK I would use their service when they've shown publicly they'll do the wrong thing and not help to get the dog returned.
You chip your animal to get it returned, thats the selling point of their service, and they aren't willing to make an effort to provide the service or they aren't 'allowed' to provide the service the customer paid for.
Why would any intelligent pay for a service that could not possibly help them do to some other retarded law being used in the wrong way?
All this does is shows that its stupid to chip your dog in the UK. Good job guys, you're idiots.
Oh I don't know ... the same way kids have been taught that stealing is wrong for the past few thousand years, whats so hard to figure out about that one?
Do you let a kid drive a car without explaining the rules to them? Why the fuck are you letting a kid use a computer, with wide open access to EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD without teaching him/her whats right/wrong and whats safe/unsafe?
Its called parenting.
The fact that today's music largely sucks is an opinion and irrelevant to the discussion. Its STILL illegal.
It's suck level is obviously low enough that someone bothered to pirate it.
The fines shouldn't be any more than the price per song, street value, for the number of CONFIRMED times it has been distributed. The current pricing for the songs out of trial is far more than the actual value.
I can even accept that the person committing the crime gets charged extra as a punishment on top of restitution for the 'theft'. 750 times the price of the item 'stolen' is just ridiculous, considering they only lost a potential sale, not even a real one sale. And the item being 'stolen' does not actually hurt them when its stolen if you ignore the purchase price ... they don't loose money when its stolen, they actually have to pay something if someone downloads it from them, but they aren't downloading the pirated versions from the person selling it so ... you get the point I hope.
Really? Then why was I managing firewalls before Windows could even connect to the Internet?
I use an ActiveDirectory domain at both work and home, I've configured both, using group policy to enable the Window firewall with no exceptions other than those in the policy when not on our internal networks.
When internal, the firewall service is disabled.
What this does is let me assume that myself and my users are running a firewall when they aren't already in a trusted and controlled environment.
When in those trusted and controlled environments, the firewall doesn't get in the way of people getting things done and doesn't require tedious configuration, I just let my BSD boxes handle the firewalling for everyone, Windows and non-Windows alike. Far more reliable and nothing is going to get past it like a windows virus that turns off the firewall or adds exceptions.
Now it does mean that if something does penetrate my network, it can spread across the internal subnet its on like no tomorrow, but that hasn't happened yet thanks to good border protection for things like mail and web access. We don't do anything for USB devices but then again, even as a company who sells USB flash drives, we rarely use them, thats what the network is for. When we do use them, its generally outbound, so we just grab a clean stick, throw whatever on it, and ship it off to whoever needs it, we rarely take them from outside for anything other than returns, which get wiped by a BSD machine before going anywhere near any other machines in the office.
The Windows Firewall has its time and place, its a basic layer of protect that is really useful if you're traveling about and have to connect to an untrusted network.
Running it internally on your own trusted network just seems silly to me, and a big hassle for little return.
Atom processors are barely fast enough to run a moderately complex BIOS.
They could always write one.
A kernel driver has pretty much free run to do what it wants in XP. If not worked with the graphics side, but for other forms of hardware it isn't even that hard.
VirtualBox probably already has an OSS example.
Without any compatibility issues? Uhm, no, sorry. Free yes, 'upgraded without any compatibility issues', no. Thats a retarded statement, pretty much any kernel change of any usefulness requires upgrading system libraries at the bare minimum. I'm fairly sure you've never had any software development experience. Pretty much EVERY change you make in a kernel causes compatibility problems if theres actually software written to use it. You can think what you want, but binary compatibility tends to be rather difficult and its an area that pretty much every free OS completely sucks at, hence the practically non-existent amount of commercial software written for an impossible to hit target. You're confusing minor kernel patches with major kernel upgrades at best.
I'd be willing to bet actually that the number of people interested in DX11 on Linux is considerably lower than those on XP.
Which is roughly as likely to happen as my fixing Windows XP without the source. Clearly you don't understand that source code is only one part of the equation. It doesn't just magically combine itself and work like you want it too with the source. When will you fanboy stop making such retarded statements. The source IS NOT EVERYTHING, it actually takes someone putting some work into doing something with that source. It really isn't magical beans.
What? Seriously what do you mean? You're saying that you can upgrade Linux ... but not really upgrade it at the same time? But you can't do that with XP? Please explain how they are different?
While I'm not actually challenging the 'stats' you linked to, you can't link to gizmodo.com and pretend you're linking to a reputable news organization or a site that can be trusted in the last.
They have a track record that reads like a criminal record. Theft, public disruption, you name something childish, they do it.
So I won't argue the validity of those stats, simply because I refuse to visit such a disreputable organization, can't believe anyone would take them at their word for anything.
My laptop has been sitting here on this article for a while, and I had some other pages open in the background and a VM running windows downloading some games to play.
I pick it up and its piping hot ... like it gets after running some hard core games. Gah, that stupid VM is roasting CPU, freaking Windows ... start top to see whats going on and cofirm ... what? The VM isn't even on the screen its so far down the process list?
Whats eating CPU? WebKitPlugin ... i.e. FREAKING FLASH.
Close the one web page with flash on it, and the CPU load drops down to nothing.
THATS WHY I FUCKING HATE FLASH.
I have a request, will someone please make a Safari plugin that will enable flash only when private browsing is enabled? I know that sounds backwards, but the only reason I turn flash on is to view porn, seems like if it would switch on and off automatically then I wouldn't mind nearly as much. I might even switch to Chrome if there was a plugin like that, hrm, maybe I can port one to Safari if its already there.
First off, the FCC wouldn't jump on them, thats not their job. You're thinking DOJ or something. But lets pretend you got the right 3 letter acronym.
While there technically was a 'mobile market' before the iPhone, the reality of it is, no one outside of geeks owned a real smart phone before the iPhone. If anyone says that RIM makes a smart phone, you're fired. There certainly WERE smartphones out there (owned one myself) but not enough to matter.
Apple more or less created the smartphone market from a CONSUMER stand point when it released the iPhone. It took two devices everyone already had anyway, and made one that did both. Argue over if they did it good or not all you want, thats not my point. My point is that ignoring WHAT smart phones people own now, now EVERYONE owns a smart phone almost.
So considering Apple more or less created the market from a practical perspective, the DOJ isn't going to jump up and start an antitrust investigation tomorrow, even if they owned the market, which ... they don't, not anywhere near being able to call the shots.
Point of reference: If they had the power to control the market, AT&T wouldn't charge tethering and would still have unlimited data plans because Apple said so.
ADB only worked on Apple, it never stood a chance competing with PS/2 because it wasn't intended to, thats a retarded statement.
USB took over because Adaptec wanted retarded license fees for using firewire and USB is more or less free. Adaptec basically wanted $20/device for anything that used firewire. Its really hard to sell a $10 web cam when you have to pay $20 for the connector.
USB succeeded because it was free, otherwise pretty much everything about USB is asstastic. Its a horribly inefficient protocol as anyone who actually has worked with it at the low level knows.
There are plenty of other things Apple failed at. Interestingly enough, it was during the time that Steve Jobs wasn't there that most of these failures occurred. He's had his fair share too, but for fucks sake at least pick the ones that were actually shitty products and failed because Apple's hands were tied (Firewire) or they just didn't care (ADB).
No, Apple didn't not provide a multibutton mouse out of the box, however right click, which is has the key equivilent of control-left click has been around since before OS X and you can use multi-button mice just fine with Macs. They just didn't ship with one ... and no one cared enough to buy one ... you do realize 99.9% of the windows users out there don't know what right click does ... right?
As for replacing it with something better ... well they already tried, and we fanboys hated it because it fucking sucked. And now the magic mouse, which may actually be better but its brand new and I haven't tried one.
You're bitching about something that hasn't actually been an issue for at least 10 years (since OSX just turned 10) and a few years before that since it was in previous versions.
Just go ahead and start whining about it not being upgradable too while you're at it, on and that the monitor is built in to ever modal. I mean, if you're going to talk out your ass about things that haven't been true for probably longer than you've actaully used computers in general then you might as well go all the way.
Considering the number of people with BS accounts for getting farmville friends or whatever, it wouldn't suprise me that there are more 'facebook users using iPhones' than iPhones themselves.
Also, I'm fairly certain that nothing that has ever come out of that company was actually true.
MyI recently came into some money and offered to buy wife a new Macbook Air to replace her several 7 year old laptop.
Her response?
Why, I don't use my laptop anymore, I just do everything I need on my iPhone.
Of course, she was never a 'computer user', she was a person who used computers to get a job done. I.E. she's normal, not a geek.
My job revolves entirely around computers so thats in no way my stand, but unless I want to game, I don't bother to take my laptop anywhere unless its needed to work, I can stay in contact well enough with my iPhone, more than I want too actually.
Your experience certainly isn't unique and my guess would be its probably going to be the typical way people compute who aren't in the 'computer guys' in the relatively near future. I'm sure it won't be just iPhones, and I don't think the desktop will die. It'll probably be more like 'the good tv in the livingroom' and individuals with their own smaller, less capable devices.
Guess you and most of the rest of slashdot have never heard of glass bottom boats.
You don't make EVERYTHING transparent, you can't.
You make certain areas transparent to provide large viewports. The floor is a good example, as is the roof.
They aren't going to make a transparent airplane, if you believe slashdot headlines you're an idiot. They're going to make a plane with bigger windows, bigger than anything we've seen in a plane to date ... but still just a window.
The only problem is that Airbus is probably the only aircraft company that sucks more than Boeing at actually getting their new designs in the air.
It'll be cool when it happens, but Airbus won't be the first to put us in one. They'll be the first to START talking about constructing one, hell maybe even the first to start constructing one.
History tells us there isn't a chance in hell that Airbus will be the first one in the air with it.