"could start saying that pop3 is a commandline then too"
It isn't?
locke:~# telnet 127.0.0.1 110
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to 127.0.0.1.
Escape character is '^]'.
+OK Dovecot ready.
user myname
+OK
pass mypass
+OK Logged in.
stat
+OK 863 28261240
retr 1
+OK 3108 octets ...[email text]...
Of course, what you'll quickly find is that the OP isn't the only clueless one. Other Internet newbies like Microsoft and Google have gone out of their way to make their customer's emails illegible.
Funny, but my copy of the Constitution defines treason as
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Simple allegiance to a foreign country, such as Canada, wouldn't constitute treason. There are, no doubt, people in the US government who think everyone is the enemy, but they haven't bothered to declare war on them to actually make it so.
Perhaps things are different in the UK - "Buy 1, get 1 free" is common in the US. That doesn't mean you buy 1 item and get it at zero cost. Similarly, I take "Buy 3, cheapest free" to mean you, well, actually buy 3. I'd think it would be stated as "Buy 3, get 1 free" except the items are apparently not of equal cost. But, I can see where it could be read ambiguously, and one might assume it meant "Buy 3, and one of those 3 is free," even though you're only buying 2.
Whoosh. The website lists those when you search for "specials," and has "Product Details at Checkout" right under the listed prices. I didn't check every one, but it looks like there are "Special Prices" shown directly in red, and "add to cart to see the real price" shown in black and tagged with "Product Details at Checkout".
As I already said, this appears to be to avoid problems with manufacturer requirements for minimum advertised pricing. The special pricing is no doubt made available when going through the normal search process (e.g. not just searching for specials), to avoid upsetting people who may later learn of the special offer.
"Online retailers often offer hidden, unadvertised prices that you won't see before you start the checkout process. "
But that's not the case here, so what's your point? In any case, the only times I've seen that is when they are apparently not allowed to advertise a price below a certain amount - and they make it clear that adding the item is the only way to view the price ("click here to add to cart and see our super low price - you will be able to cancel if you wish").
What rationale is there for a seller to simply take more off a price which a buyer has already indicated a willingness to pay?
"unless there is an agreed upon terms to correct a mistake."
Say, for instance, website terms of sale which specifically allow them the right to "correct any error, inaccuracy or omission at any time without prior notice or liability to you or any other person" and "reject, correct, cancel or terminate any order, including accepted orders for any reason?"
In your haste to comment early, it seems you didn't read the article. They offered items at a discount - but when customers checked out, they were given a 50% discount beyond what had been advertised/offered. They never advertised that additional 50%, never offered it, never did anything which would make a customer expect it. It was an error, and came as a surprise to both the seller and buyer.
This differs from the Delta case, where the low prices were offered before the buyer accepted the offer and went through checkout.
Your comparison fails, because they were (and still are) willing to honor the advertised prices. But, there are people who were charged less than they expected who are complaining that it's somehow unfair for the business to correct this obvious error. Those same people would no doubt be screaming for relief if they didn't get the offered discount when they got to the checkout - "fair" apparently only works in one direction.
Disney will now be able to bring the stories of the the brothers Grimm to the big screen, like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. No longer will our culture be stolen from us by dead people and uncreative "owners of intellectual property."
They don't even have to go all out - just give out XP, then sell security update subscriptions for $20/yr. Only Microsoft thinks there's any benefit to Win8, and other than revenue, "why" is a mystery.
"All military people are horrible people that should just not exist."
Not all military people, but certainly the cowards who kill innocents (or command it) while sitting behind consoles thousands of miles away from danger. I'm guessing you might be one of them.
Indeed. The OP is asking whether you want to train you child to be a Walmart greeter or a McD's servant. Or, I suppose they could be end up killing innocents with drones, which is apparently considered an honorable occupation these days.
Because buying a complete machine from Dell or HP is cheaper than putting together parts bought from Newegg? Oh, but wait...you're right, the prices aren't similar.
If you consider that it's all about communicating information, smaller screens mean lower bandwidth.
Especially in a world where people seem to prefer passive information (i.e. "show me," instead of "teach me"), why would it be expected that a smaller screen with lower bandwidth wouldn't be worse?
Huh? What routers use an Intel laptop processor? What routers use an Intel processor at all - they're mostly MIPS/ARM, RISC is simply better and cheaper for the bit-banging required. In modern routers, very little traffic ever even touchs the CPU, it's switched in hardware. And what wireless can keep up with the traffic which flows through even a single Gb port? Any wireless isn't going far without an antenna external to the metal case they're are built in. No, those plastic Linksys/Dlink/Netgear/Belkin toys aren't routers to anyone serious enough to need airgap security. Nor is a PC running software.
It doesn't matter. Either there's an airgap, where nothing can get out regardless, so it doesn't matter, or their's a hop along the path you don't control so the security of your device doesn't matter.
Not just that. I'd be more interested in a metric which considers the real-world prevalence of a threat. They're not equal, failure to block a common threat is much worse than failure to block a rarely encountered one.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a problem...
It isn't?
Of course, what you'll quickly find is that the OP isn't the only clueless one. Other Internet newbies like Microsoft and Google have gone out of their way to make their customer's emails illegible.
Simple allegiance to a foreign country, such as Canada, wouldn't constitute treason. There are, no doubt, people in the US government who think everyone is the enemy, but they haven't bothered to declare war on them to actually make it so.
Perhaps things are different in the UK - "Buy 1, get 1 free" is common in the US. That doesn't mean you buy 1 item and get it at zero cost. Similarly, I take "Buy 3, cheapest free" to mean you, well, actually buy 3. I'd think it would be stated as "Buy 3, get 1 free" except the items are apparently not of equal cost. But, I can see where it could be read ambiguously, and one might assume it meant "Buy 3, and one of those 3 is free," even though you're only buying 2.
And exactly what does that have to do with whether someone is a "professional?"
Prostitutes are considered professionals, why not marketeers?
What are you babbling about? You obviously have no idea what the facts are, nor about how contracts are formed..
That you find it impossible add up the three most expensive items out of four doesn't say much for UK schools.
Whoosh. The website lists those when you search for "specials," and has "Product Details at Checkout" right under the listed prices. I didn't check every one, but it looks like there are "Special Prices" shown directly in red, and "add to cart to see the real price" shown in black and tagged with "Product Details at Checkout".
As I already said, this appears to be to avoid problems with manufacturer requirements for minimum advertised pricing. The special pricing is no doubt made available when going through the normal search process (e.g. not just searching for specials), to avoid upsetting people who may later learn of the special offer.
"Online retailers often offer hidden, unadvertised prices that you won't see before you start the checkout process. "
But that's not the case here, so what's your point? In any case, the only times I've seen that is when they are apparently not allowed to advertise a price below a certain amount - and they make it clear that adding the item is the only way to view the price ("click here to add to cart and see our super low price - you will be able to cancel if you wish").
What rationale is there for a seller to simply take more off a price which a buyer has already indicated a willingness to pay?
"unless there is an agreed upon terms to correct a mistake."
Say, for instance, website terms of sale which specifically allow them the right to "correct any error, inaccuracy or omission at any time without prior notice or liability to you or any other person" and "reject, correct, cancel or terminate any order, including accepted orders for any reason?"
In your haste to comment early, it seems you didn't read the article. They offered items at a discount - but when customers checked out, they were given a 50% discount beyond what had been advertised/offered. They never advertised that additional 50%, never offered it, never did anything which would make a customer expect it. It was an error, and came as a surprise to both the seller and buyer.
This differs from the Delta case, where the low prices were offered before the buyer accepted the offer and went through checkout.
Your comparison fails, because they were (and still are) willing to honor the advertised prices. But, there are people who were charged less than they expected who are complaining that it's somehow unfair for the business to correct this obvious error. Those same people would no doubt be screaming for relief if they didn't get the offered discount when they got to the checkout - "fair" apparently only works in one direction.
Bombs are so old school. We have drones these days.
Disney will now be able to bring the stories of the the brothers Grimm to the big screen, like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. No longer will our culture be stolen from us by dead people and uncreative "owners of intellectual property."
They don't even have to go all out - just give out XP, then sell security update subscriptions for $20/yr. Only Microsoft thinks there's any benefit to Win8, and other than revenue, "why" is a mystery.
"All military people are horrible people that should just not exist."
Not all military people, but certainly the cowards who kill innocents (or command it) while sitting behind consoles thousands of miles away from danger. I'm guessing you might be one of them.
Indeed. The OP is asking whether you want to train you child to be a Walmart greeter or a McD's servant. Or, I suppose they could be end up killing innocents with drones, which is apparently considered an honorable occupation these days.
"We don't care what any silly judge says, or what the law says! "
It's good that you differentiated between the two, since they're oft times different.
Because buying a complete machine from Dell or HP is cheaper than putting together parts bought from Newegg? Oh, but wait...you're right, the prices aren't similar.
Simply build a new $1.5 billion data center to process the collected data.
"The idea is that that criminals will see the cameras and decide not to commit the crime because there is too much risk of being caught."
Then making a random 90% of them cheap boxes with an LED and fake lens would suffice.
If you consider that it's all about communicating information, smaller screens mean lower bandwidth.
Especially in a world where people seem to prefer passive information (i.e. "show me," instead of "teach me"), why would it be expected that a smaller screen with lower bandwidth wouldn't be worse?
Huh? What routers use an Intel laptop processor? What routers use an Intel processor at all - they're mostly MIPS/ARM, RISC is simply better and cheaper for the bit-banging required. In modern routers, very little traffic ever even touchs the CPU, it's switched in hardware. And what wireless can keep up with the traffic which flows through even a single Gb port? Any wireless isn't going far without an antenna external to the metal case they're are built in. No, those plastic Linksys/Dlink/Netgear/Belkin toys aren't routers to anyone serious enough to need airgap security. Nor is a PC running software.
It doesn't matter. Either there's an airgap, where nothing can get out regardless, so it doesn't matter, or their's a hop along the path you don't control so the security of your device doesn't matter.
Not just that. I'd be more interested in a metric which considers the real-world prevalence of a threat. They're not equal, failure to block a common threat is much worse than failure to block a rarely encountered one.