There's a very cool british TV program called "The Real Hustle" in which they perform popular cons with a hidden camera and then explain them.
In one episode they show how a waiter can hide a card reader stuck to the side of their leg or under an apron and swipe it after purposely dropping it to the floor and then either picking it up or cleaning it. In this cases the waiters were using the portable reader that goes to your table, and they still were able to steal data.
I'm the paranoid sort with this sort of thing, I have to say. I usually only use my credit card for select purchases and often in stores I trust (as far as you can). I never use debit or credit cards for groceries and trivial things like that.
As always though, there are new attack vectors coming into play all the time and you only need to be caught out once. It's entirely possible that I might be caught out one day by some new method I'm unaware of. For now I'm just content to reduce my 'attack surface' and try to be as vigilant as I can. (eg not specifically credit card related but a few years ago cycle rental place wanted to hold my passport until the cycle was returned. I refused.)
It is interesting to note that this is indeed how it has been (or with similar traits (non-cooperative departments)) in the past, in some countries. Folks who had fire marks (insurance) on their homes were protected and the fire was dealt with. (Different companies had different badges/fire marks making the situation more troublesome).
The comments by you and others are all fair enough. For the record I'm not a so-called lefty. Nor do I watch/read an awful lot of any one news source. Further still, I haven't been following any of the things you raised in your post.
My opinion was based solely on what I've seen reported, and how, in contrast to other news sources. I will gladly admit that I am not the most informed in such matters and evidently don't have the full picture. I will happily peruse the linked articles.:)
We've got speed cameras in the UK. Thousands of the damn things, in fact. They're almost universally despised, being widely perceived as both a cash cow and a substitute for real policing.
The problem with any serious effort to get rid of them is that the authorities with the data to provide useful statistics...
I thought this was an interesting read on said speed camera statistics. (FWIW the author thinks speed cameras are generally a good idea.)
Don't forget too that BBC News also covers things that are shameful for the BBC itself, such as the fines.
I think the BBC is one of, if not the, most impartial news source around, personally. Certainly far better than Fox News etc.
But then, I've always had trouble believing what anyone like Nancy Grace, Bill O'Reilly, Diane Dimond et al have to say given their very confrontational tone of voice and quickness to anger when they are called on their views, or are otherwise contradicted. They would say they are hard-hitting. I would say they are hot-headed egotistical scuzzbags.
Joking aside, I have to agree. I haven't yet taken it to the extent you have. I still have my old music and movies but I don't buy anything new. It was never really a conscious decision against the RIAA or MPAA for me, but a result of a growing dislike towards money-grabbing/useless corporations generally. (For me this not only includes companies that don't provide value for money, but also those that treat me as a stupid consumer.)
I'd like to send these associations and the companies they represent the way of the Big Three, which would hopefully knock some much needed sense into them. The problem as I see it is that media is seen as a disposable asset by many people; something to just waste money on regardless of the low quality and unoriginality. Vehicle purchases are quite different: most people want to get value for money and have a vehicle that will last them years.
Part of me - the slightly sinister part - secretly hopes the economy will worsen more and the general populace will be forced to tighten their belts even more. With luck, it would be enough to seriously disable these media cartels. However, even then I doubt it would work. More people would just clue onto downloading tracks and the RIAA would go back to their old method of suing every last one of them. Other people would continue to purchase their shiny CDs even in the face of bankruptcy (the world has no shortage of idiots).
Aw, you're kidding. You mean to tell me this is yet another diabolical scheme that's likely to go awry from the get-go? You know, I thought this thing wasn't holding charge.
OK everyone! Listen up! Official announcement: The Enslaving of all Mankind has been postponed until further notice. Sorry for any inconvenience.
While your "wiping his ass" example is clearly a more linguistically clever way of getting the point across, I don't have any big problem with plain old sarcasm tags being used to compensate for a non-audible medium. Those are good points though, and they are duly noted. We'll just agree to disagree on how bad the tags are.
...about your "two places at once" joke, I must say I didn't get it either. Were you referring to another person that actually can be two places at once? Were you implying that you were able to do that? What was the joke? I'd have been just as puzzled as that professor.
It's the tone of voice that gave it away.;)
It wasn't so much a 'joke' joke, in the classic sense; it was quite subtle humor involving an implied put-down of the hearer and relying on them focusing more on what was said rather than how it was said so as to recognize the silliness; especially as he had no visual clues such as me grinning. (Something similar to Monty Python (ish)). Think: "Well you might not be able to [but I certainly can]; I win".
However, because my natural tone of voice sounds sarcastic it was obviously quite tricky for him to decide whether I was joking or not, despite the absurdity of the statement that implies that I could seriously be in two places at once.
For what it's worth, my sense of humor has been described as dry and has been known to get me into trouble before, particularly with colleagues who take offense.
Sarcasm is mostly down to the tone of voice, which is why the/sarcasm tag is sometimes necessary. That is, unless you are able to word what you are saying to be as unambiguously sarcastic as possible. "That's a workable solution/sarcasm" contrasted with "Yeah. Right. That's gonna work". Get it wrong on Slashdot and you get modded down.;)
Speaking of the tone of voice, I have a naturally-sarcastic tone of voice. This makes it sometimes tricky for others to tell whether I'm kidding or not. I remember talking to a professor who found it difficult to catch sarcasm at the best of times. It was a random conversation that cropped up as part of a lecture, in which he said, "but you can't be in two places at once" in an attempt to answer the question. Without thinking much about it I just blurted out, "well, you might not be able to" and I could almost see the cogs turning as he was trying to work it out. My rather stoic expression didn't help much either though.:)
I'm not being inflammatory here at all; nay, I think it's wonderful. The Brits are really masterful practitioners of this. I think because it's so ingrained to look at the world with a healthy amount of sarcasm and by extension, self-deprecation. It's a major driving force behind much of British humor after all.
It's an amazing sight to see somebody being verbally cut down to size, but sadly it appears to be a dying art what with the politically correct brigade and all; you really have to be careful what you say these days around some folks.
I didn't watch the Christmas special as it took me a little while to come around after the shock of her appearing in the Tardis. As soon as she snapped "Where am I?! Who are you?!" in the preview/end of previous episode, I chose to skip it.
I wholeheartedly agree, if only to see more of the delectable Georgia Moffett lighting up the screen:)
In my opinion having Jenny in the main Doctor Who series as opposed to a spin-off would work well; there would be that whole father-daughter dynamic that I thought worked really well. I guess the scriptwriters don't want to explore that and are perhaps wary of having the Doctor lose any of his mystique as a result. Hopefully later she will return for a longer, if not 'permanent', spell.
Reinette however wasn't really setup to become a companion as far as I could see. If you hadn't mentioned her I wouldn't have considered her at all, but I can see how that could work, and work well.
BTW I never noticed the 'contemporary Earth' thing before. I'd hazard a guess that it is the scriptwriters' aim of making them seem more familiar to the general audience. If that is the case, I would think that an extraterrestrial/'other-time' companion would open up the possibilities story-wise.
As it happens, Jenny would be the perfect compromise here in my view.
I tend not to watch specials tied in with other things (Comic Relief, Children in Need etc) but this one I have seen. The "doctor who?" bit was an obvious setup but still very funny and actually quite welcome. (I probably find Lauren sketches funny more because I know people who talk that way.)
In any case, I'm very glad Catherine didn't have Donna talk like Lauren (how would the Daleks react to that!):)
I'll admit that I wasn't very pleased with the decision to have 'the bride' return as a regular companion for the Doctor, precisely because she was portrayed by Catherine Tate. The only thing I found remotely humorous on the Catherine Tate Show was Lauren ("am I bovvered"); the rest was just unfunny (IMHO).
I stuck with it though. As the series progressed I got over the things that annoyed me (I think they toned her down a little as time went on too, which helped) and ultimately I think I'll miss her a little now that she had to have her memory wiped and leave the Doctor's side.
I'm with the other posters who mentioned this too: I think the rate at which Doctor Who is going through companions lately is too rapid and they're not really fully coming into their own.
I'm also going to miss Bernard "Diggin' a 'ole'" Cribbins, for entirely different reasons:)
As for TFA, that's quite appalling. Cutting 20 minutes nigh on halves the length of the episode. Tsk, tsk, CBC, and tsk again. It's little wonder people are downloading shows, it's possibly now the only way they can be sure it hasn't been ridiculously cut down to size.
I guess it's too much to ask that they're not trying to force people over to Vista as much as they're trying to nudge people over to their Linux offerings.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a very cool british TV program called "The Real Hustle" in which they perform popular cons with a hidden camera and then explain them.
In one episode they show how a waiter can hide a card reader stuck to the side of their leg or under an apron and swipe it after purposely dropping it to the floor and then either picking it up or cleaning it. In this cases the waiters were using the portable reader that goes to your table, and they still were able to steal data.
For those interested in seeing this, here you go.
I'm the paranoid sort with this sort of thing, I have to say. I usually only use my credit card for select purchases and often in stores I trust (as far as you can). I never use debit or credit cards for groceries and trivial things like that.
As always though, there are new attack vectors coming into play all the time and you only need to be caught out once. It's entirely possible that I might be caught out one day by some new method I'm unaware of. For now I'm just content to reduce my 'attack surface' and try to be as vigilant as I can. (eg not specifically credit card related but a few years ago cycle rental place wanted to hold my passport until the cycle was returned. I refused.)
I usually give credit where credit is due
Ace! I'll take 10,000 blank American Express. Meet me by the disused warehouse down by the docks in three hours.
Cheer up mate. You just posted details to Slashdot. Sales will have gone through the roof right about.... now! ;)
It is interesting to note that this is indeed how it has been (or with similar traits (non-cooperative departments)) in the past, in some countries. Folks who had fire marks (insurance) on their homes were protected and the fire was dealt with. (Different companies had different badges/fire marks making the situation more troublesome).
The comments by you and others are all fair enough. For the record I'm not a so-called lefty. Nor do I watch/read an awful lot of any one news source. Further still, I haven't been following any of the things you raised in your post.
My opinion was based solely on what I've seen reported, and how, in contrast to other news sources. I will gladly admit that I am not the most informed in such matters and evidently don't have the full picture. I will happily peruse the linked articles. :)
We've got speed cameras in the UK. Thousands of the damn things, in fact. They're almost universally despised, being widely perceived as both a cash cow and a substitute for real policing.
The problem with any serious effort to get rid of them is that the authorities with the data to provide useful statistics...
I thought this was an interesting read on said speed camera statistics. (FWIW the author thinks speed cameras are generally a good idea.)
Don't forget too that BBC News also covers things that are shameful for the BBC itself, such as the fines.
I think the BBC is one of, if not the, most impartial news source around, personally. Certainly far better than Fox News etc.
But then, I've always had trouble believing what anyone like Nancy Grace, Bill O'Reilly, Diane Dimond et al have to say given their very confrontational tone of voice and quickness to anger when they are called on their views, or are otherwise contradicted. They would say they are hard-hitting. I would say they are hot-headed egotistical scuzzbags.
Your wallet is a tool for change.
Sure is. ;)
Joking aside, I have to agree. I haven't yet taken it to the extent you have. I still have my old music and movies but I don't buy anything new. It was never really a conscious decision against the RIAA or MPAA for me, but a result of a growing dislike towards money-grabbing/useless corporations generally. (For me this not only includes companies that don't provide value for money, but also those that treat me as a stupid consumer.)
I'd like to send these associations and the companies they represent the way of the Big Three, which would hopefully knock some much needed sense into them. The problem as I see it is that media is seen as a disposable asset by many people; something to just waste money on regardless of the low quality and unoriginality. Vehicle purchases are quite different: most people want to get value for money and have a vehicle that will last them years.
Part of me - the slightly sinister part - secretly hopes the economy will worsen more and the general populace will be forced to tighten their belts even more. With luck, it would be enough to seriously disable these media cartels. However, even then I doubt it would work. More people would just clue onto downloading tracks and the RIAA would go back to their old method of suing every last one of them. Other people would continue to purchase their shiny CDs even in the face of bankruptcy (the world has no shortage of idiots).
Dentists don't generally work on their own teeth. If anything, you should only ensure that you avoid his dentist. ;)
Aw, you're kidding. You mean to tell me this is yet another diabolical scheme that's likely to go awry from the get-go? You know, I thought this thing wasn't holding charge.
OK everyone! Listen up! Official announcement: The Enslaving of all Mankind has been postponed until further notice. Sorry for any inconvenience.
I left my ACME Megalaser of Doom plugged in overnight, on the 'degaussing' setting. Honestly, I thought it was just on 'charge'.
Awfully sorry. It won't happen again. Promise.
If I ever get sued for anything I am so working that line into my defense.
Or, nick: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?nick=harry666t
(sorry to reply to myself there)
You can use the UID: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?uid=1062422
You forgot the wedding ring: €O3
(sorry!)
While your "wiping his ass" example is clearly a more linguistically clever way of getting the point across, I don't have any big problem with plain old sarcasm tags being used to compensate for a non-audible medium. Those are good points though, and they are duly noted. We'll just agree to disagree on how bad the tags are.
...about your "two places at once" joke, I must say I didn't get it either. Were you referring to another person that actually can be two places at once? Were you implying that you were able to do that? What was the joke? I'd have been just as puzzled as that professor.
It's the tone of voice that gave it away. ;)
It wasn't so much a 'joke' joke, in the classic sense; it was quite subtle humor involving an implied put-down of the hearer and relying on them focusing more on what was said rather than how it was said so as to recognize the silliness; especially as he had no visual clues such as me grinning. (Something similar to Monty Python (ish)). Think: "Well you might not be able to [but I certainly can]; I win".
However, because my natural tone of voice sounds sarcastic it was obviously quite tricky for him to decide whether I was joking or not, despite the absurdity of the statement that implies that I could seriously be in two places at once.
For what it's worth, my sense of humor has been described as dry and has been known to get me into trouble before, particularly with colleagues who take offense.
Sarcasm is mostly down to the tone of voice, which is why the /sarcasm tag is sometimes necessary. That is, unless you are able to word what you are saying to be as unambiguously sarcastic as possible. "That's a workable solution /sarcasm" contrasted with "Yeah. Right. That's gonna work". Get it wrong on Slashdot and you get modded down. ;)
Speaking of the tone of voice, I have a naturally-sarcastic tone of voice. This makes it sometimes tricky for others to tell whether I'm kidding or not. I remember talking to a professor who found it difficult to catch sarcasm at the best of times. It was a random conversation that cropped up as part of a lecture, in which he said, "but you can't be in two places at once" in an attempt to answer the question. Without thinking much about it I just blurted out, "well, you might not be able to" and I could almost see the cogs turning as he was trying to work it out. My rather stoic expression didn't help much either though. :)
I'm great at funerals.
Are you British by any chance?
I'm not being inflammatory here at all; nay, I think it's wonderful. The Brits are really masterful practitioners of this. I think because it's so ingrained to look at the world with a healthy amount of sarcasm and by extension, self-deprecation. It's a major driving force behind much of British humor after all.
It's an amazing sight to see somebody being verbally cut down to size, but sadly it appears to be a dying art what with the politically correct brigade and all; you really have to be careful what you say these days around some folks.
(I won't even get started on your grammar.
Lest anyone else gets started on your punctuation... ;)
It was awfully nice of you to provide the closing parenthesis for him.
I suspect that her opening line of "Hello Dad!" was no coincidence either ;)
I didn't watch the Christmas special as it took me a little while to come around after the shock of her appearing in the Tardis. As soon as she snapped "Where am I?! Who are you?!" in the preview/end of previous episode, I chose to skip it.
I wholeheartedly agree, if only to see more of the delectable Georgia Moffett lighting up the screen :)
In my opinion having Jenny in the main Doctor Who series as opposed to a spin-off would work well; there would be that whole father-daughter dynamic that I thought worked really well. I guess the scriptwriters don't want to explore that and are perhaps wary of having the Doctor lose any of his mystique as a result. Hopefully later she will return for a longer, if not 'permanent', spell.
Reinette however wasn't really setup to become a companion as far as I could see. If you hadn't mentioned her I wouldn't have considered her at all, but I can see how that could work, and work well.
BTW I never noticed the 'contemporary Earth' thing before. I'd hazard a guess that it is the scriptwriters' aim of making them seem more familiar to the general audience. If that is the case, I would think that an extraterrestrial/'other-time' companion would open up the possibilities story-wise.
As it happens, Jenny would be the perfect compromise here in my view.
I tend not to watch specials tied in with other things (Comic Relief, Children in Need etc) but this one I have seen. The "doctor who?" bit was an obvious setup but still very funny and actually quite welcome. (I probably find Lauren sketches funny more because I know people who talk that way.)
In any case, I'm very glad Catherine didn't have Donna talk like Lauren (how would the Daleks react to that!) :)
Innit, tho!
I'll admit that I wasn't very pleased with the decision to have 'the bride' return as a regular companion for the Doctor, precisely because she was portrayed by Catherine Tate. The only thing I found remotely humorous on the Catherine Tate Show was Lauren ("am I bovvered"); the rest was just unfunny (IMHO).
I stuck with it though. As the series progressed I got over the things that annoyed me (I think they toned her down a little as time went on too, which helped) and ultimately I think I'll miss her a little now that she had to have her memory wiped and leave the Doctor's side.
I'm with the other posters who mentioned this too: I think the rate at which Doctor Who is going through companions lately is too rapid and they're not really fully coming into their own.
I'm also going to miss Bernard "Diggin' a 'ole'" Cribbins, for entirely different reasons :)
As for TFA, that's quite appalling. Cutting 20 minutes nigh on halves the length of the episode. Tsk, tsk, CBC, and tsk again. It's little wonder people are downloading shows, it's possibly now the only way they can be sure it hasn't been ridiculously cut down to size.
I guess it's too much to ask that they're not trying to force people over to Vista as much as they're trying to nudge people over to their Linux offerings.
Probably.