So a legal GPS is an illegal monitor as well? I've never seen a definition of "monitor" that didn't make GPS illegal if it made DVD watching illegal (but I have seen laws that indicate that a monitor used for GPS was legal, but never a distinction in what a "monitor" was).
The real question should be, how can Symantec/McAfee gain access and remove software? After all, this "virus" was moved by more than just MS. Maybe someday, you should learn how AV works.
Users would click "ignore" and the virus would not be removed. So the industry moved to default installs that silently remove them. You can re-enable the chattty mode in most programs, but they turn chatty off because users clicked the "wrong" button.
The first cleaning took out the main virus, but missed the C&C hidden in a legitimate program. The second clean removed the virus's C&C, affecting no uninfected computers. How is that news?
Back in the '90s it would send a warning for every blocked/removed item. But these days, the constant barrage from the average user's machine and browsing habits would have them turning it off. So it's more a wake up call that all AV (yes, sadly, all malware is now a "virus") removes things silently, unless manually configured otherwise. That's only news to people that don't know IT.
Some people find TOR using a Chrome browser. Should they have the authority to remove that too only to tell you about it later in a blog?
The user granted Microsoft permission to do so with the installation of a security program, and there is an indication that only the Sefnit installed Tor was affected. How is it bad for a security program to remove botnet C&C? Oh, because Microsoft did it.
Apparently all libertarians believe in benevolent dictators. "They" want someone to come in and force everyone to do what "they" want. No democracy allowed, as the will of the people puts the power in the hands of people they don't like. They want freedom for themselves, but nobody else.
The thing that really pisses them off is when you point out they are anti-Constitution, as they tend to think they are constitutionalist. But they are pickers and choosers as much as everyone else. It's just, right now, the government is doing lots of things it shouldn't, so they focus on the things that are anti-democracy.
But none of the modern libertarians will state what they want. A dictatorship by someone they like.
How do I remove a credit card? It isn't an obvious option when it gives you an "invalid card" error.
I looked up the instructions just now, and it appears you must have a valid card to remove a card, so the directions (second hand, as Apple gives no explicit instructions I could find) "At that point, you could have removed the credit card completely." is factually incorrect.
Prove me wrong. Please. Tell us the directions on how to remove a card from an account when the card attached to it is invalid. You said it like it was trivial, so you should be able to back that up with something, right?
That the purchase and receipt are not temporally related. How hard is it to email an order acceptance, rather than waiting for the financials to be processed?
It isn't. Someone else indicated that the devil is in the details. It was known they did it and why, but the synchronization of flapping wasn't documented before.
Your wife fell and is bleeding out, your child runs over and is trying to hug, momma, exacerbating her injuries as you are trying to stabilizer her. What should you do? Let your wife die from the unintentional damage the child is doing? Ignore your wife to deal with the child, also resulting in her death? Or pacify the child so that you can save your wife?
I'm sure that in that situation, you'd pacify the child, but for argument sake, you'll make up something else. Turning it into a teaching moment? Ideally yes, but in reality, the stress of the situation will likely eliminate that as an option. But feel free to tell me how I'm wrong. The fact that you can't conceive of any situation that it's acceptable is a problem with your imagination and reasoning skills
That's a "radio link" but not a radiophone. I also don't have any radio phones on hand to test with. They are licensed devices, and the cost to test is $1000+ (as I'd have to fly to get to where the license is legal). They go long-distance, so can be difficult to test.
You are obviously not a parent. There's never a situation where the "best" response is to passify your child so you can deal with something else? Never? It may not be "good parenting" in your book, but it's at least sometimes necessary.
And, somehow, I don't think all this "in-game purchase" stuff is about educational applications, except as defined by rationalizing pseudo-parents.
If your comments don't stand up to the best case and worst case scenarios, then your argument fails.
America is racist. You prefer to ignore the problem and pretend you aren't racist, while being a closet racist. The fact that you are so afraid to talk about race relations as an issue indicates you are racist and don't want it to show. Did you not notice the protests around the Zimmerman/Martin incident? Did those not exist because you prefer to not talk about race?
There are links in Alaska running on radio-phones of very poor quality. But I can't compare the quality of a bad radiophone link to this. I'd love to replace a radiophone system with a packet radio running a lower, but more robust bitrate, but if I can't compare the quality at a glance, I'll never get a business case approved to even evaluate it, let alone implement it. Not all telcos are made out of money.
When you walk out of the Target, you get the receipt. With Apple, you get the receipt days later, after they batch your purchases together. That's close enough to lying. Why not give an immediate email confirmation? Oh, then people might notice and cancel the purchase.
Bullshit. You do not need any money (CC#, gift card, or otherwise) attached to your Apple ID to download free apps.
Having had an iTunes account (Apple ID) fail to download free games after a CC expiration date passed until I followed the instructions to update the payment method, I think you are wrong. Perhaps there is a way to make it work, but not easily, and certainly not in the Apple-no-hassle way Apple users come to expect.
Giving the kid a ball and ignoring them is good parenting, but handing them an educational game on an iPad and ignoring them is horrible parenting? Apple owes you a clue.
Yes, and the kid that bought the in-app purchase without realizing it cost real money would do what? Hand the game back to daddy? Or click "yes" to any question asked to be able to play the game. I know my kids clicked yes on everything. The 7 year old just finally got to the point of understanding.
Drop an iPad onto unpadded carpet from 1 meter high. Do the same with your TV. I've seen the first. No damage. I've seen the second. Some damage. The iPad is "sturdier" for most definitions of sturdy.
Meanwhile, if a parent is idiot enough to let their toddler play with a somewhat-fragile glass-faced $500+ electronic device? The parent(s) deserve the consequences, and should count themselves lucky that little Junior didn't slam it into the floor until the screen shattered.
My toddler takes better care of the iPad than the teen. And yes, we have all purchases turned off, to the maximum extent possible without losing functionality.
I didn't ask your opinion about what you thought about Zimmerman. Your statement about the hand being for a shield was factually wrong, according to witness reports. The indication was that the hand was holding the texter back. A 71 year old man, being threatened by a younger, combat-trained person could reasonably fear for his life. I also find it interesting that the general consensus here is that the shooter should be found guilty, when a similar case (but with a black dead person) the consensus was that the shooter was justified and should go free.
We'll see how the case plays out in the courts, and how America reacts to the verdict. I predict some unrest if the white victim provoked shooting gets a conviction when a black victim for a provoked shooting gets an acquittal. Many will see that as a racial issue. I've already seen it mentioned as such in the press, but I have no idea if that's a general feeling, or sensationalist reporting.
Texas Penal code. Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:[...] (3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.
Actual law proves you wrong. Argue all you want. Hitting someone is assault, at least in Texas, where I grew up and read the law daily for years. Feel free to quote a law, but your (wrong) opinion cited as fact is worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said she was "using" it while driving? Having it on your head is proof it was in use?
So a legal GPS is an illegal monitor as well? I've never seen a definition of "monitor" that didn't make GPS illegal if it made DVD watching illegal (but I have seen laws that indicate that a monitor used for GPS was legal, but never a distinction in what a "monitor" was).
The real question should be, how can Symantec/McAfee gain access and remove software? After all, this "virus" was moved by more than just MS. Maybe someday, you should learn how AV works.
Users would click "ignore" and the virus would not be removed. So the industry moved to default installs that silently remove them. You can re-enable the chattty mode in most programs, but they turn chatty off because users clicked the "wrong" button.
The first cleaning took out the main virus, but missed the C&C hidden in a legitimate program. The second clean removed the virus's C&C, affecting no uninfected computers. How is that news?
Back in the '90s it would send a warning for every blocked/removed item. But these days, the constant barrage from the average user's machine and browsing habits would have them turning it off. So it's more a wake up call that all AV (yes, sadly, all malware is now a "virus") removes things silently, unless manually configured otherwise. That's only news to people that don't know IT.
As it affected no one, nobody noticed or cared, and nobody was inconvenienced, other than botnet owners.
Some people find TOR using a Chrome browser. Should they have the authority to remove that too only to tell you about it later in a blog?
The user granted Microsoft permission to do so with the installation of a security program, and there is an indication that only the Sefnit installed Tor was affected. How is it bad for a security program to remove botnet C&C? Oh, because Microsoft did it.
Apparently all libertarians believe in benevolent dictators. "They" want someone to come in and force everyone to do what "they" want. No democracy allowed, as the will of the people puts the power in the hands of people they don't like. They want freedom for themselves, but nobody else.
The thing that really pisses them off is when you point out they are anti-Constitution, as they tend to think they are constitutionalist. But they are pickers and choosers as much as everyone else. It's just, right now, the government is doing lots of things it shouldn't, so they focus on the things that are anti-democracy.
But none of the modern libertarians will state what they want. A dictatorship by someone they like.
How do I remove a credit card? It isn't an obvious option when it gives you an "invalid card" error.
I looked up the instructions just now, and it appears you must have a valid card to remove a card, so the directions (second hand, as Apple gives no explicit instructions I could find) "At that point, you could have removed the credit card completely." is factually incorrect.
Prove me wrong. Please. Tell us the directions on how to remove a card from an account when the card attached to it is invalid. You said it like it was trivial, so you should be able to back that up with something, right?
That the purchase and receipt are not temporally related. How hard is it to email an order acceptance, rather than waiting for the financials to be processed?
It isn't. Someone else indicated that the devil is in the details. It was known they did it and why, but the synchronization of flapping wasn't documented before.
Your wife fell and is bleeding out, your child runs over and is trying to hug, momma, exacerbating her injuries as you are trying to stabilizer her. What should you do? Let your wife die from the unintentional damage the child is doing? Ignore your wife to deal with the child, also resulting in her death? Or pacify the child so that you can save your wife?
I'm sure that in that situation, you'd pacify the child, but for argument sake, you'll make up something else. Turning it into a teaching moment? Ideally yes, but in reality, the stress of the situation will likely eliminate that as an option. But feel free to tell me how I'm wrong. The fact that you can't conceive of any situation that it's acceptable is a problem with your imagination and reasoning skills
That's a "radio link" but not a radiophone. I also don't have any radio phones on hand to test with. They are licensed devices, and the cost to test is $1000+ (as I'd have to fly to get to where the license is legal). They go long-distance, so can be difficult to test.
Again, not all telcos are AT&T.
And, somehow, I don't think all this "in-game purchase" stuff is about educational applications, except as defined by rationalizing pseudo-parents.
If your comments don't stand up to the best case and worst case scenarios, then your argument fails.
America is racist. You prefer to ignore the problem and pretend you aren't racist, while being a closet racist. The fact that you are so afraid to talk about race relations as an issue indicates you are racist and don't want it to show. Did you not notice the protests around the Zimmerman/Martin incident? Did those not exist because you prefer to not talk about race?
There are links in Alaska running on radio-phones of very poor quality. But I can't compare the quality of a bad radiophone link to this. I'd love to replace a radiophone system with a packet radio running a lower, but more robust bitrate, but if I can't compare the quality at a glance, I'll never get a business case approved to even evaluate it, let alone implement it. Not all telcos are made out of money.
When you walk out of the Target, you get the receipt. With Apple, you get the receipt days later, after they batch your purchases together. That's close enough to lying. Why not give an immediate email confirmation? Oh, then people might notice and cancel the purchase.
Bullshit. You do not need any money (CC#, gift card, or otherwise) attached to your Apple ID to download free apps.
Having had an iTunes account (Apple ID) fail to download free games after a CC expiration date passed until I followed the instructions to update the payment method, I think you are wrong. Perhaps there is a way to make it work, but not easily, and certainly not in the Apple-no-hassle way Apple users come to expect.
Giving the kid a ball and ignoring them is good parenting, but handing them an educational game on an iPad and ignoring them is horrible parenting? Apple owes you a clue.
Yes, and the kid that bought the in-app purchase without realizing it cost real money would do what? Hand the game back to daddy? Or click "yes" to any question asked to be able to play the game. I know my kids clicked yes on everything. The 7 year old just finally got to the point of understanding.
Drop an iPad onto unpadded carpet from 1 meter high. Do the same with your TV. I've seen the first. No damage. I've seen the second. Some damage. The iPad is "sturdier" for most definitions of sturdy.
Meanwhile, if a parent is idiot enough to let their toddler play with a somewhat-fragile glass-faced $500+ electronic device? The parent(s) deserve the consequences, and should count themselves lucky that little Junior didn't slam it into the floor until the screen shattered.
My toddler takes better care of the iPad than the teen. And yes, we have all purchases turned off, to the maximum extent possible without losing functionality.
I didn't ask your opinion about what you thought about Zimmerman. Your statement about the hand being for a shield was factually wrong, according to witness reports. The indication was that the hand was holding the texter back. A 71 year old man, being threatened by a younger, combat-trained person could reasonably fear for his life. I also find it interesting that the general consensus here is that the shooter should be found guilty, when a similar case (but with a black dead person) the consensus was that the shooter was justified and should go free.
We'll see how the case plays out in the courts, and how America reacts to the verdict. I predict some unrest if the white victim provoked shooting gets a conviction when a black victim for a provoked shooting gets an acquittal. Many will see that as a racial issue. I've already seen it mentioned as such in the press, but I have no idea if that's a general feeling, or sensationalist reporting.
Texas Penal code. Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:[...] (3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.
Actual law proves you wrong. Argue all you want. Hitting someone is assault, at least in Texas, where I grew up and read the law daily for years. Feel free to quote a law, but your (wrong) opinion cited as fact is worthless.